Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Essjay (talk | contribs) at 01:17, 21 July 2006 (→‎Dyslexic Agnostic: Archived to the talk page of the initial request after a month; see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration for more info.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

A 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 (ArbCom).

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 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. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. 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. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four accept votes are cast. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details.

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.

See also



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:Intangible

Involved parties

User:Cberlet
User:Intangible
Summary of case

Intangible engages in:

  1. Reverting with little or no serious discussion
  2. Making sweeping edits and deletions with misleading subject lines
  3. Contentious and confrontational discussion page interactions
  4. Walking editors in circles on discussion pages
  5. Idiosyncratic use of language and translations
  6. Attempts to revise Wikipedia categories citing obscure minority-view scholarship to reflect narrow POV
  7. Revising articles citing obscure minority-view scholarship to reflect narrow POV
  8. Sanitizing articles about right-wing groups and their ties to the far right and neofascism
  9. POV pushing through wholesale deletion of the term "far right" from numerous pages

Seeking sanctions to block further editing by Intangible of articles involving the Political Left and Political Right, or other less severe sanctions deemed appropriate.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

User:Cberlet (filed by this editor)
User:Intangible [1]

Other Editors Notified

LucVerhelst [2]
WGee [3]
AaronS [4]
Dahn [5]
Tazmaniacs [6]
Vision Thing [7]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Requests for Comment for Talk:Fascism and Talk:Nazism here; Talk:Cultural Marxism here; Talk:Nouvelle_Droite here

Mediation declined at Neo-fascism here; Fascism here; Nouvelle_Droite here; Cultural Marxism here.

Statement by Cberlet (talk · contribs)

There are several editors who will add their comments and diffs. Intangible is an aggressive and combative editor with an idiosyncratic POV and a combative style that is contentious disruptive. Intangible deletes whole sections of articles with little or now serious discussion: Neo-fascism here. Intangible performs unreasonable deletions to POV push here, here, [here, here. Intangible has launched a campaign or Renaming/Deleting Categories in POV way here, here, here, here, here, [8]. Intangible has been blocked for 3RR here. Intangible edits in a tag team fashion with User:Vision_Thing, see here and here.

In a short time Intangible has lined up a number of editors who are frustrated with the situation. I hope they will be adding comments shortly. --Cberlet 20:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Intangible

Comment by AaronS

User:Intangible engaged in edit warring with regard to the article on anarchism, and was eventually blocked for violating WP:3RR. In violation of WP:V, he insisted on inserting a dubious claim into the article's lead.[42] When asked to back up the claim, he provided a nearly 120 year-old, unreliable source.[43] When that was removed, he claimed that the article violated NPOV and inserted a POV tag.[44] He repeatedly re-inserted this tag, regardless of whoever removed it. He continues to edit the article with POV/false information.[45] Discussion proved fruitless, as Intangible feels strongly about his original research. His POV bias became clear when he claimed that being a socialist was incompatible with supporting liberty.[46] Much the same thing occurred at Template_talk:Anarchism, and he disruptively edited the template to prove a point. I only ask that Intangible be reminded, at least, of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:NPOV. --AaronS 20:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by LucVerhelst

Intangible has a very confrontational style. He seems to be unable to accept changes that are outside what he believes is the truth. The only way to bring NPOV into such articles, seems to be to go along with his tendency to start an edit war, an hoping that during the conflict a third party can convince him to partially concede.

I seem to find it harder and harder to go along with this confrontational style, and have a tendency to give up, letting him have his POV-truth.

Some examples :

  • 12 July 2006 Vlaams Belang While reverting vandalism, Intangible reverted good faith edits by TedMundy. After a revert back by TedMundy, new revert by Intangible ("use the talk page first when you want to remove references here"). Revert back by TedMundy, commenting "What references ? I edited the text, made it better. No need to ask permission first, I should think.", upon which Intangible reverts back again : "I don't have time for silly games, so use the talk page first". I step in, and revert back : "I don't see why user TedMundy should first confer on the talk page". New revert from Intangible : "surely it can be included though". Revert back from myself :"I agree with TedMundy. This belongs in the Vlaams Blok article", upon which Intangible goes to my talk page : [47]. My answer on his talk page : [48], upon which Intangible reverts back Vlaams Belang : "instead of proving a POINT, I will add the reference back again". Another revert from me, following some edits by me and another user, and a final revert back by that other user, accompanied by a personal attack by that user on me and TedMundy on the talk page.
  • Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism, 15 July 2006. Between edits [49] and [50] : discussion between myself and Intangible about the content of the criticism section. Intangible inserts the vision of a minority far right group, using weasel words, trying to depict them as mainstream. I tried to find some middle ground, but I gave up.
  • July 18, Guido Demoor Guido Demoor recently died in Antwerp, Belgium. Initially, press coverage led to believe that he was the victim of a beating by 6 youths of North African descent. Later was revealed that he himself had far right connections, that he initiated the fight in question, and that his death was primarily caused by his bad condition, and only circumstantially by the fight (that he started himself). The article as it is now depicts only the first, racially coloured story. I've tried to bring NPOV into it, giving two independent sources, but my edits were plainly reverted by Intangible, while commenting : "rv to sane version - see talk page". The page meanwhile has been blocked. The discussion on changes continues on the talk page, where he refuses to cooperate to find a middle ground, but instead suffises with trying to minimise the value of the sources provided. --LucVerhelst 21:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by WGee

Intangible is a very tendentious editor who has consistently demonstrated an incapacity or unwillingness to refrain from promoting his point of view in political articles. I have observed his intransigent, partisan editing style in the National Front article, in particular. He single-handedly commandeered the article (being blocked as a result [51]) to remove the term far-right as a description of the party, claiming that the definition of the term is ambiguous and that the word therefore cannot be used in a neutral sense. This is despite a consensus in the political science establishment (and among the involved editors, with Intangible being the sole excpetion, of course) that the National Front is far-right. In other words, he resorted to a specious, tangential argument about semantics to minimise a consensus among some of the most reputable, scholarly sources and to promote his point of view that the FN is not far-right. Information on Wikipedia is supposed to be derived from reputable sources—that is one of the core tenets of this encyclopedia. But Intangible's ignorance of reputable sources in the National Front article indicates that he/she is willing to violate the essence of Wikipedia when the sources contradict his/her beliefs. That is something I find roundly unacceptable. -- WGee 23:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by other editor 2

Clerk notes

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

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

Warren Kinsella

Involved parties

Arthur Ellis
Pete Peters
CJCurrie
209.217.93.60
209.217.66.179
207.35.190.72
72.136.201.103
69.157.70.145
et al

Users who have attempted to defuse the situation

RadioKirk
Crzrussian
Geedubber
Fuhghettaboutit
Yanksox
et al
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61]
[62]
[63]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Several users, including at least two administrators, have attempted to mediate to no avail.

List of affected articles

other editors feel free to add more, this is probably an incomplete list

Statement by RadioKirk (talk · contribs)

A long-running war has occurred over this page with one side (and his/her/their socks) attempting to paint this person in the best light possible and the other side (and his/her/their socks) attempting to paint him in the worst possible light. Attempts at mediation have been manifold and have met with only limited success. It is time for several accounts to be banned from this article and anything peripheral (including but not limited to Mark Bourrie, who may be editing this article under different names).

Statement by Thatcher131

My involvement I have not edited any of the articles in question. I became aware of the situation when a number of Canadian IP addresses vandalized Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ceraurus, adding slurs against Warren Kinsella.

The problem Warren Kinsella and Mark Bourrie are two Canadian bloggers/political figures who are in conflict in real life, including reciprocal threats of legal action. The dispute is spilling over into wikipedia, with tendentious editing, POV pushing and multiple 3RR violations on all sides. Unfortunately, most of the participants are anonymous IP addresses, so the only practical remedy (other than permanently semi-protecting the articles involved) may be to empower admins to block IP addresses that fit the pattern without having to warn 4 times and assume good faith.

  • Warren Kinsella The article Mark Bourrie has been edited from a highly negative POV by an IP user (different ISP than Arthur Ellis) who is probably Kinsella or a strong supporter.
  • Pierre Bourque is a supporter of Kinsella and thus an opponent of Bourrie/Arthur Ellis. Ellis has alleged that Pete Peters (talk · contribs) (whose first edit was June 27) is really Bourque, but the checkuser request was declined. However, a different IP has made a number of hagiographic and personal edits to the article, suggesting that this IP may in fact be Bourque; this has led to more than one edit war between anonymous IPs representing the Bourrie side and the Bourque/Kinsella side.

Statement by Fuhghettaboutit (talk · contribs)

My role in this matter was quite limited. Having noted the contention displayed by numerous, warring contributors to the page, and that some of that contention was specific to whether certain sources and information provided by those sources was proper or not, I hoped that converting the sources, then all embedded hyperlinks, to more transparent inline citations would have some ameliorative effect. I did so (along with a few minor stylistic changes) first here and after the next reference addition failed to follow suit, again here.

I have not followed the dispute in great detail but a review of the talk page today, including the two archives (A1, A2), shows great effort and patience by a number of users and admins to defuse the situation over more than six months. Despite these efforts, and after over 500 talk page posts, the page is at square one. This early edit shows how charged the page is and is likely to remain.

I leave it for the those more familiar with the active players to explore exactly who should and who should not be blocked from editing this and related articles, but given the active recent warring, blocks appear warranted and necessary.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

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

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

Homeontherange abusing admin tools

Involved parties

PinchasC
Homeontherange
FeloniousMonk 17:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IronDuke 00:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

PinchasC initiating party
Homeontherange diff
FeloniousMonk added myself to this one.
Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC) added myself.[reply]
IronDuke adding self. 00:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Not applicable. This is a request for review of admin status.

Statement by PinchasC

Homeontherange (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (Homey) abuses his admin tools by blocking users with whom he is in a content dispute. He frequently violates 3RR, pretending not to know what the 3RR policy says, and has been blocked for 3RR violations five times, four of them in the last three months. He also evaded a block using a sockpuppet.

This is a request that his administrative status be reviewed. The policies he has violated are Wikipedia:Blocking policy, Wikipedia:Protection policy; Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, and Wikipedia:Three-revert rule.

  • April 22, 2006. Protected a page while edit warring on it. Homey reverted Ericbwalton (talk · contribs) at Green Party of Canada three times 01:12, [64] 03:02, [65] 03:15, [66] semi-protected the page at 03:15, [67] then started editing it again at 04:03. [68] When he was satisfied Ericbwalton had gone, he unprotected it at 04:29. [69]
  • May 7, 2006. Another admin had to explain 3RR to him. Musical Linguist had to then explain 3RR policy to him because he appeared not to understand it. [71]
  • May 29, 2006. Violated 3RR. Violated 3RR but was warned by William M. Connolley instead of being blocked. [72]
  • May 29, 2006. Blocked a user he was in dispute with. Homey blocked User:Zeq for 24 hours for "vandalism" for edits to Israeli apartheid, even though he was in a content dispute with Zeq on that page. He thought better of it and unblocked him minutes later. [74]
  • May 30, 2006. Blocked a user he was in dispute with. Homey blocked User:Zeq again, this time indefinitely for "tendentious editing" at Israeli apartheid (phrase), even though he was in a content dispute with Zeq on that page. He unblocked him 10 minutes later, adding to the block summary "will reapply block tomorrow afternoon." [75]
  • June 20, 2006. Blocked a user he was in dispute with. Homey blocked User: 82.3.163.184 for one week for posts to Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost even though he was involved in the content dispute at that article. (This is another article about British Conservative figures that Homeontherange has edited aggressively.) [85]
  • June 22, 2006. Was blocked for 3RR. Was blocked for 3RR at Boycott of Israel. The block is for 48 hours for "chronically trying to game the 3RR system and being a repeat 3RR offender." [86]
  • June 23, 2006. Evaded a block using a sockpuppet. Homey was blocked for 3RR at 23:09 on June 22. Two hours later, at 01:22 on June 23, a new account, Sonofzion (talk · contribs) made its first edit, and began to edit articles that Homey had recently edited. Its first edit was to Boycott of Israel, an article Homey had created six hours earlier. Sonofzion restored material to the intro that Homey had added but others had removed. [87] The new account then edited Biltmore Conference and World Zionist Organization, little known articles that had been extensively edited by Homeontherange's previous userid. The new account went on to participate in an obscure CfD, [88] then to comment on the [89] page, one where Homey had been commenting extensively. [90] Sonofzion then went on to edit Apartheid outside of South Africa, a page Homey had been edit warring on, and redirected the section on Israel to Israeli apartheid, something Homey had been pushing for. [91] User:Jayjg did a CheckUser, and stated "the sockpuppetry and editing pattern was so obvious. Unsurprisingly, the CheckUser evidence was consistent and strongly suggestive (though not 100% conclusive) with them being sockpuppets of Homeontherange." Sonofzion also edited as 216.249.5.184 (talk · contribs), and though a "new editor", almost immediately went to the talk page where Jayjg made the statement and claimed that Jayjg had a "conflict of interest". [92]
  • June 26, 2006. Was blocked for disruption. Was blocked by Sceptre for chronic bickering with Zeq. [93]
  • July 5, 2006. Protected a page he was editing. At Eric Margolis, Homey reverted an edit by 207.245.7.58 (talk · contribs) (a legitimate edit, not vandalism), [94] then protected the page. [95] He unprotected it four hours later, saying he "didn't mean to protect," which was effective at stopping the anon from editing, while designed to look like an error.
  • July 17, 2006. Unblocked his own sockpuppet. Homey undid another admin's block of User:Sonofzion, the sockpuppet account he used to evade a block, despite the clear conflict of interest. [96]

--PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 16:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

I don't have time right now to respond to this point by point. The alleged sockpuppet, for instance, was blocked by FeloniousMonk with a request that the sockpuppet prove he's not a sockpuppet. Had he, or Jayjg, or SlimVirgin, the other editors engaging that account at the time, had any actual evidence that the account was my sockpuppet the should have a) told me b) taken action against me at the time. They failed to do so. Not only that, I was not even informed of this allegation until some time later by Zeq. That you are now bringing this up is highly opportunistic.

As for the blocks on Zeq, they were due to a misreading of Zeq's arbcom case which stated Zeq could be banned for good cause. He had edited tendentiously at Israeli apartheid and so I blocked him after consulting with User:Fred Bauder. However, there is a difference between banning and blocking and so I subsequently lifted the block (quite quickly as I recall) and instead another admin banned Zeq from the article for the same offence. That another admin banned Zeq shows that my reasoning for disciplining him was valid.

Eric B Walton is a former Green Party of Canada candidate who was editing the article in a promotional manner. I don't remember, off the top of my head, the details regarding the other incidents Pinchas is conveniently cobbling together. As for the 3RRs I was blocked for those and have not violated 3RR for several weeks. Several of the blocks were contentious and challenged by other editors resulting in my being unblocked, reblocked etc.

Pinchas is putting this forward in the middle of another case regarding Israeli apartheid. His timing is, I suspect, designed to influence that case and perhaps distract me from it. Homey 17:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged sock puppet edited last night[97]. The IP address is not only not my IP trace but it is from another city entirely from the one I'm in. Not only that but I was editing myself at the same time[98] so unless Pinchas is also alleging that I can fly (and do so faster than the speed of sound) it's clear the sockpuppet allegation is bogus. Homey 17:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg was in a content dispute with me at the time - that he ran a checkuser on me and then "analysed" it himself is suspect. According to the alleged sockpuppet we were, at the time, in the same city - Toronto - Canada's largest city with a large population as well of Arabs and Jews, possibly the largest outside of the Mideast and in a country, Canada, which has one of the highest proportion of net users in the world. This Sonofzion had also edited as an anon IP following his ban[99], an analysis of the IP address produces a ISP that I have never used and I am confident that checkuser, in fact, would show no system relation, only, perhaps, a geographic one which might mean something if I were in Billings, Montana but doesn't mean much in a city with a population of 4-5 million ie the Greater Toronto Area and one with both the largest Jewish and largest Arab (and largest Israeli, for that matter) population in Canada. Someone looking at the checkuser results who was not in a conflict of interest may have taken account of this. Given that Jayjg was "freelancing" with his checkuser ability, something he is wont to do, and given that he had done so in the past for Zeq who has accused me dozens of times of sockpuppetry without anything ever coming of it is telling. With Zeq stalking me for signs of sockpuppetry the last thing I would do is actually give him ammunition.

The 3RRs were, as I said, contentious and I suspect would not have been applied against most people. One, for instance, was for a "fourth" revert in which I replaced an OR tag that had been removed (once). This was contested[100]. Another 3RR violation was, in fact, my correcting Zeq's grammar - corrections he did not challenge only to turn around and file a 3RR complaint which Felonious, I believe, immediately implemented.

FeloniousMonk also lied to me recently about the alleged sockpuppet when I asked him about this, he claimed " I never discussed my blocking of the Sonofzion account with Jayjg;"[101]. The evidence you provided shows that, in fact, he did just that and FeloniousMonk did not implement his block until after Jayjg reported back to him. Homey 17:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pinchas writes: June 3, 2006. Blocked a user he was in dispute with. Homey blocked User:209.217.123.151 with whom he was in a content dispute at Talk:Rachel Marsden, [102] then locked the page. [103]

In fact, according to the page of the user I blocked "It is suspected that this user might be a sock puppet or impersonator of Ceraurus. Please refer to This user refers to himself as Ceraurus here[1] for evidence". The page was being attacked by sockpuppets of User:Ceraurus, who is a blocked user according to his log.

As for the block on Moshe, Pinchas misrepresents the situation by saying that Moshe reverted his "own words". What Moshe actually did was delete a quotation from my post on a talk page. That I was quoting a factually incorrect statement of his which he had removed from the talk page (while I was making my post) did not give him the right to alter my post to remove the quote. The block was lifted by Moshe's friend, Slim Virgin. In any case, I subsequently agreed that what I should have done is filed a complaint against Moshe at ANI rather than acted myself but this does not mitigate the fact that Moshe edited my comments on a talk page, contrary to policy.Homey 21:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the items Pinchas mentions with are already being dealt with in the Israeli Apartheid RFD - to complain about them here risks double jeopardy. Homey 21:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What this actually is is an extention of the Israeli apartheid dispute. Pinchas has often edited on the same side as several of the editors at that dispute(Jayjg, SlimVirgin, Humus sapiens etc) on various issues related to Israel so his timing and his selection of me as a target is not accidental. However, it is instructive that he is not examining the actions of his own allies, for instance an examination of User:SlimVirgin's protection log shows that there are numerous occasions in which she has protected "her" articles, ie articles which she edits regularly and has had content disputes over -see User:Homeontherange/notes1. An examination of Jayjg's freelancing of Checkuser, a function he continually runs for his political allies, woudl also be instructive. If we scrutinize my use of admin permissions we should also scrutinize a number of other people, including Pinchas allies. That he is singling me out and doing so at this time and in this way is little more than a tactical manouvre and an exercise in selectivity and, as we see by a cursory examination of several of his complaints, an exercise in misrepresentation. Homey 22:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did ban User:82.3.163.184 for 48 hours for her posts to the Michael Keith Smith AFD even though I was the mover of the AFD. What Pinchas fails to explain is how this was a conflict of interest given that she was a supporter of the AFD. The user had been sued by Michael Keith Smith and was rather bitter and, as a result, was attacking him online, including on wikipedia and including on the AFD page. She was blocked twice by me for her various personal attacks on Smith (who was also editing Wikipedia). The block was justified and I urge readers to look at User:82.3.163.184's edits. I was in no content dispute with her anywhere, however she was actively harassing User:Mike Keith Smith on wikipedia so I blocked her despite the fact that I myself was in a dispute with Smith over his autobiographical article. Homey 00:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Although I am not directly involved in this dispute,I've co-edited articles with most of the editors here. The case seems to me more about strong conflictual opinions rather than real disruptive behavior. Tazmaniacs 21:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Zer0faults disruptive edit behaviour turning into a personal vendetta

Involved parties

Not involved in the current situation but aware of it

Comfirmation parties are aware of request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried


Statement by party 1

This user made a special request therefore I bring this case to ArbCom.[110][111]

Over the past months I have had numerous unpleasant encounters with this user. The first time I became aware of him was when he supported Merecat (talk · contribs) in his RFC (a banned user that coincidentally had similar editing and debating techniques). Evidently our perception of reality is different. That is allowed. However, in time, what was a difference of opinion has turned into a vendetta aimed at my person. Resulting in edit wars not over content but over simply reverting the other user, and [another example of this]. Example

  • I make an edit,[112] Zero reverts[113]
  • I make an edit,[114] Zero reverts.[115]
  • I make an edit,[116] Zero reverts.[117]
  • Etcetera, of course, if needed there are more examples on several articles.

This user has a very aggressive, hostile, uncooperative and in general a disruptive style of editing. He arrives at an article, starts deleting everything he sees as wrong. When asked to justify he responds with statements (i.e. violation of WP:POINT, WP:RS, WP:OR, et cetera) but never with a full explanation substantiating his claims. When his argument is said to be flawed he simply restates the same argument while reverting .(rv, will fix wapo link in next edit, again please provide the information requested on the talk page. Thank you[118] oddly enough he reverts but has yet to make a serious comment on my arguments[119][120] and here restating his assertions while not responding to my rebuttal[121]). When asked to answer a direct question he reverts and simply restates his assertion. Finally, still not having answered any question, he says he will no longer discuss since the other party is being disruptive (or something to that extend). He demands evidence to restore what he redacts out, but then refuses to read the sources provided. To quote another editor:

And this is part of the problem Nescio is having with you, Zer0, you do not read cites that are provided for you.. [122]

Then suddenly our encounters became very inflamed as he and another user removed my coments from a page. Although I might have chosen a better place to comment, they aggressively denied me the right to reinstate those comments. Resulting in the first mediation case.

Examples of his behaviour and comments:

  1. Denies sources or content while claiming violation of WP:OR. One argument we had was about whether or not the US committed a war crime by invading Iraq. My reasoning is that the UN charter defines a war of aggression (which is a war crime) as any war 1 not out of self-defense, 2 not authorised by the UN. All we need to do is see if the war in Iraq meets the criteria. Or, whether Haditha was a war crime, look at the definition of war crime and see if the acts meet the criteria. Zero thinks that as long as a source is not making that claim we are not allowed to infer that, as it constitutes OR. I understand his argument but this would have strange repercussion. Example an article states 1 a dog has four legs, 2 animals with four legs are called quadrupeds, 3 dogs are animals. My position is that we can say that the article says a dog is a quadruped. Zero would object since the article does not explicitly state that. Although he is techniqually correct, it is silly to claim OR as it is impossible for a dog not to be a quadruped (OK he may have lost a leg, but you get my point), based on the parameters in the article the only conclusion (OR means there are multiple conclusions possible making the result dependent on an editor's bias) is that a dog is a quadruped, even if the article does not explicitly say so.
  2. War on Terror stated that this was a campaign by the US, NATO and allies. I changed it into the US, supported by NATO and allies, since Zero had advocated it is a US campaign in which NATO provides assistance. He objected to this edit and reverted. Evidently he felt that it was a joined campaign so I removed the US from the sentence as stating US and NATO is a tautology. Again he objected and reverted. Evidently he did mean to say US supported by NATO. He refers to this as me contradicting myself, while in fact the change in stance was his. I pointed out he was making a grammatical error in his reasoning. Also he removes text he disagrees with,[123] I restore it with tags,[124] yet he deletes it again.[125]
  3. Template:War on Terrorism he keeps removing extraordinary rendition, unitary executive theory, and other terrorist attacks. He removes them because I fail to provide sources. In the case of UET I referred him to:
    • unitary executive theory (1 the position taken by adherents of the "unitary executive" theory, and advocated by John Yoo in particular, holds that a U.S. President in the exercise of his Constitutional war powers cannot be restrained by any law, national or international.[126][127][128][129][130][131][132][133] 2 The NSA warrantless domestic surveillance program is another example of the Bush administration's application of its interpretation of executive power,[134] ) Even though this theory is about inherent war powers, and the only war the US is fighting is WOT (unless we include the war on drugs, war on poverty, et cetera), I fail to understand how UET is not about WOT. In the words of Zero that violates WP:OR, see my previous comment on the use of that policy.
    • signing statement (1 Some critics note that this statement specifically refers to a unitary executive theory, under which the Commander-in-Chief has broad authority to use his discretion in interpreting and applying the law. As a result, it is argued, the President has with the signing statement to the McCain Detainee Amendment reserved the right to waive the "torture ban", effectively re-writing the law passed by Congress[135][136])
    • NSA warrantless surveillance controversy (1 The Bush administration argues that the program is in fact legal on the grounds that FISA is an unconstitutional violation of the President's "inherent powers" and/or that FISA was implicitly overridden by other acts of Congress, 2 However, the authorization granted by President Bush to the NSA apparently uses neither FISC approval nor the one-year foreign surveillance authority granted by FISA. Instead, the administration argues that the power was granted by the Constitution and by a statutory exemption, as is advocated by the Unitary Executive theory using the interpretation of John Yoo et al.)
    • and the multitude of references, following claims of inherent war powers, in those articles to support including UET in the template,[137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148] which Zero is unable to find.
    To illustrate the silly argument to refuse on account of OR, I inserted in this request what the articles said although Zero could not find it, which resulted in his reply that I must provide a source if I want to include it. In other words, he orders me to quote the relevant text from the articles, but is unwilling to read it himself. As to extraordinary rendition, since this is a new concept initiated as part of WOT to render suspected terrorist (and not those involved in Enron), and clearly separate from rendition, his objection is rather odious and not substantiated with any argument other then "provide evidence."
  4. Zarqawi PSYOP program I am trying to describe this program, but again this user follows me around and massively deletes part of the article.history[149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160] Again I reinsert the relevant parts[161] and ask him to explain.[162] Nevertheless he prefers to edit war over my edits.[163][164] He is so focussed on reverting me, he is even reverting my correction to the WaPo link.[165] The article is about an alleged PSYOP program that, among other things, is aimed at the US public. I inserted some background information regarding PSYOP programs aimed at the US public (which this program apparently does) and the relevant legalities. Again, he advocates violation of OR and blindly deletes without addressing my arguments for inclusion.

These are some very good examples of how this editor 1 follows me around (dare I say it resembles stalking?) and blindly reverts my edits on sight,[166] 2 removes all information he thinks is uncomfartable to the Bush administration and therefore POV. Fortunately, there are other editors who are capable of discussing and can refrain from aggressive editing.[167]

While continuing his hostile behaviour he started making unusual comments on my person -although, unfortunatelly, following the months of him attacking me I also made some harsh remarks- and edit summaries that are uncivil and misrepresenting the edits.

  • Turns out I was accused of being an editor that was previously banned name User:Merecat. I was accused by User talk:RyanFreisling and by User:Nescio and neither will return to apologize I am sure.[168] Incorrect statement, nevertheless, still found on his page.
  • removed pests comments. Yes you are now a pest for constantly posting on this page the results of a RFC that showed I was not a sockpuppet. Please stop posting here[169]
  • rm non contructive comments. Again do not post here while mediation is proceeding, your comments are agitating the situation[170]
  • rv. vandalism[171]
  • rm comments by AGF violator and NPA violator, cease posting here please, your comments are mean and unwarranted[172]
  • Following the numerous edit wars, in which he apparently is not to blame, he has chosen to file a RFC against me, asserting I, (that is, not he!?) am violating WP:POINT. In light of his own behaviour in the edit war he describes, it would be interesting to see how he would call his edits.

There are more examples, but I think this will suffice to show that Zero has an obstructive way of contributing. Instead of AGF, and trying to find consensus through debate, he simply deletes all he disagrees with, especially my edits, aggtressively demanding others to disprove his point. This means he repeatedly refuses to read the evidence provided unless people quote the relevant text, although nobody is prohibited from reading articles themselves. What we have at the moment is the two of us edit warring while we should be discussing. I admit I can't resist reverting his edits when I find he has reverted mine. Since no debate is possible I do the easiest thing (stupid, I know) and continue the edit war. At this moment on every article I edit Zero steps in and deletes my contribution. While I acknowledge people have diffent views, his style of reverting my edits on sight is exceedingly annoying, violates WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, and certainly does not result in improving Wikipedia. In the hope somebody can end this silly game I reluctantly file this request.

My specific request from ArbCom is:

  1. To determine the nature of the conflict, and if it is agreed Zero has directed his efforts towards undoing mine, to offer a solution stopping the personal harrasment.
  2. To determine whether or not editors making massive changes to an article[173] should discuss prior to those edits (and not edit war to get the new version instated by pushing toward 3RR) or whether it is acceptable that those wishing to retain the original version are the sole party that should justify their edit.
  3. To determine whether this editor is rewriting/deleting my edits in an attempt to improve Wikipedia by fighting POV (apparently mine), or, whether his blind "corrections" of my edits (edit warring) are based upon 1 antagonising me and 2 removing views from Wikipedia he thinks should not be made public (i.e. censoring), 3 stalking-like behaviour.
  4. To determine whether this user is correct in objecting to biased sources, even though policy allows it. And whether sources need to be fact-checked, and if so to rule that every article not based in fact is deleted, with the result that i.e. religion related articles are removed as they inherently are not fact-checked as religion is about a believe in something in the absense of facts supporting that view. In other words, are biased and opiniated sources allowed if we identify them as such?[174]
  5. To state whether comparing a definition (i.e. war of aggression, war crime) with the known facts (was Iraq invaded out of self-defense? did the UN support the invasion?) and concluding the two are (not) compatible is a violation of WP:OR.

If needed I will provide more evidence/diffs of his behaviour, but there is so much (miles and miles and miles of articles, diffs and comments) it would hinder those trying to understand the conflict. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Zer0faults

Mediation Attempts

User left out dispute resolution located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nescio. They have protested their involvement here and presented no evidence to dispute any of the claims.

Misuse of RFAr postings?

I was under the impression that RFAr notifications were to get out to users involved, not every article the user mentions, furthermore if they are posted, they are to be done in a neutral manner. Nescio's posts on pages accuses me of harrassment and is clearly made to bias the reader, stating "Apparently mediation does not result in improvement of the harrasment I endure"

Furthermore 4 of those users are not listed above, 3 of them people who took part in the previous RfC on me but are unrelated to these incidents.

Requesting RFAr?

As for me requesting it, if you look at the dif they provide [186] their threat is located right above it, attempting to use the RFAr threat to get me to stop editing the Zarqawi program.

Refusal to provide Sources

Unitary Executive Theory - I have asked this user to provide sources stating Unitary Executive Theory is part of the WOT directly: [187] What they reply with is their reasoning, ie. original research [188]

I tried to explain that Unitary Executive theory and Extraordinary Rendition have existed before the WOT, and to provide a link stating they are part of it: [189] There reply is that "kidnapping is part of the WOT" [190] but never give a source.

The article on Unitary Executive Theory relates itself to inherent war powers, Nescio then draws the line stating the only war the US is involved in is the War on Terrorism, so this must be in place, currently and related to the WOT. No source draws this line, if one does he could have simply supplied one. Oddly enough none of his sources that he did produce state the UET is related to the WOT. They link NSA surveillance program, but only 3 actually mention the WOT, and none in connection with UET.

Information Operations Roadmap - User states "reverts but has yet to make a serious comment on my arguments" and offers [191] as proof. However none of this actually addresses the following posted: [192] [193] They still have yet to show a source stating there is a link between the Information Operations Roadmap and the Zarqawi PSYOPS program. There latest attempts to include the roadmap even state the program is not part of it: [194] They are basically linknig a random document to the article they created to fatten its contents, a document they admit is not connected.


Smith-Mundt Act - This carried onto the Smith-Mundt Act, a law stating the US government cannot conduct psyops on its citizens. They are adding this mention, without a reason. By adding only one law they are creating a bias where it seems that is being violated. I back this up with the following:

  • They remove a quote when they revert stating the "US Home Audience" is not actually meaning to target civilians.
  • They add the Smith-Mundt Act to the see also section, though there is no evidence the program targets civilians.
  • They add select quotes, leaving out "It is ingrained in U.S.: You don't psyop Americans. We just don't do it," a quote by the commander of the PSYOPS programs in Iraq
  • They left out the explanation of it hitting the US "When we provided stuff, it was all in Arabic," and aimed at the Iraqi and Arab media"
  • The article specifically states "does not specifically state that U.S. citizens were being targeted by the effort,"

Signing Statements - Again the users proof above does not link signing statements to the WOT, it links them to torture, which then may link to extraordinary rendition, however no court has found torture took place as a result of extraordinary rendition. Furthermore that would link signing statements to Extraordinary Rendition, not directly to the WOT. Unless this user is stating that torturing people is a main concept of the War on Terror.

NSA Surveillance Program - I stopped arguing over this long ago, its even in my proposed template overhaul of WOT template: User:Zer0faults/WOT_Template2


Lack of sources continued

When asked on the WOT template page to provide a source for linking unitary executive theory and Bybee memo to the template

  • [195] - "please provide ruling. Also remove Bybee again since you did not even attempt to give a reason for it.)"

They replied with:

  • [196] - "(Hamdan v Rumsfeld)"

I looked up the document to find out its 158 pages long. I asked them to provide a page number that is most relevant [197] and was told [198] I asked again for a page number since the link they posted had nothing to do with Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld [199] I was told I was being uncivil [200] I explained to them that 158 page document is not a source if you cannot even cite a page in it [201] I told them I would leave it to the end of the day however for them to provide a source. He then told me I am violating WP:AGF and WP:OWN, yet still refusing to give a page number, now telling me to look in the newyorker, however that doesnt mention Hamdan is tied to UET. I explained this to them and gave a quote of what it does say. [202] They then went on to state its about signing statements and inherent authority, so now at this stage Nescio is no longer claiming Hamdan vs Rumsfeld is linked. They went on to call the US justice system a Kangaroo court and at that point I stopped responding [203]. He has still yet to provide a source that says UET is part of WOT, only his own conclusions which are a violation of WP:OR.

I revert without explanation

The claim that I revert "but never with a full explanation substantiating his claims", I show the following original edits, all fully summarized:

  • [204] removed information clearinghouse source. Bias source, as per VP:RS bias sources should not be used as sole sources for information
  • [205] Please do not remove factual information, your editorial is more suspect then the Washington Post
  • [206]
  • [207] readded quote that explains the "Home Audience" its directly in the source, please be careful of selective quoting
Note this edit is actually jsut adding a space, I noticed I forgot an edit summary on the prior edit, so I created a line break and added the summary for the last one.
  • [208] Program - removed portion already in header, its redundant
NoteIts stated almost word for word in the header.
  • [209] removed Agencee France quote as its about an unrelated program as well as Rumsfeld document, against I ask you to supply a source stating this PSYOP is part of that roadmap, thank you.'
  • [210] removed quote as its already mentioned in header in same detail, actually more clearer since it explains home audience, be careful of selective quoting
Note Contained a selective quote from Washington Post without the trailing information of specifying the program did not target civilians etc.
  • [211] removed program section, its covered in header. sources were not about this program and quote is covered in header
  • [212] Removed WOT as again its more directly linked to Iraq War, removed Smith Mundt Act, again please prove this program violates this act, no OR please
  • [213] rm Roadmap, please provide a source stating these two events are linked

As pointed out above this user still has not provided a source linking Operations Information Roadmap and Zarqawi PSYOP program, not an article that even mentions Smith-Mundt Act.

Nescio's violations of WP:POINT

Adds items to War on Terrorism template, stating Iraq War is part of War on Terrorism:

User removes Iraq War from template: [220] [221] [222] User removed "Part of War on Terrorism" from the Iraq War page: [223] [224] [225] How can the Iraq War not be part of the War on Terrorism, but all its sub events be part of it? This user goes on to remove the War on Terrorism template from the NATO page: [226] [227][228] [229] Then states NATO is the sole participant in the WOT: [230] [231] [232] [233] They claim this was a grammar issue, however it was pointed out numerous times on the War on Terrorism talk page to this user that some campaigns are US only, some are NATO without US, some are NATO with US and some dont involve NATO at all: [234] [235] [236] This concludes with them stating they will edit other articles to reflect somethnig I did not state: [237] in violation of WP:POINT, do not disrupt other articles to prove a point. After much of this happened the user felt it was necessary to flood the War on Terrorism template with numerous unrelated terrorist acts after I added the Chechen rebel leader, since someone added the Chechen War. The edit summaries are included to show the WP:POINT violation, instead of voicing concern no the talk page about hsi addition, he simply flooded the template being highly disruptive:

  • [238]
  • [239]
  • [240] - appartently everything should be listed
  • [241] - apparently all terrorism is included
Wikipedia:WOT WP:POINT Violations

The user appeared on the poll that was attempting to determine if users felt the Iraq War was part of the War on Terrorism. After arguing on the page for some time over the justification of the war being wrong,[242] they were pointed to the header that explained the poll was not attempting to place blame or justify anything, simply state if the war was launched as part of the War on Terrorism.[243] From there they proceeded with the following actions:

Adding and removing of information from the header, changing what the poll was addressing, 18+ ppl voted at this point.

Removal of their comments in protest even though people have replied to them. Makes the page unreadable, obvious disruption. 20+ comments being removed.


Constantly Changing Arguements

The following takes place during a Mediation Cabal. They stated their removal of the 2005 Bali bombing article from the War on Terrorism template was by accident [275] however they stated no the template talk page that it was done on purpose. [276] They have now resorted to stating they just felt it was a minor event and not a major one [277] even though they deleted the item instead of moving it to "related events" section on the template, both times that they removed it. This switch in arguement is repeated on the talk page here, first stating it was an error [278] then now stating it was because they felt it wasnt a main event. [279]

AGF

This user states I violate WP:AGF, however they refuse to actually show an example. I will show some of the things they have said to me in volation of WP:AGF:

  • [280] - "The fact you are unable to resist pestering me yet again, proves you are not interested in any mediation. Stop harrassing me and await the procedure or admit you have something against me personally"
    • I keep trying to explain to this user I do not have a personal problem with them, I just want them to source their material and prove links exist, however whenever I ask for source I get told I am attacking and pestering them.
  • [281] - "Since you are reporting me, can you also report yourself as vandal for refusing to read the evidence I provide and then rv my edits on account of there being no evidence"
    • There was a 3RR report this comment is in response to. The outcome was a block.
  • [282] - "you are now trolling since the entire explanation can be found on the article about UET, signing statement, et cetera. The fact you fail to read them but still claim UET is not being used proves you are only being a dick"
    • This is in response to me asking them to provide sources. I would like to point out that "War on Terror" is not located in the article for unitary executive theory at all, except in the "see also" section.
  • [283] - "Then continues ignoring several clear questions showing he is wrong and appears to have developed an addiction to edit warring."
  • [284] - "but you might look into it more and discover there is a campaign against me by two editors and the 3RR report surely is part of that"
    • After being blocked for violating 3RR
  • [285] - "False, you removed my comment on the votestacking in that poll as a personal attack."
    • They advertised their RFC in a MFD vote, I removed it because it seemed like link spamming, it was added back with an explanation by a 3rd party and I left it.
  • [286] - "All in all his behaviour highly similar to that of a disruptive troll that is stalking me."
    • This is actually stated while asking a user to mediate the conflict ... what a way to start mediation.
Closing Statement

This user has a habit of stating I have a personal problem with them and I "stalk them", however these accusations appear when they are asked to provide sources, which they seem to not want to do. I have said before I think nescio is a good editor, however my opinion is starting to change. I have asked this user to cease inserting original research into articles and they have just continued to do so. I have removed alot from the Zarqawi PSYOP program page and I added some. The article in the condition Nescio wants to keep it is 50% quotes and introductions to quotes. Its also highly POV as it states quotes but not their follow up information, as highlighted above.

Furthermore I never said a bias article cannot be used, I said a bias article should not be the only source for information. Finally in relation to the Zarqawi program article I want to state that 25% of the quotes on the page in the version Nescio wants to keep come from a non expert who wrote an editorial for a site that cannot be confirmed to reliable or verifiable. The article in question is an editorial that is self published as Michel Chossudovsky, the person being quoted, runs the website. Its the responcibility of authors to verify their sources.

In closing from Nescio' statements above he fails to grasp the concept of OR. He wants to take a law, interpret it and make a statement of fact from it, without requiring a source that supports it. To state the invasion of Iraq is a war crime he draws the following links with original research (1) that his understanding of the law is correct (2) he is aware of all treaties, rulings, etc that would alter that law (3) that a case has been made to a court that its a war crime by an appropriate prosecutor (4) that its been ruled on by a competant court, or at least that the arguement has been heard by a court with appropriate jurisdiction. Its not for us wikipedians, especially those without degrees in international law, to look at a document as complex as the geneva convention and decide for a fact that a certain war is a war crime, especially when we may not even be aware of alternate rulings, laws, limitations etc. But that is Nescio's style, he uses logic statements to attempt to make information into facts, however that is in violation of the basic principle of WP:OR. To counter his arguement, to state the Iraq War was a "war of agression" is to say that the US did not attack Iraq out of self defense, which there is no 100% proof of, so it cannot be a fact, he keeps arguing NATO did not support it, however NATO does not have to support it if its a war of self defense. As you can see the situation is highly complex and I am not even a lawyer, neither is Nescio which goes to show why we should not be drawing our own conclusions. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Socafan

I find it disturbing that someone who made the first edit just two and a half months ago has already been blocked 4 times for revert wars and aggressive behaviour and invests such a tremendous amount of his editing on conflicts. Please help to find a way to make this a fruitful editor or to reduce the amount of time others need to deal with the conflicts. Socafan 22:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

user:Coolcaesar

Involved Parties

user:Coolcaesar
user:Ericsaindon2
user:Mr.Executive
user:OC31113
user:Decimal10
user:Asbestos
user:off!
user:Leonard G.
user:Siroxo
user:SleekWeasel
user:Invitatious
user:ThomasisScholar
user:24.64.223.203
user:Rewinn
user:Preslethe
user:Fahrenheit451
user:Gleng

Comfirm all parties are aware of request

user:Coolcaesar [[287]]
user:Ericsaindon2 [[288]]
user:Mr.Executive-initiator
user:OC31113 [[289]]
user:Decimal10 [[290]]
user:off! [[291]]
user:Asbestos [[292]]
user:Leonard G. [[293]]
user:Siroxo [[294]]
user:SleekWeasel [[295]]
user:Invitatious [[296]]
user:ThomasisScholar [[297]]
user:24.64.223.203 [[298]]
user:Rewinn [[299]]
user:Preslethe [[300]]
user:Fahrenheit451 [[301]]
user:Gleng [[302]]


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • User has been warned that further consequences will come if his personal attacks don’t cease on numerous occasions [303]

[304] [305] [306] [307] [308] [309] [310] [311] [312]

  • This user tends to use inappropriate language, and uses personal attacks for his own benefit in a situation. Despite the notices of his inappropriate actions (in list above) he continues to bring negative energy to the project, and tends to humiliate other users

[313] [314] [315] [316] [317] [318] [319] [320] [321] [[322]] [323] [324] [325] [326] [327] [328] [329] [330] [331] [332] [333] [334] [[335]] [[336]] [[337]]

  • This user also tends to leave inappropriate and degrading comments as his edit summary. Since he usually does not back his statements up on talk pages, most of this disruptive behavior is seen in the edit summary. He tends to disrespect the hard work of others in these summaries.

[338] [339] [340] [341] [342] [343] [344] [345] [346] [347] [348] [[349]] [350] [[351]] [352] [353] [354] [355] [356] [357] [358] [359] [360] [361] [[362]] [363] [[364]] [[365]] [[366]] [[367]] [368] [369] [[370]] [[371]] [[372]] [[373]] [[374]] [[375]] [[376]] [377] [378] [[379]] [[380]] [[381]] [[382]] [[383]] [[384]] [385] [386] [387] [[388]] [389] [[390]] [[391]] [[392]] [[393]] [[394]] [[395]] [[396]] [[397]] [[398]] [[399]] [[400]] [[401]] [[402]] [[403]] [[404]] [[405]] [[406]] [[407]] [[408]] [[409]] [[410]] [[411]] [[412]] [[413]] [[414]] [[415]] [[416]] [[417]] [[418]] [[419]] [[420]] [[421]] [[422]] [[423]] [[424]] [[425]] [[426]] [[427]] [[428]] [[429]] [[430]] [[431]] [[432]] [[433]] [[434]] [[435]] [[436]] [[437]] [[438]] [[439]] [[440]] [[441]] [[442]] [[443]] [[444]]

  • User misuses the term “vandalism" in its context on a continuous basis

[445] [446] [[447]] [448] [449] [450] [451] [[452]] [[453]]

Checkuser request

Due to the allegations that user:Coolcaesar has used sock puppets, I request that the CheckUser tool be used to inspect the records in regard to user:Anaheimat.

Suspected puppets

Statement by user:Mr.Executive

User:Coolcaesar has involved himself in many controversial pages in his career at Wikipedia. However, in most cases it is reasonable for two editors to disagree from time to time. This particular user tends to make derogatory comments, misuses the term of vandalism, and degrades the emotions of the people he disagrees with. Over the past two years, over 50 Wikipedians have fallen victim to his cruel comments and harsh reactions to disagreements on a page. He has been notified plenty of times for his egotistic attitude, and strong views, but continues to use his comments in a ruthless and inhumane way. This type of an extremely negative attitude disrupts the other editors who engage in normal conversations. These users do not deserve these comments they receive just for having a different viewpoint, yet find themselves humiliated with his comments in front of many other editors who read these personal attacks. As we all know, this type of editing and commenting does not provide any positive change to the Wikipedia community, and has gone on long enough. One major Wikipedia rule that is probably most shun upon is the devaluing and personal attacks toward new users who are learning their way around Wikipedia. Many users who edit a page for their first time do so incorrectly, but user:Coolcaesar tends to use personal attacks and their lack of knowledge against them. He is also suspected of having a sockpuppet, user:Anaheimat, which as an experienced Wikipedian, he knows that these are prohibited. Another tendency of this user is to revert edits continuously, as for he claims articles as “his own”, and leaves personal attacks on these edit summaries.

Note - I blocked User:Mr.Executive for being a sockpuppet of the currently blocked User:Ericsaindon2. See the discussion of this action. -SCEhardT 19:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note- This users allegations are just speculation, and have no found proof or evidence. Please disregard these statements because they are based on no fact. --69.232.50.106 21:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:JCO312

Although not involved in this dispute, I have been involved with several articles that User:Coolcaesar has also edited, most notably the article on Capital punishment. I have never seen any comments from him that rise to the level of "inhumane." It's true that he is assertive in his edits and comments; he has also always been correct in every edit I've ever seen. There are unquestionably users out here who abuse others, but I firmly believe that Coolcaesar is not one of them. JCO312 13:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by President Lethe

I'm not involved in this dispute.

When I got notice of this matter, I wasn't sure what it was all about. I knew I had seen several edits by Coolcaesar at "United States" and Talk:United States, and I didn't have any specific recollection of hostility there.

Then I remembered that he'd been the one to write "DUDE! ARE YOU BLIND OR DYSLEXIC OR SOMETHING? Read the top of this page! There's a humongous link RIGHT THERE to Talk:United States/Frequently asked questions. That's the sixth or seventh time that question has been asked this year!" at Talk:United States—but, when I originally saw that edit, I took it as somewhat humorous, one-off flabbergastedness.

This morning, however, having looked at every one of the references of Coolcaesar's behavior linked above, I'm ... just very surprised and rather annoyed.

Now I also see that Coolcaesar is the person whose "idiot" and "dumb" edit summaries at "Raised pavement marker" led me to leave a brief comment at his/her Talk page once.

I don't know what to say. My recollection of most of what Coolcaesar has done at "United States" and its Talk for the last weeks is one of decent civility. Why Coolcaesar has such a different style elsewhere: it baffles me. I've seen Coolcaesar be decent and civil and even nice; so why all the hostility and meanness and personal attacks elsewhere? I'm sure other users exhibit the same contradictions; but it's just strange to see such detail of it in one specific user.

The main thing that gets me is the NUMBER of instances of incivility: so many times calling things a mess and calling users idiots and dumb and bozos and ... just on and on and on. Appalling.

I know Coolcaesar is capable of being a good contributor; it's happened plenty of times. But something must be done to effect the end of the poor behavior.

One last point. About Coolcaesar's describing non-vandalism as vandalism: at least one of the examples given above is inappropriate; Coolcaesar's edit here most definitely looks to me like reverting vandalism. In a few of the other examples, while I wouldn't necessarily reach a vandalism conclusion, I can see how someone else (e.g., Coolcaesar) might reasonably reach it.

President Lethe 15:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by BlankVerse

I'm not involved in this dispute.

There has been no RFC, nor an RFM. This RFaR should be summarily dismissed.

Furthermore, I think that a checkuser should be done comparing user:Mr.Executive with both user:Ericsaindon2 and user:OC31113.

Yes, Coolceasar occasionally gets grumpy in his edit summaries, and I have even scolded him once for losing his cool, but if I did as much vandal fighting as he does I'd probably get just as grumpy and start leaving snarky edit summaries as well. On the other hand, we share an interest in Southern California topics, so I've seen him do plenty of good article edits, and leave lots of comments on article talk pages. I've never seen any of grumpy comments on article talk pages, where sometimes he has also had very good reasons to be exasperated as well. BlankVerse 17:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by SteveBaker

I am not involved in this dispute.

user:Coolcaesar has left numerous comments on Computer and everything I see there seems very level-headed and reasonable. I have not always agreed with him - but the conversation has always remained civil and polite. SteveBaker 22:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Fahrenheit451

user:Coolcaesar did commit a personal attack and was uncivil in this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/archive3#My_view_of_this_debate I had no other incidents with him before or after the cited incident.--Fahrenheit451 00:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Humus sapiens abuse of Administrative Power

Involved parties

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Humus_sapiens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adam777
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Smitty_Mcgee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Itsmejudith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kusnetsov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bhouston
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MSTCrow
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Humus_sapiens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adam777
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Smitty_Mcgee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Itsmejudith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kusnetsov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bhouston
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MSTCrow
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

(Admin has taken ownership of article and is impacted my any edits to thus article personally. Attempts at solving the issues were made on numerous occassions on talk:Isreal to no avail. The user keeps deleting posts that he deems innapropraite or anti-Zionist, peoples edits have been deleted and users banned under the guise of vandalism)

Statement by party 1

[User:Humus sapiens] is abusing his administrative rights. He has repeatedly reverted legitimate edits citing vandalism as the reason. His personal POV should not set presidence on page edits on Wikipedia. I wish to have his adminship revoked as he has shown a lack of neutrality and impartiality when it comes to edits on Zionist related pages. He is not the protecter of Zionism on wikipedia and is a administrator. He has flagrantly banned members or requested other admins who patrol the same articles to keep a POV base running to ban people who edit them. As a new wikipedia user, I find a neutral perspective lacking from many articles he has dictated. I added POV tags to an article only to have them removed and them banned. Attempts at mediation and consensus have been attempted on the talk:Israel page for a few weeks with no fruition. It ends up with the admin and his "friends" being uncivil and calling everyone who doesn't edit the article to their liking anti-jewish or anti-semetic. If you are an administraor you shall not take sided on issues and look at them impartially. If you look at the edit history and look a little deeper you will see that has not been followed.

--Oiboy77 09:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Humus Sapiens is attempting to portray Israel in a sympathetic, rather than objective, light. However, a recent development on the Talk:Israel page leads me to believe that a section on Israeli human rights abuses may soon be added to the article. If Humus does not attempt to block this procedure, then I believe that removal of his administrative privelages would be unnecessary. I understand that he does not want the article to lean in the opposite direction, and I think that this new section could be accepted by all parties.

--Smitty Mcgee 15:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have observed the same problems. He has used the same tactics on the Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad article as well. There appears to be a small cabal of user accounts that work on these related articles that he coordinates with to ban/revert statements and sources that contradict his apparent point of view. The guise is usually calling it vandalism. If you read his discussion page, it is a novel of response from people for whom he has left nasty comments/threats on their userpages. Should this behavior really be reinforced with Administrator privileges? I don't think so.

--Sarastro777 22:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Humus sapiens

Since there was no attempt of dispute resolution that I know of and I am "meeting" many users listed against me for the first time here, it is not clear to me where did I commit my "abuse of Administrative Power". A short background:

Oiboy77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): persistent violations of WP policies (in particular WP:CIV, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:AGF, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:VANDAL, etc.) were reverted and criticized by a number of editors and he was blocked by a number of admins (myself included). His requests to unblock were reviewed and rejected. The following are a few out of many attempts to explain/warn/reason with him on his own talk page:

Instead of civilly discussing content issues, Oiboy77 opted for [454] "inappropriate canvassing for harassment", as Jpgordon called it. [455].

Smitty Mcgee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) almost solely focuses on Talk:Israel where he engages in soapboxing, attempting to turn that article into a clone of another article, Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Sarastro777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) concentrates on Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, where he had content disputes with several editors, including myself. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FrancisTyers ·

I'm going to make this very brief. I don't have any personal involvement in this, but received a message from User:Oiboy77 inviting me to comment. I recently posted some on the Deir Yassin massacre article. I note that he has also notified other people who expressed reservations about the content of the article, six at the last count. If this is normal procedure for RfAr, disregard this post, but it came across to me to be odd, RfAr is for when dispute resolution has failed, not for starting a pile on. - FrancisTyers · 17:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SlimVirgin

Oiboy77 has made all of 37 edits to articles, the rest to talk pages, since his first edit on June 29. Today, he posted to 16 user talk pages saying the user's "presence is requested at the Arbitration Re: Removal of humus sapiens admin privilages due to administrative abuse." [456] [457] [458] [459] [460] [461] [462] [463] [464] [465] [466] [467] [468] [469] [470] [471] SlimVirgin (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Karimarie

Being involved in the events leading up to this RFAR, I feel the need to comment. Humus sapiens has, from my perspective, not "abused" his position as an administrator in any fashion. This RFAR, as near as I can tell, does not assume good faith as it assumes Humus sapiens is deliberately working against the aims of the Wikipedia. Indeed, per Sarastro777 above, it assumes that there is a cabal of users who are actively working to disrupt the Wikipedia. In my eyes, this RFAR is in violation of WP:POINT and is thus a needless exercise. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 03:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User_talk:Karimarie She has added blatant vandalism tags to my talk page because of a content dispute. She was told by an admin not to use the tags on my page. I removed them only to be banned by User:Avraham then having salacious remarks added to my talk page by User_talk:Humus sapiens Can you see a pattern here?--Oiboy77 20:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for the placing a {{Template:blatantvandal}} tag on User:Oiboy77's talk page is described to the admin in question, User:Bishonen on his talk page. The vandalism for which he was warned can be viewed here and he conceded here that the edit in question was indeed vandalism. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 20:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Karimarie there is a difference between vandalism and NPOV. I conceded that the comment I reverted to might not maintain a neutral POV. It is not appropiate to use {{Template:blatantvandal}} tags to my revert as its on basis with POV, NOT valdalism. I didn't remove or obscure an article, I simple reverted it to a previous edit. Then you asked your admin friend User_talk:Blnguyen for help and vandalized my talk page with a warning/threat ; which was even disputed by another admin. Then you User_talk:Humus sapiens and User_talk:Avraham continued to spam my user page with warning and threats and eventually a ban for archiving a post. See User_talk:Oiboy77 and User_talk:Oiboy77/Archive_1

--Oiboy77 22:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MSTCrow

In my opinion, this is a transparent attempt by users who have violated WP policy to remove a useful administrator for doing his job. Users are not given a carte blanch privilege to continuously abuse the article. I'd like to mention the originator of the RFAR, Oiboy77, has gone wild with personal attacks on my talk page, and has now begun to use sexually suggestive language. - MSTCrow 06:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC), edited MSTCrow 00:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by adam777

I have made no edits on the Israel article though I personally find it POV but not as baddly as some other articles on Wikipedia which is why I added my vote that the article was biased (which is why I assume my presence was requested here). I have had no interaction with the admin in question so I cant offer any objective opinion on his actions. However I will say that the article is not NPOV and definately needs the inclusion of information on administrative detentions and Israeli human rights abuses as it does gloss over such actions. Both sides on Wikipedia are being highly partisan about this and frankly its quite stupid. Adam777 11:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Briangotts

In the absence of any attempt at dispute resolution I find this request for removal of admin privileges highly distasteful. It is a violation of any number of Wikipedia policies, not the least of which is WP:POINT. A cabal of dedicated POV warriors, having been thwarted in their attempts to turn an article into a soapbox, now seek to punish a dedicated and highly productive admin with this pile-on. This request should be denied at the earliest possible opportunity. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

A Y Arktos v. 203.54.*.*

Involved parties

AYArktos (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Anon user editing from the following IPs (and more): 203.54.186.223 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.43 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.186.141 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.186.168 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.169 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.174.100/ (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.206 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.174.12 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.186.127 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.186.125 (talk · contribs) /203.54.186.96 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.186.128 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.202 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.26 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.33 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.57 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.186.75 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.78 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.106 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.250 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.19 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.197 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.186.152 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.141 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.98 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.9 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.214 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.9.225 (talk · contribs) / 203.54.186.125 (talk · contribs) 203.54.9.33 (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I have notified at Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales and Talk:Murrumbidgee River. These talk pages are the most often frequented and are at the core of the request for arbitration.--A Y Arktos\talk 08:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Editor notified on talk page 203.54.9.43 (talk · contribs) --A Y Arktos\talk 09:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

(If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)

In addition to article talk page discussions responding to and addressing issues raised by user and by user's behaviour:

I feel mediation or other resolution mechanisms will not be appropriate for this dispute as this user ignored requests in the past when asked to modify behaviour.

Statement by A Y Arktos

An editor using a range of Telstra Internet Addresses has been editing for over a month on articles related to Gundagai, New South Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). In June, this editor included into the Gundagai article, some information about the Dog on the Tuckerbox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to the effect that the statue of a dog commemorated a massacre.[472] After attempting to seek clarification and requesting citations,[473] [474] the material was moved to the talk page pending supply of citations from reliable sources.[475]

The editor had also introduced the same material into the article about the Hume Highway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in May.[476] The issue was raised at the Australian Wikipedians' Noticeboard, where it was agreed that standing on cite sources was reasonable, and other editors could also not find anything to support the assertions.[477]

The editor has made a number of assertions, mainly on the talk page of Gundagai, including attacking a number of editors for holding views that differ to his own. These include attacks on Grahamec (talk · contribs), [478] [479] Robertmyers (talk · contribs) [480] [481] [482] and on myself [483] [484] [485] [486] [487] [488] [489] [490], including accusations of stalking. [491] [492] [493] [494] [495] [496]

The editor has been extremely argumentative when requested to cite sources and in accepting that textual analysis to reference a massacre (with no reliable sources supporting this analysis or the massacre) is unacceptable. [497] [498] [499] [500] [501] [502] [503] [504]

While some contributions may be useful, others are plain nonsense and also inappropriate 1st person comments, well after the editor has been asked not to include 1st person comments in articles.[505]

The editor steadfastly refuses to follow any talk page etiquette: will not sign or format entries and makes confusing insertions into the midst of comments by others. It is very hard to follow. I have given up reformatting and adding unsigned tags. However, an example of what can happen is the addition of a comment by (with signature of) User:Adam Carr which was inserted into a talk page discussion on a page to which Adam Carr had never contributed - but it was not at all clear from the formatting.[506] (I have no reason to believe the editor is Adam Carr editing without being signed in!) The contribution of that particular edit to the discussion about the article was also not clear.

I would like the Arbcom to consider whether semi-protection from time to time is an option for pages, such as Gundagai, Murrumbidgee River, and Hume Highway (including their talk pages), to prevent personal attacks and inappropriate edits? Similarly, as the editor evades blocks by relogging in, are range blocks appropriate? For examples of avoiding blocks see:

  1. 203.54.186.125 (talk · contribs · block log) resumed activity within 40 minutes as 203.54.186.127 (talk · contribs)
  2. 203.54.186.127 (talk · contribs · block log) resumed activity in less than 1 hour as 203.54.174.12 (talk · contribs)
  3. 203.54.174.12 (talk · contribs · block log) resumed activity as 203.54.9.206 (talk · contribs) within 2 1/2 hours despite 48 hour block
  4. 203.54.9.169 (talk · contribs · block log) (resumed after block expired)

I am also seeking a ruling that disruptive edits and edits adding information unsupported by reliable sources from the IP ranges can be reverted without further discussion. Relevant IP ranges are:

  1. 203.54.9.0/24 - 256 addresses ranging from 203.54.9.0 thru 203.54.9.255
  2. 203.54.186.0/24 - 256 addresses ranging from 203.54.186.0 thru 203.54.186.255
  3. 203.54.174.0/24 - 256 addresses ranging from 203.54.174.0 thru 203.54.174.255

The ruling would preferably make provision for any other IPs made from apparently the same editor, for example if he changes Internet Service Providers (ISPs).

Thank you for your consideration --A Y Arktos\talk 23:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(PS for ease in use of pronouns, I am female.)

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. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Not sure if these edits count as a response. The editor does not sign and may not chose to post here but has referenced this request. --A Y Arktos\talk 02:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding IP range

According to Whois, the entire 203.54.0.0/16 is operated by the same ISP - Telstra Internet of Southeastern Australia. As a result, it is entirely possible for the anon to edit under an IP with the third number being something other than 9, 174, or 186. 04:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Reject, this looks like it is more suitable for mediation at this point. Dmcdevit·t 01:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG

Involved parties

JzG
Socafan
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
[507]
at Lance Armstrong article: [508]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Tried to get a third opinion, [509] JzG first boycotted this ignoring that page's rules [510] [511] [512], refused to discuss at disputed article talk page and shrugged off specific complaints on a general level. Instead of discussing there he posted at my talk page, and when I asked him to keep the discussion to the article talk page where many questions were left open he refused and revert warred at my talk page, telling me I did not own my talk page and behaved as if he did. He finally blocked it and me and then even took advantage of my block for removing the POV tag at the article. [513] Repeatedly made derogatory, condescending and even racist comments showing no interest in a conflict resolution. [514] [515] [516] [517] [518] [519] [520]

Statement by Socafan

When I added information that I found at other articles here and at wikipedia versions in other languages about Lance Armstrong JzG reverted me with a condescending remark. He went on to revert me without explanation [521] [522] [523] and finally told me that I should not edit articles before using talk - a practice I have never heard of at wikipedia, especially when it is about adding information we already cover elsewhere. He then told me to follow special rules about biographies of living persons, pretending that I tried to defame Armstrong although every piece of information I added was well known and statements made by third figures have been widely reported and in the case of Greg LeMond are very well sourced in our own article. JzG reverted five times [524], breaking the three revert rule, even twice after I had given special care for neutrality. He then blocked me although he was in a conflict of interest. He made racist remarks about the French as if they treated Armstrong differently out of anti-Americanism. [525] [526] As already shown above, he boycotted attempts of dispute resolution. When he had blocked me and my talk page he warned me that my edits could lead to libel suits by Armstrong's friend George W. Bush [527]. He had already written before that it was close to the Seigenthaler case. [528] I have not fabricated any information, have no reason to do so and only added well known facts. JzG chose his preferred version to protect the article in it, even again removing a POV-tag. [529] As all information was sourced, the wholesale removal of it is vandalism and the protection when in a conflict of interest is an abuse of admin power. Furthermore, another condescending comment shows there is no interest in a solution: [530]. JzG went on to violate standards for biographies of living people at the articles of two critics of Armstrong: [531] [532], in the latter case even falsifying the name and removing a category. Socafan 00:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have liked to withdraw the case as JzG apologized. [533] I do not quite know what to think about the biased edits made immediately afterwards though [534] [535]. I have to say that than going on with the same misconduct as before [536] and telling others that I am the POV-pusher [537] is not quite what I expect of someone who apologized to me. Socafan 16:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please give advice how to resolve this dispute even if you reject arbitration

I protest the complete lack of an explanation for the rejection even after JzG was warned by another administrator and part of his actions undone.

Theresa and Jay, please recuse

As Jayjg had abusively blocked me before, I would like him to recuse as an arbitrator in this case. Socafan 00:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to ask Theresa Knott who sweared at others and me to recuse from the case. Bad language in no way helps to resolve conflicts and be a good arbitrator. [538] [539] Socafan 01:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:JzG

Socafan states that I have a conflict of interest. This is false. The history of Lance Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) shows that I have no significant edit history on that article, my involvement is solely the policing of WP:NPOV in the particular case of Socafan, who appears determined to use innuendo and guilt by association to give the impression that Armstrong is guilty of doping; this claim has been rejected by numerous dope tests and an official inquiry headed by the former director of the Dutch anti-doping agency. This report strongly criticizes the WADA for its actions. Socafan prefers to present the WADA's perspective, which is at odds with the fact that Armstrong is officially clean (WP:NPOV#Undue weight applies, I believe). The idea that the French-dominated Union Cycliste Internationale would allow a right-wing American, friend of GWB, to get away with doping, is absurd. Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich have been suspended this year - UCI takes all doping extremely seriously. As a British cyclist with only a passing interest in racing I am unclear what motivation I might have for bias.
On 1 July it was reported that Armstrong had won a case against the Sunday Times for precisely this issue: it reprinted the allegations in the book L. A. Confidentiel in terms which implied they were true rather than simply that there were reasonable grounds for beieving they might be true: In a high-court hearing, Mr Justice Gray ruled that the meaning of the article as a whole implied that Armstrong had taken drugs to enhance his performance. He rejected arguments for the paper that the words conveyed no more than the existence of reasonable grounds to suspect. [540]. And that is where I am coming from. We really, really do not want Armstrong's lawyers calling the WP:OFFICE.
Socafan's latest batch of edits show, I think, the standards of "neutrality" he seeks to impose: [541]. Note the guilt-by-association and the reversion from the more neutral form of words I had produced to describe the Le Monde story. There is no discussion here, just plain old-fashioned m:MPOV. The allegation that I am refusing to discuss is false: I think we all know what the current view is on controversial content in WP:BLP; the default is to remove and talk about it. The point is not that the information is or is not sourced, it's the way it is presented, the overall balance, and establishing the reliability of the sources in question.
I blocked Socafan briefly because he refused to debate the neutrality of the content, revert warring and by implication insisting that its neutrality was beyond question. I blocked him again for 24h because he continued precisely the same behaviour, this time revert-warring with User:Netscott. I locked his Talk page briefly because he was removing warnings, questions and relevant comments (from me and others) about the dispute. This, he continues to do, with uncivil edit summaries, e.g: revert harassment (Netscott was pointign out WP:OWN); revert trolling when removing the comment Socafan, particularly when adding negative information on a biographical page of a living person it is imperative that you cite your reliable sources. Kindly refrain from adding negative information short of meeting these requirements. Other examples can be seen in the history of Socafan's Talk page - look for sumaries like "trolling", "harassment", "abuse", "innuendo". There has been no significant effort on his part to resolve the dispute. Posting allegations of racism and "rouge admin abuse" is not an attempt at resolution, it's an attempt to recruit allies, which is not the same thing at all. Step 1 is to engage on the Talk page of the article in question.
At every stage I have posted to WP:ANI to encourage peer-review of my actions. I have also taken time to explain to the best of my ability on Socafan's Talk page why what he is doing is problematic. Much of this has been deleted as "trolling" or whatever. I am conscious that I could probably have been more gentle, but this is a WP:BLP case and I am aware that the profile of such cases is particularly high at present. Had Socafan simply stopped edit-warring and gone to Talk, there would be no dispute to resolve.
In short, this is a perfectly normal example of tendentious editing on a biography of a living person. Socafan is Wikilawyering and clearly still refuses to acknowledge that the content he is pushing is anything other than neutral, despite being told by others that he is wrong.
Update: Phil states below I should not use admin powers in a content dispute. This is not a content dispute, it's purely a policing action. I had no significant edits on the Armstrong article prior to this and all my edits have been related to attmpting to solve the problem of potentially defamatory content as added by Socafan.
Update 2: Azmoc (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), who may or may not be Ackoz (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), seems unhappy with being warned for incivility [542]. As far as I was concerned this was a dead issue; clearly not. I guess in the interests of balance I should now go and invite every troll, POV-pusher, vandal and sockpuppet I've ever blocked to come and join the feeding frenzy :-)
Update 3: Having reviewed the incident diff by diff I have apologised to Socafan for being excessively abrupt with him. I stand by my judgment that the edits were problematic, and wold extend that to cover several edits made by Socafan since, and it appears to me very much as if the message re. WP:BLP and WP:NPOV still has not sunk in; Socafan's version is that Armstrong is a doper who has evaded punishment, mine is that he is an athlete with no record of doping against whom allegations of varying degrees of credibility have been made. But that is not a matter for this forum. Just zis Guy you know? 21:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Phil Sandifer

I think there's certainly a problem with JzG's actions on this article - I just found him reverting the article and immediately protecting it on his preferred version after a single edit from an IP - an edit I still fail to find what is objectionable about. And whatever JzG may say about the depth of his involvement in the article, he makes clear that he has a POV above, and makes clear that he thinks that POV is the guiding standard for how the article should be.

That said, this is a dispute between two users that is not worthy of the arbcom. JzG should not use admin powers in this content dispute, and both parties should endeavor towards a neutral presentation instead of one that flatters their viewpoints. If only we had a committee that could mediate disputes like this... Phil Sandifer 14:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Netscott

Through my own personal involvement with the events leading up to this RfAr I know that User:JzG was most certainly operating within the scope of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. User:Socafan was repeatedly introducing negative information and giving such information undue weight in the Lance Armstrong article. In particular Socafan was adding information that was in effect an indictment of Lance Armstrong through "guilt by association". User:Socafan repeatedly reverted my own attempts to remove such information. User:JzG did make attempts to utilize the article's talk page in an effort to educate Socafan prior to the re-introduction of such negative information but Socafan insisted that the information go into the article first and for discussion to occurr second. I made efforts to counsel User:Socafan on the talk page accorded him but he repeatedly removed my counsel in a rather hostile fashion and posted to my own talk page (while concurrently requesting that I not post on his). There is no case here and the Arbitration committee would do well to soundly reject this request. (→Netscott) 15:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Azmoc

I recommend hearing this matter. JzG is already planning to start a User:JzG/LA RfC against his opponent in the dispute, result of which, as he already started soliciting his friends for this, namely User:Netscott, check his TP, would probably be an indef block for his opponent. This shouldn't be a way to solve a content POV. [543] shows the same POV pushed into another article by this admin. This all (strong POV + reverting and protecting on his-POV version + planning to attack the opponent with a RfC without arbitrators)=clearly admin powers abuse. You should fucking hear this fucking case. (I was advised by Theresa Knott, that using colourful language is not fucking uncivil, I am trying to take it to the fucking extreme, if I found that shit appropriate). Azmoc 22:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Stephen B Streater

I've had hundreds of press reports about me, and thousands about my companies, so possibly approach this area from an alternative perspective. What I have found is that analysts these days frequently use Wikipedia as a source for their research when they write reports on companies. This covers both company articles and biographies of key management. Even for small companies, millions can be at stake. The sort of individuals who have biographies here are often highly successful, have big egos, and value their reputations. In the particular case of a sports star, where sponsorship can be extremely valuable, perception is reality, and a poorly researched or inaccurate biography could cause real financial damage. While it would be hard for Wikipedia to be flawless, an awareness of Wikipedia policies often taken for granted such as WP:V and WP:RS (the latter sources, subject to the libel laws, often check their facts) will make Wikipedia's future significantly more pleasant for all involved here. No organisation, even on the Internet, is above the law. The actions of admins such as JzG to enforce WP policies can only help protect Wikipedia as it moves increasingly into the mainstream. Stephen B Streater 22:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

I've removed considerable threaded dialog. Please feel free to restore removed material in a more appropriate (non-dialog) form. --Tony Sidaway 20:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Reject. JzG appears to be correctly interpreting en.wp's policy on reporting upon potentially-damaging, potentially-libellous rumor and speculation about living people. Arguments that 'other language Wikipedias have this info' or 'I read about it elsewhere' carry little weight here. I'm also afraid your comprehension skills are lacking if you thought JzG was being racist; rather, he was making the point that the anti-French sentiment popular among Americans in recent years leaves the French probably less likely to cover-up wrongdoing by an American for whom they have little love. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. JzG has behaved well here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Though, I think both sides could clearly have behaved better. - SimonP 17:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Jayjg (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also reject; I am in agreement with Morven. However, I do advise Jzg to seek an uninvolved admin's help for any future action in this case. Dmcdevit·t 02:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Jones University

Involved parties

An edit war was settled by adopting neutral, balanced language for the 'Bibb Graves' entry on the 'Bob Jones University' page. John Foxe began a new edit war by overwriting the compromise language and refusing to negotiate a neutral, balanced settlement in good faith. (He will argue, but he will not negotiate. For this reason, I believe mediation will be a waste of everyone's time.)


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bob_Jones_University#Arbitration_Requested

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • John Foxe and I have hashed this out at nauseating length on the Bob Jones Univeristy 'talk' page. (Please see.) The upshot is that John Foxe will argue, but he will not negotiate. He insists upon controlling the content, wording, and format of the 'Bibb Graves' entry. When one party is intractable, mediation is a waste of time. I believe arbitration is the only solution.

Statement by nobojo (talk · contribs)

As the result of a previous edit war, the 'Bibb Graves' entry on the 'Bob Jones University' page was rewritten in compromise language that achieved neutrality and balance. For awhile it kept the peace.

Recently John Foxe broke the peace by overwriting the previously agreed upon compromise entry for 'Bibb Graves'.

John Foxe and I attempted at length to self-mediate on the 'talk' page. Or I did. He would not agree to a settlement on any terms except his total control of the content, format, and wording of the Bibb Graves entry. In short, he wants to rewrite the entry to his satisfaction and everyone else had better get on board.

I agreed to accept John Foxe's research to the effect that Graves was an 'Exalted Cyclops' (local leader) in the KKK and not the 'Grand Dragon' (statewide leader). He has reference books pegging Graves as 'Exalted Cyclops.' I have websites pegging him as 'Grand Dragon.' It seemed reasonable -- though certainly not conclusive -- for me to defer to his sources. It was my understanding that this was the only issue in dispute and with this out of the way, we could have peace. Wrong!

I told him that I would defer to his research, as he demanded, provided that he must allow the remainder of that entry -- i.e., the part NOT in dispute -- to revert back to the neutral compromise language. (Note: He has a habit of calling it "MY" language -- it's not mine...it's the neutral compromise language that kept the peace prior to his edit war.)

He refuses any settlement that does not give him total control of the content, format, and wording of the 'Bibb Graves' entry.

Purely as a means of pre-emptive self-defense, I must point out that he has been known to misrepresent my position. Such as when he refers to the compromise language that kept the peace as "MY" language, which he says I'm selfishly trying to impose on everyone else. There's only one of us demanding to control content, format, and wording to the exclusion of anyone else's input. Three guesses which one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobojo (talk • contribs) 00:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM
Here is the compromise language that John Foxe overwrote. I have no problem in changing Grand Dragon to Exalted Cyclops based on his research:
  • Bibb Graves, Grand Dragon of the Alabama Ku Klux Klan [544] and two-term governor of Alabama (1927-31, 1935-39). Graves was a graduate of the University of Alabama and Yale Law School. He earned a reputation as a reformer who improved public education in Alabama. Graves served as a member of the board of trustees of Bob Jones College, and a dormitory is named in his honor.[37][Dalhouse, Island in the Lake of Fire, 36][DAB, Sup. 3: 317-18]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobojo (talk • contribs) 00:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Foxe (talk · contribs)

Every scholarly book and article about the Ku Klux Klan in Alabama identifies Bibb Graves as Exalted Cyclops (chapter president) of the Montgomery chapter. They also identify one James Esdale as Grand Dragon of Alabama (that is, the director of the state organization). So does the website of the Alabama Department of History and Archives.
My only objective in this controversy is to have the Bibb Graves entry on the BJU page begin with the phrase "two-term governor of Alabama (1927-31, 1935-39)." Any encyclopedia entry on Graves should start there, just as any entry for "Richard Nixon" should begin with "thirty-seventh president of the United States"—not with “organizer of the Watergate break-in.”
Here's the Bibb Graves entry on the BJU page as it stands now: "Bibb Graves, two-term governor of Alabama (1927-31, 1935-39) and Exalted Cyclops (chapter president) of the Montgomery branch of the Ku Klux Klan. A progressive who sought to improve public education in Alabama, Graves served as a member of the board of trustees of Bob Jones College and a BJU dormitory is named in his honor."
But I don't think there's anything sacred about that wording, except that if Graves' membership in the Klan is mentioned, so should his New Deal liberalism. (Graves and his friend Hugo Black had a lot in common.)
--John Foxe 19:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Will Beback

I believe this is a content dispute that could be handled best through mediation and other dispute resolution procedures. -Will Beback 18:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jossi

There is no record of previous steps for dispute resolution. Editors should exhaust these first. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by user:nobojo

Any call for mediation must presuppose that both parties are willing to negotiate. When one party will argue but won't negotiate on any terms other than total capitulation of the other party, then there is nothing to mediate. Mediation will merely result in this dispute remaining mired in argument - which I believe is exactly the objective of certain persons.

BUT I WILL CALL THE BLUFF:

John Foxe, if you are the reasonable sort of person who would be open to a negotiated settlement via mediation, then let's be reasonable right here. We can dispense with both arbitration and mediation. Being reasonable, I'm sure you realize that you've overwritten neutral compromise language. You might prefer your version, just as I preferred my original version. But you wouldn't want to cut those of us out of the loop who worked out that compromise language. That would be unreasonable. Which you're not.

So restore the neutral compromise language that you overwrote. Replace the Grand Dragon reference with the Exalted Cyclops language based on your research. And voila! We have a fair and equitable settlement that respects all concerned. (As opposed to one person demanding to control all aspects of the entry -- content, format, and wording).

Just post your acceptance below, and we will have a settlement and peace.

Comment by Rillian

This is a simple content dispute regarding NPOV presentation of Bibb Graves on BJU notable benefactors list. Discuss on Talk page and gain consensus should be approach, not arbitration at this point. Rillian 20:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by user:nobojo

It is not a simple content dispute. It is an edit war. That's why the page is currently protected.

Your suggestion to "discuss on talk page" is much too late. We have been there and done that to the point that most issues have been hashed and rehashed multiple times.

We cannot "gain consensus," because one of the parties will not negotiate in good faith.

I know you'll find this hard to believe, but I think some of his cronies may be coming here with the intention of derailing the arbitration.

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Reject. Mostly a content dispute, though the edit warring needs to stop. Try mediation. - SimonP 17:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. There is indeed a lot of edit warring, but, as per Jossi and Will Beback, there ought to be prior attempts at dispute resolution first. Dmcdevit·t 23:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CoolKatt number 99999 (talk · contribs)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Request for Comment was opened on May 15, and has not yet been closed or ruled upon.
  • CoolKatt recieved a 24-hour block (July 11-12) for violating the Three-Revert Rule with WWOR-TV. He then attempted to circumvent his block but was stopped by an administrator. Upon returning from his block, he has resumed reverting WWOR-TV and has engaged in arrogant incivility.
  • CoolKatt has engaged in various instances of incivility, as well as unfounded claims of other violations, towards other users who challenge his point-of-view or makes changes made to articles he has edited. (eg. [549], [550], [551], [552], [553])
  • Mediation will be fruitless because, no matter what he says (eg. [554], [555], [556]) he has engaged in the same distruptive behavior over and over again. His attempt to ignore the block (eg. [557]) proves that he doesn't care about anyone else but himself. He must be reprimanded more severely.

Statement by Rollosmokes (talk · contribs)

I have been engaged in a dispute against CoolKatt for about two months. Those I listed as additional parties in this request, and a few others, are quite aware of what has transpired since then. He has engaged with myself in edit wars on WWOR-TV, WTNH, WCTX, WTXX, WVIT, WPHL-TV, KYW-TV, WCAU, WPSG, WLFL-TV, WTXF-TV, Westinghouse Broadcasting, and TVX Broadcast Group (among others), as he added irrelevant information or made unnecessary changes to these articles which, I though, constitued as being unencyclopedic, or simply of poor quality. I reverted his changes and, in most cases, explained why through either talk pages or the edit summary. But CoolKatt immediately reverted back to his versions and immediately accused me of committing vandalism and of claiming ownership of these articles. CoolKatt has also ignored requests from the Wikiproject Television Stations group to join a consensus on the inclusion of several out-of-market (foreign) television stations on templates {{Springfield MA TV}} and {{Susquehanna Valley TV}}, which he has repeatedly to his liking. I personally reverted both templates back several times, and he reverted each time, accusing me of WP:OWN and trying to make a point. He himself violates WP:OWN and WP:POINT when he adds tags such as "!-- Please do NOT remove the Hartford stations" in the Springfield template, or "!-- Do not remove the merge tag. Doing so is considered vandalism!", as he did during his effort to re-merge WGTW-TV and WKBS-TV (Philadelphia) after another user split the articles. CoolKatt has also accused myself and others of Wikistalking for constantly going over his work. But his beef with me has become more personal: he filed a RfC against me, which was deleted within 48 hours, and on July 1 he filed a Request for Investigation against me without my knowledge. Ironically, his most recent behavior has resulted in him being under investigaton for adding unsubstantiated information to television station articles. CoolKatt is arrogant, pompous, and believes that he is the end-all, be-all when it comes to opinions on articles he contributes to. He must be put in his place. Rollosmokes 18:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kramden4700

I had the misfortune of opposing his needless propsed merger of WPVI-TV and after a bit of investigation noticed he had plans for splitting KYW-TV as well, something which also was not needed. I also opposed his proposed re-merger of WKBS-TV (Philadelphia) amd WGTW-TV. Apparently bringing this to the light day and opposing him had put me on his bad side. I tried to be civil, but he seemed to act as if he was not the problem, but those who oppose him were and that WP:OWN did not apply to him. He needs at minimum a time out or possibly some other further sanction if this is a continuing pattern of behaviour. Kramden4700 20:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has now accused me and two others of stalking him. See: User talk:Kramden4700#Request for Arbitration/CoolKatt. I simply disagree with him and then the threats start. I do not see how not agreeing with him or pointing out his speculations are in violation of WP:STALK. Something is very wrong here if bringing to light a disruptive vandal's future plans is wrong then I think I may consider leaving as people like this spoil the whole experience. Kramden4700 04:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Crossmr (talk · contribs)

Most of what I'll say here is a rehash of what I said on the RfC. I first encountered Coolkatt on an AfD. I wasn't even aware I had until after the AfD closed. I left an opinion but it wasn't on my watch list. Sometime after the closure of this AfD, I logged in to find a spurious accusation on my userpage that I was a sockpuppet of someone whom I didn't even know. This dif[558] shows the sock puppet tag. The proper process wasn't followed and it was simply retaliation for "agreeing with nom" in the AfD, who interestingly wasn't even apostrophe. Going back to look at the AfD as I barely even remembered it, I found [559] that Coolkatt had gone and accused everyone who called for delete a sockpuppet. He'd also left the same spurious sock puppet accusation on Opabinia's user page here [560]. Both her and I spoke out about it on the administrators noticeboard, but no administrator bothered to get involved. Seen here in my archives [561] he first claims that making numerous personal attacks on users is "the right thing to do" and then claims Apostrophe (whom I did not know) forced myself and others to recommend delete. He continues to say one thing and do another, claiming he'll behave then doing things like putting AfD tags on his RfC. Here [562] he blame's his behaviour on everyone else and refuses to take responsibility for it. here [563] I tried to reach out to him to give him some guidance but his immature behaviour continues unabated. --Crossmr 20:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CFIF (talk · contribs)

CoolKatt, has at times, bordered on being paranoid and physcotic (seen here talking about himself in the third person), making false accusations and legal threats against members, along with making false claims and odd statements. He has a whole slew of subpages filled with unfactual and fantastic which do no good for the encyclopedia. He has also made demands and acting like he is in charge (which is sooo far from the truth) and assumes everyone "knows his contributions are useful". Everything else has been pretty much covered by Rollo and Crossmr. --CFIF (talk to me) 21:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CoolKatt number 99999 (talk · contribs)

Pure, Wiki-stalking. I demand the slander against me stop. I am making many useful contributions, and this is the thanks I get? I demand this dispute end now. CoolKatt number 99999 22:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lambertman (talk · contribs)

Most everything I've witnessed has already been discussed. I can only add this [564] statement from Katt in which he says his speculation (as to the meaning of callsigns) should be taken as fact because it makes sense to him. Lambertman 23:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Amnewsboy (talk · contribs)

While not directly involved in this particular dispute, I'd like to add that CoolKatt number 99999 has, on at least one occasion, been cited for adding unverified information to Wikipedia. A separate Request for Investigation was filed[565] in regards to his additions to the page for the Arkansas Educational Television Network[566], and he was subsqeuently warned. In addition to the comment Lambertman pointed out, CoolKatt number 99999 also tried to justify that his call letter meanings were correct because "Maybe because those files were destroyed?"[567], even though there are no sources to support that. I also question the validity of the user's sub-pages with "Alternate" histories for television stations (WDAF-TV [568], for example) - although said articles are clearly marked as fictional, they also show up in Google searches for the subjects. I have had only minimal personal contact with the user, but I will say that I find his editing methods questionable at best. Amnewsboy 22:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow-up, CoolKatt number 99999 was blocked for 24 hours on July 19 for further violations of WP:V, then for a further 48 hours for violating it again [569]. Amnewsboy 06:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Morgan Wick (talk · contribs)

When I first encountered CoolKatt, I was a bit surprised at the level to which he was opposed, and I thought the RfC against him had spurious grounds. I even attempted to defuse the level of vitriol against him by pointing out that he has made constructive edits. But recently, he seems to have gone off the deep end. He has forgotten how to be civil, and has repeatedly claimed his contributions are "useful" without explaining how in the face of people trying to tell him they violate numerous Wikipedia policies. He has taken to violating WP:OWN in relentlessly trying to defend his versions of articles, getting involved in numerous edit wars. He has filed RfC's left and right, including one against A Man In Black (talk · contribs) for daring to oppose him on an AfD, and seems to be using RfC as a way to intimidate or get back at people who disagree with him [570], which is an abuse of RfC, and which isn't working, since not one of his RfC's has been certified. As noted earlier, he has accused people of sockpuppetry for disagreeing with him as well. He seems to have some paranoid tendencies, and his dealings with the Wikipedia community is starting to test even my patience. Morgan Wick 05:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Requests for clarification

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

Everyking

Pursuant to discussion on the arbitration committee mailing list, Everyking has recently been causing more problems. Following our previous decision, he has instead begun harassing administrators on their talk pages. He has resumed editing Ashlee Simpson articles in the same fashion we previously sanctioned. Extraordinary Machine lodged a complaint on the ANI, and I recieved one in private from someone else (that person has refused to lodge one formally because he/she is fed up with EK from previous run-ins).

Per previous discussion, I'd like to propose the following remedies:

  1. Everyking is banned for two weeks for recent offenses
  2. Everyking's current prohibitions (his ban from editing the ANI, and from commenting on other admin's actions except for their talk pages, RFC, and RFA) - set to expire in November - are extended indefinitely for one year, until November 2007.
  3. Everyking is placed on standard probation for all pop music articles - any admin may ban him from any/all of them for any misbehavior on his part
  4. Should EK harass other admins over their non-editorial actions, any admin may block him for up to two weeks per incident, escalating to one year per incident after the fifth one. Raul654 22:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Although I would prefer a much simpler remedy, I can support these sanctions ➥the Epopt 23:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other, simpler one that I thought of would be to ban him from everything except the main namespace (articles, but not talk pages) and his own use and talk pages. Raul654 23:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer an extension of only one year. Fred Bauder 00:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can live with that (duly adjusted). Raul654 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can live with this as well, although given Everyking's inability to learn to behave better, I'm minded towards a complete ban from Wikipedia for a time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do I get an opportunity to argue in my defense? Let's consider a few things:
    1. Ashlee articles—exactly what am I doing there that the ArbCom considers so terrible? I mean, actually look at the articles and their histories and tell me. There's a couple of reverts, but I wasn't the only one reverting, and the situation seems to have settled down now into a compromise, at least a de facto one. Also, there was far more discussion going on than there was reverting—in fact, if you just look at the histories, you'll see there was hardly any reverting at all. There was no "revert war" in any meaningful sense—the only thing close to one happened on an article about a Jessica Simpson song, but again in that case, too, the situation seems to have settled down into a de facto compromise. To sanction someone for this is utterly, entirely absurd. Not only was the whole situation a pretty minor one (not even close to the explosion of conflict the articles saw 18 months ago), it seems to have settled down anyway, and I wasn't even the one with the aggressive stance—I was taking the defensive stance.
    2. Talk pages—the ArbCom ruling specifically granted me the right to discuss admin actions on the relevant admin talk pages. Am I now going to be punished for exercising that right? People would block me before and tell me to take it to the admin's talk page. So I do that, and this is what I get? Why was that exemption created to begin with, if I was just going to get attacked for making use of it? Not to mention there isn't much of this going on anyway. The last case was regarding EM threatening a user who was obviously acting in good faith, but was younger than most of us and was a little confused about how to do some technical things.
    3. No credit—where is the credit for actually following the ruling as it was spelled out for me? I have always strictly observed the AN/I prohibition. I haven't been blocked by anyone for any reason in several months. To hear Raul tell it, I've been constantly violating the ruling, which is the exact opposite of what I've actually been doing.
    4. Ruling consistency—Ashlee articles pertained to EK1; this is EK3. How can you fit anything pertaining to EK1 under a revision of EK3?
    5. The opposing party—Who is the opposing party here, anyway? It appears to be none other than the ArbCom itself—in that case, how can I possibly get a fair hearing from them? Or is it whoever sent that private complaint? Did that person actually want this taken to arbitration? Isn't it important, for reasons of transparent process, to have an accuser in public—not secretly in e-mail? Is there any precedent for that at all?
    6. Involved party?—hey, did anyone think to consult EM about this stuff that is apparently being done on his behalf? What does he think? Does he actually want me taken to arbitration? Previously he expressed a lot of reluctance to even take me to RfC, and that was at the peak of the conflict, some time ago.
  • I personally feel the above points are pretty important. Everyking 04:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fair to say you have exhausted the committee's patience. I'm going to respond, very briefly, to some of the points you raise. Point 1 - Despite your attempt to spin it otherwise, you are doing the exact same thing that led to the first two Everyking arbitration cases, and as I just said, our patience with you has run out. Point 2 - As I said to you on my talk page just a few days ago, that exception was *not* created to allow you to move your harassment from the ANI to individual users' talk pages. Point 3 - I drive to work every day and avoid the temptation to run over those skateboarders who are always on Delaware Avenue. If tomorrow I were to run them over, am I to tell the judge to consider all the times I went to work and didn't run the over? Ha, no. Point 4 - Wikilawyering; our clarification applies to the series of cases, not any one in particular. Point 5 - No opposing party is necessary. Point 6 - yes. Raul654 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I've exhausted your patience; you've exhausted mine, too, but what am I gonna do about it?
  1. I will post thorough evidence about this if the ArbCom will agree to read and consider it honestly.
  2. It's not harassment, it's criticism of admin actions—the exact thing the exemption was created to allow me to continue doing in a restricted space. Moreover, I have actually done little of this—once every few weeks, maybe? I'll go through and post all the examples I can find, again if the ArbCom will agree to read and consider it honestly.
  3. I haven't run anybody over, to go with your analogy; you haven't pointed to anything I've done that violated the ruling. You've accused me of misbehaving on Ashlee articles, which if true isn't covered by the ruling (and wouldn't even be covered by the old ruling, because even if you guys hadn't freed me from it after two months, it would still have expired long ago) and complaining on admin talk pages, which is protected by the ruling.
  4. Does "wikilawyering" mean "a point of procedure that would benefit the accused and therefore will be disregarded in this case"?
  5. I asked you to provide a precedent for this, and also to explain the inherent unfairness of having the same people as both accuser, prosecutor and judge.
  6. Notably you didn't ask his opinion before starting this thing. In any case, let's now wait and see if he has something to add about this. Everyking 17:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all familiar with this stage of dispute resolution; that said, I think this discussion is appropriate.
Everyking, you reverted me three times at Ashlee Simpson (including an edit that had absolutely nothing to do with removing content) [571] [572] [573] and once at Pieces of Me [574]. The main reasons I chose not to keep restoring my edits was because a) it's better to discuss a dispute rather than repeatedly revert the other party, b) I knew the history of these articles and wanted to make sure the situation wouldn't escalate like it did before, and c) because of the reverts I just listed, and the dispute 18 months ago, I had a feeling you'd keep reverting me. That's one of the reasons why I didn't file an RFC on your behaviour, the others being that I wanted to keep the discussions focussed on the articles and that there wasn't a second party around who was involved enough to be able to certify an RFC. I didn't once consider the possibility that you would follow me across other pages and revert me wholesale (These Boots Are Made for Walkin' (Jessica Simpson song)), which is simply unacceptable, in my opinion. It also indicates your statement about "taking the defensive stance", if true originally, no longer holds much water. Not that I don't care about your "defensive" behaviour either: telling me "it [the info you remove] will be restored, naturally" (Talk:Ashlee Simpson) and comparing me to a film villain (Talk:Pieces of Me) is not appreciated.
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 states "Everyking is required to familiarize himself with the particulars of a situation before commenting on it"; with regard to Tcatron565 (talk · contribs), I don't believe that you did so. Tcatron registered here almost a year ago; as can be seen at user talk:Tcatron565, he's made many edits that violate the guidelines and policies, and has a history of incivility. I'll leave the nitty gritty out for brevity's sake, but I should note that I wasn't even the first user to introduce the possibility of a block to him. I admit I've considered just giving up explaining the policies and guidelines to him, but that's only because comments like "it seems like everytime I make a wrong move, you're all up in my face! ... when I do something wrong, wait for 4 days, then tell me" [575], along with his tendency to continue editing as he was, indicate that such efforts would be pointless. If you're still wondering why I told him he may be blocked, I should refer you to the case of the IP editor 200.138.194.254 (talk · contribs), a seemingly good faith user who nevertheless edited in violation of the policies in guidelines without discussion and was consequently blocked for a week not too long ago. I'm certain that I would have told Tcatron the same thing if I wasn't an admin, so the comment about me "throwing my weight around" as an admin [576] is hardly accurate. Lastly, I am well aware that admins involved in disputes with other users (such as the one I had with Tcatron) aren't supposed to block any of the other parties, and if I thought a block was absolutely necessary in this case I would have started a discussion at WP:ANI. I feel that your comments regarding this were written with the main intention of antagonising me rather than anything to do with Tcatron. Extraordinary Machine 20:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I don't have access to the arbitrators' mailing list, so I don't really know exactly what they are thinking. For all I know what they are saying in private and in public are completely different. But all I can do is focus on what gets written on this page. So let me directly discuss each of the things Raul calls remedies:

  1. This proposes banning me for two weeks for alleged "recent offenses". What recent offenses? Raul has so far only pointed to one somewhat uncivil comment I made about an admin warning I thought was too harsh. Yeah, I shouldn't have used the tone I did, but it was in the midst of a more general conflict that had led to a deepening of animosity on both sides; it didn't come out of the blue. To ban someone for even a single day for a marginally uncivil comment that they've since apologized for seems highly draconian—to ban for two weeks is so far overboard it almost seems insane. Aren't blocks supposed to be staggered somehow, anyway? You don't generally just jump right into such severe blocks for minor offenses. I've never even been blocked for a single 24 hour period in two and a half years on Wikipedia—every one of my blocks has been reconsidered or undone for some reason. Furthermore, as I've said before, I haven't been blocked at all in the last few months. So even if you think I'm in the wrong, does it make sense to jump from blocks lasting a few hours in the relatively distant past to two weeks now?
  2. Rather than try to overreach in arguing this one, considering the depth of the ArbCom's hostile feeling toward me right now, I propose that the ArbCom change this so as to give me an automatic appeal in November of this year (something I have long pleaded for), but a formal duration until November 2007 in case of failure.
  3. Again—for what? What did I do wrong here? I participated in some minor reverting and bickering that has since settled down, and I made several concessions and compromises (and expressed far more willingness to compromise throughout than my opponent did—in fact I think all the compromises were made on my initiative).
  4. I don't have much of an argument for this one; the ArbCom and I simply don't agree about what constitutes harassment and what constitutes reasonable criticism. I will just hope that this penalty is never abusively applied. Everyking 05:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General responses, since this section is a bit too muddled for an indented reply to make sense any more: Everyking, I think your question above as to the definition of "wikilawyering" above (snide musings aside) is answered by your point directly above it, "you haven't pointed to anything I've done that violated the ruling". Also, "the ArbCom ruling specifically granted me the right to discuss admin actions on the relevant admin talk pages. Am I now going to be punished for exercising that right?" and "where is the credit for actually following the ruling as it was spelled out for me?" and "Who is the opposing party here, anyway?" and "I asked you to provide a precedent for this, and also to explain the inherent unfairness of having the same people as both accuser, prosecutor and judge." are all good examples of wikilawyering. Why were you given any of these restrictions in the first place, Everyking? If you can't answer that then I'll support every measure proposed. It was to stop your harassment. When I am faced with the fact that you've used administrators' talk pages for harassment, despite our obvious desire that you cease harasment, I am forced to conclude that you are violating the ruling. I'm weary of it: bans from AN/ANI and from criticism other than on admins' talk pages were meant to get it through to you to stop harassment. If your response is to continue to do so through the only avenue still open after the last case, then the general ban for a short time period is looking reasonable. Was [577] really what you consider reasonable criticism where I see harassment? Note: if the answer is really "no, and I've apologized" don't tell me you haven't violated our decision again. That you have never violated even the letter of the ruling is patently false anyway, as we fouñd out months ago, [578], [579], [580], and also on the occasion where I specifically pointed out to you your violation of the ruling (I am sure you recall, or maybe you decided to make a bold statement like that with no factual backing or double checking?). Despite your efforts to the contrary, you don't have the option to say: "I forgot. I'm sorry." and go on you merry way, only to "forget" again. If I can have no confidence that you cannot stop in the future, I can't object to the three proposals related to it. As for the pop culture remedy, I don't find that issue particularly pressing or interesting right now. Dmcdevit·t 06:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although maybe out of place, "pop music" articles should be better defined. A lot of people see pop music as different things, and it's a little ambiguous. Esteffect 21:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internal spamming/campaigning

There's an ongoing discussion at WP:SPAM about what constitutes acceptable talk page contact between users regarding discussions, votes, polls, etc. Prior rulings that have been pointed to are this prior ruling and this one. Could you offer any more specific information about what is and is not allowed/discouraged, for example: is it the use of mass userbox messaging that is disallowed (if it is), or is internal spamming/campaigning disallowed only if disruptive? Thanks. IronDuke 17:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A general question

What powers does the Arbitration Committee have in respect of a dispute that does not exist? David | Talk 13:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the appropriate response to this question could vary wildly depending on the context. Could you provide some? As it is, it sounds like some kind of set-up. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be slightly more specific. Let us suppose that two users had a dispute, the dispute was referred to ArbCom, then the two users came to a full agreement on a settlement of the dispute of their own accord. Can the ArbCom 'resurrect' the dispute and continue the case, and if it does, between whom is it arbitrating? David | Talk 21:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
David, I would say it would depend upon all of the parties involved. If some sort of an agreement is reached between two parties in a given case that encompasses four parties then obvioulsy the arbitration case would proceed. Is this agreement between all involved parties? (→Netscott) 22:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The most salient context is probably Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irishpunktom/Proposed_decision, which directly affects Dbiv (talk • contribs) (David). --Christopher Thomas 06:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, although there was a reason I asked the question in the abstract. David | Talk 08:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What powers does the Arbitration Committee have in respect of a dispute that does not exist? David | Talk 13:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say we have the power to do what is necessary to prevent further disruption. What that is would depend on what the two parties had been doing and seem likely to continue to do. Fred Bauder 01:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Without unnecessary leading of the witness, if you were convinced that the parties had themselves done enough to prevent further disruption, then that would surely be that? David | Talk 08:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't try to cross-examine the arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway 08:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But your honour, this is a friendly witness - so I am engaging in examination, not cross-examination. David | Talk 08:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem rather silly, in my most humble of opinions. There was a conflict, David proposed a series of resolutions in respect of that conflict. I liked them and agreed to them. Conflict ended, no? Not all of it, there are some serious issues in respect of me for which I expect the appropriate processes, but, for the conflict with David, which is now over. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophilia userbox wheel war

I would like to know if Tony Sidaway's threats at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8#Template:unblockabuse are valid per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#SPUI, especially given the comments at [581]. --SPUI (T - C) 17:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highways

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Enforcement of moves without consensus states that "If any participant to this dispute moves a state highway page to their preferred convention before a formal policy has been reached, he or she may be blocked for a short time of up to a week for repeated offenses." Say Route 69 is renumbered to Route 31. (This type of whole-route renumbering occurs occasionally.) Is this measure intended to make the obvious move blockable? Or should "from another convention" be added after "to their preferred convention"?

I also note that it specifically mentions state highways. Is Canada fair game, as long as I'm not disruptive? --SPUI (T - C) 19:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'd like to know what the duration of the probation is as no set limit was established in the Arbcom. Is this probation indefinite? Or can we appeal it after 3 months? --JohnnyBGood 20:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are worrying over semantics here. Uncontroversial moves should not be contested, and won't get anybody in trouble. There is a difference from moving something to the correct name and moning something to the preferred convention. That doesn't mean anyone can move to their preferred convention and say it's okay because it's the real name, but Route 69 and Route 31 are not variations of eath other, whereas a move from Route 31 to State Route 31, or Route 31 (State), or whatever, would be a violation. Dmcdevit·t 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the last sentence. If someone makes an article at simply "Route 31", which should obviously be a disambiguation page (and it is in this case), what should I do? --SPUI (T - C) 19:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the confusion is here, but I think maybe that it is that the part of the ruling you quote comes from the enforcement. Take a look at the remedy section where the controversial moves are prohibited (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Controversial_moves): "Until a formal naming convention policy regarding state highways is reached, no page shall be moved from one controversial name to another". I think that is clear and answers your question. Dmcdevit·t 19:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK - so I can move Route 31 to Route 31 (State), as everyone agrees that Route 31 should be a disambiguation page, so its current location is not controversial? --SPUI (T - C) 20:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this is so, can someone please edit the enforcement to reflect this? --SPUI (T - C) 07:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An appeal is likely to do little. --SPUI (T - C) 12:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probation is indefinite. Fred Bauder 12:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can it be appealled in the future or as SPUI says are we pretty much SOL? --JohnnyBGood 00:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can appeal whenever you want, but you will only be successful if you can demonstrate some new development that will make us change our minds. That may be a while from now. Dmcdevit·t 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: where do I start on making a "formal policy"? I talked to a policy wonk and he confirmed that naming conventions are typically guidelines. --SPUI (T - C) 13:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking purely for myself, I'd say that the Committee can only urge the community to seek a policy solution to the question of highway naming. The community may well have good reasons to reject this. In which case, you'd probably all better be extra careful about moves, and make sure you don't make any controversial name changes. --Tony Sidaway 10:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AI

Last September, this user was banned indefinitely by the ArbCom for legal threats. He made one edit to his talk page in October, which was subsequently reverted. However, this past May, he has re-emerged, and now seems to be dominating his talk page. In addition, someone placed a one-year block on top of his indefinite block. Has he resolved his legal threats? If not, should his indefinite block stick and/or his talk page protected? Editor88 03:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an enforcement issue. As a Wikipedia administrator I've blanked and protected his user talk page. He remains banned and should not edit. On this occasion I won't reset the ban but any socking will result in a reset. --Tony Sidaway 14:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EffK

This past February, this user was banned one year by the ArbCom. His talk page was protected and then unprotected, and he has used it to engage in dialog with Musical Linguist and Str1977. Is that allowed? If not, should his talk page be reprotected? Editor88 03:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if EffK continues to post on his talk page so long as he does not otherwise try to edit. If he becomes disruptive on his talk page, any admin may reprotect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Wikipedia:Banning policy, if I understand it correctly, banned users are not allowed to edit at all and from any account, and all their edits may (should?) be reverted without discussion or analysis. But if it isn't hurting anyone, I don't see the point in enforcing this. --Ryan Delaney talk 13:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeq

Motion to ban Zeq for a week for creating an attack article regarding User:Homeontherange (article has been deleted) diff will be available to Arbitration Committee members. Fred Bauder 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=64956574"