Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:38, 16 April 2007 view sourceMariusM (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,058 edits →Statement by Wooyi← Previous edit Revision as of 07:59, 16 April 2007 view source MariusM (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,058 edits →Involved parties: adding Irpen as involved partNext edit →
Line 34: Line 34:
*{{userlinks|William Mauco}} *{{userlinks|William Mauco}}
*{{userlinks|MariusM}} *{{userlinks|MariusM}}
*{{userlinks|Irpen}}
*Other editors *Other editors


Revision as of 07:59, 16 April 2007

Weighing scales Arbitration​Committee
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Misplaced Pages Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Transnistria

Initiated by Wooyi at 02:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

I have notified both parties here and here.
The previous dispute resolution attempts all failed, and I have provided those links below in statement of Wooyi (my statement).

Statement by Wooyi

Although I am personally not involved in this case, but today I spotted it on WP:CN on Misplaced Pages:Community sanction noticeboard#Proposed community ban for sockpupeteer William Mauco, being stalled and end up in no consensus. The administrators on that page have made the recommendation to bring this here for arbitration. As of the time I am writing this statement, however, no action has been done since then. So I bring it here for procedural reasons.

Event links:

Statement by Alex Bakharev

I would suggest to wait until the 2 month block on William Mauco will expire. While he is blocked he can not represent his part of the story and the investigation will be bound to be one sided. Furthermore, according to my experience most of the tendentious editors fall for sockpuppeting if blocked for more than one month. If he will go the same path he would be caught and permabanned - no arbcom is necessary. If he will honestly wait until the end of the block without attempt to circumvent, then there are chances that his feud with MariusM would not restart - two months is almost an infinity on wiki. If the feud would start then Arbcom might be a solution Alex Bakharev 04:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Irpen

I urge the committee to heed to Alex Bakahrev's proposal to which I would like to add the following. I emailed Mauco when he was banned for socking advising him to sit out a well-deserved two months-block and once he is allowed to edit to alter his ways, that is to cut on edit warring and to not use socking ever again. Realistically, I don't think he will be able to not ever edit war (the fault in this is not just his but some of his opponents too, who are quite vicious POV pushers) but I am optimistic about socking. He emailed back to me and he sounded quite apologetic and forthcoming. He admitted his wrongdoing, swore to never resort to socks again and agreed to some sort of probation (immediate permaban if he is ever caught socking which he swears not to do.) I elaborated more on this in my posts to WP:CSN: , ., and specifically about the possibility of arbcom: . So, the case may not be needed. Let the community handle it and wait to see whether Mauco will fulfill his promise of change. --Irpen 06:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

Ngo Dinh Diem

Initiated by --VnTruth at 16:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

I have left messages regarding my arbitration request on both of the other parties' talk pages..
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
I have discussed the matter extensively with Blnguyen and suggested mediation, all to no avail.

Statement by VnTruth

This dispute involves disagreements regarding the portion of the article, titled "Government treatment of Buddhists," regarding Diem's treatment of South Vietnamese Buddhists. The article contains language, much of which has been added by Blnguyen, stating that Diem discriminated in favor of Catholics against Buddhists, who constituted the vast majority of South Vietnam's population. I have added an additional paragraph reiterating the views of several historians that Diem treated Buddhists well, and that Buddhists constituted no more than a large majority of the population. Blnguyen has regularly deleted my edits, to the point that the page was recently locked by another user. Sarvagnya has recently delted my edits as well.

They contend that my edits violate Misplaced Pages's rule against publicizing fringe opinions.(edit summary). In fact, if you review my most recent edit to the article (under "history"), you will see that I have provided more citations in support of my edits than Blnguyen has in support of his. Moreover, one of my sources, Triumph Forsaken, was published by the prestigious Cambridge University Press, and has received praise from such respected persons as Senator (and Vietnam War hero) James Webb and historian Max Boot, both of whom, as you can see, are written up in Misplaced Pages. The author, Dr. Mark Moyar, graduated summa cum laude at Harvard and earned his Ph.D at Cambridge University in England. He has already written a well-received history of one aspect of the Vietnam War, the Phoenix program. Another source, Our Vietnam Nightmare, was written by Marguerite Higgins, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist also written up in Misplaced Pages.

Blnguyen's claim that Buddhists constituted 70%-90% of South Vietnam's population was particularly weak. His citations consisted of: Dr. Moyar, who actually says that such claims were made in 1963, but were false; an internet article that says only--in passing and without citation--that Buddhists constituted a majority of the population; and a book by Marvin Gettleman that is 40 years old and so obscure that it lacks a Misplaced Pages identifying number. The more recent historians do not even claim that Buddhists constituted a majority of the population, much less 70%-90%. For example, Stanley Karnow and Neil Sheehan,widely read and anti-Diem to the core, do not make this claim.

Nonetheless, I am not asking for deletion of Blnguyen's portion (except for his inaccurate citation of Dr. Moyar), but just that all parties be prohibited from deleting my edits.

Statement by Bakasuprman

I edited Ngo Dinh Diem as well, and note that this is a content dispute. There is no issue here as both vntruth and blnguyen have been civil and worked under the framework of WP guidelines.Bakaman 17:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel.Bryant

Content dispute? I think it is. Daniel Bryant 00:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by PullToOpen

It seems that the parties are working together amicably on the talk page. Arbitration is not needed. // PTO 00:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

Zeq and Zero0000

Initiated by Dmcdevit·t at 23:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Parties are continuing behavior despite prior arbitrations, and edit warring instead of pursuing dispute resolution. Arbitration is necessary to address issues of adminship.

  • Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Lance6wins: Zero0000 was desysopped for 2 weeks since he "while engaged in an editing dispute with Lance6wins improperly threatened him and blocked him"
  • Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq:
    • Zeq cautioned, placed on article bans, and probation, for edit warring and other disruptive behavior
    • Zero0000 found to have "engaged in extensive edit warring" and "cautioned to use the procedures in Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes."

Statement by Dmcdevit

See current ANI commentary at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Notice_of_block.

Zeq, despite his previous arbitration case of a year ago, continues disruptive behavior like edit warring, and shows no likelihood of changing, after so many blocks and bans in accordance with his probation (log). I think a long term ban is appropriate. Zero0000, also a party to Zeq's arbitration, for edit warring with him, and previously desysopped for blocking while involved, has also been engaging in persistent edit warring, using his admin rollback button, and has used his adminship to first ban Zeq from the article, and then block him, while revert warring with him. He continues to claim that because the ArbCom ruled that Zeq's arbitration may be enforced by "any administrator", it gives involved admins the power to block Zeq, which patently violates the spirit and common sense of the AC ruling, and the idea of adminship. He continues to assert, in what sounds like lawyering to me, "My actions were according to the letter of the Admin ruling on Zeq." I am reproducing my ANI comment below for the specific details:

It's not either-or here; in fact, I think it's both. Zeq's long term disruptive behavior, frankly, merits more than an admonishment and a short block. Short blocks do nothing to fix the underlying behavior, and we know that because he has eight independent blocks before this. The edit warring at 1929 Hebron massacre, in light of repeated blocks, warnings, instruction, arbcom ruling, and even a not-subtle-at-all week-long ban by arbcom in a later motion, and I must conclude that he is incorrigible. Look closer at that edit warring; most striking in Zeq's failure to grasp collaborative editing and conflict resolution is his lack of atempts at good faith communication. Note that at the same time he was warring, he made a total of, well, zero edits ever to the article's talk page . Note also the same behavior at Mohammad Amin al-Husayni concurrently, where his talk page communication is to accuse the others of vandalism. I propose we give Zeq the ban he deserves, and dispense with this drain on the community.
At the same time, Zero0000's actions here are indefensible and require further scrutiny. First, notice that he is not simply in a content dispute, but is, as an admin, engaging in an edit war with Zeq and others at 1929 Hebron massacre: . Those last two reverts are inappropriate uses of the admin rollback in a content dispute. He made no attempt at dispute resolution, despite the fact that this dispute lasted weeks, and indeed, also never edited the talk page at all, his last edit there being 12:41, November 26, 2006. He first rolls back Zeq and then bans him from the article two minutes later, essentially enforcing his preferred version, and then later blocks Zeq, reverting him minutes later. Of course, we already know there is a preexisting conflict, since arbcom ruled more than a year ago "Ian Pitchford, Zero0000 and the others who were involved in this dispute are cautioned to use the procedures in Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes." Zero's lack of communication I noted before is more concerning in light of the fact that he has been admonished by arbcom before for substantially similar behavior in a conflict with the same editor. And of course, Zero0000 was previously desysopped by arbcom, at the recommendation of Jimbo, for using his blocking powers in a content dispute in which he was involved. I fail to see why the community should continue to place its trust in Zero0000 as an admin. Dmcdevit·t 07:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131

Admin Zero0000, while in a content dispute and revert war with Zeq and others at 1929 Hebron massacre , banned him from the article under the terms of his probation . The ban was not posted to the admins' noticeboard, which would have given the community a chance to review it. Zeq continued to edit the article and so Zero blocked him . After reviewing the situation, I felt that the ban and block were improper, due to Zero's involvement in the content dispute. I unblocked Zeq, and after reviewing the article history, re-applied the ban as an uninvolved admin . Subsequently, admin El_C (talk · contribs) reblocked Zeq for incivility (accusing Zero of discrimination) .

I agree with Dmcdevit that arbitration language such as "may be banned by any admin from any page he disrupts" does not trump the very clear warning in the blocking policy not to block to gain advantage in a content dispute. Whether Zero genuinely believe the "any admin" language absolves him or is just wikilawyering would require a mind reader. Certainly Zero sees no fault in his actions.

I have not personally dealt with Zeq before, but there are 8 previous complaints against him in the archives of the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

On the other hand Zero now agrees not to use bocks or bans against Zeq in the future so maybe this case is moot (with respect to Zero). Thatcher131 02:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to the Will Beback issue

I find it interesting that parties here are granting more credence to Will Beback's statement "When the ArbCom chooses to say "any uninvolved admin" they do so" over Dmcdevit, an admin and former arbitrator. I think the answer to who can enforce rulings is complicated and depends in large measure on admins excercising sound judgement. In a case involving a banned user, often the involved admins will be in the best position to spot sockpuppets. The LaRouche case is also clear; no LaRouche-derived sources in non-LaRouche articles. Easily enforced; whether an admin is "involved" or not makes no difference as the ruling leaves no room for interpretation. However, applying article probation is much more of a judgement call; is the editor disruptive under the meaning of the arbitration, is article banning justified, and for how long. Note that the blocking policy specifies admins are not to block to gain advantage in a content dispute, and the Probation policy states that bans should be applied by uninvolved admins. It again seems strange to see people arguing that the absence of a single word in an arbitration remedy (uninvolved) can override two core policies governing admin behavior, when in every other case it is clear that the arbitrators do not create policies by ArbCom fiat. Thatcher131 17:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

I will give my personal account of what happened, then I will answer some of Dmcdevit's specific claims. I have decided to not comment on Zeq except as necessary to explain myself.

What happened. The thing about editing in the mideast section of Misplaced Pages is that there is always at least one, and often several, editors around who have no other purpose but to mould the article according to their political views. I'm not talking about biased editors (who isn't?) but disruptive POV-pushers who are determined that the article will not be balanced or accurate. In recent times the worst of these have been Amoruso (now left?), Shamir1, and Zeq. This situation makes editing very stressful and tedious, and most good editors soon give up trying. Usually I just patiently persist in the hope that the some edit will stick by good fortune or some fanatic will leave. On this occasion I found Zeq yet again disrupting the article with material that was in obvious violation of several rules. I was not sympathetic, since Zeq is an experienced long-term editor who is completely aware of what he is doing. After removing the material several times unsuccessfully, I went to read the previous Arbitration Committee ruling on Zeq and noticed the long list of bans and blocks, which I think I didn't know about before. I then read the ruling to see what was permitted: "He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing." I took this at face value and told Zeq on his talk page that he was banned from the article. He replied in his usual arrogant fashion that he would do whatever he liked and proceded to disrupt the article again. Then I blocked him for 48hrs (intentionally a much shorter period than an average admin would have chosen on Zeq's track record) and reported my action in the prescribed places.

That is what I did. Was it permitted? Dmcdevit claims that "any administrator" doesn't actually mean "any administrator". He may be right. In fact, after reflecting on it for a few extra days I am willing to concede on this point. However, at the time I took the text in good faith to mean exactly what it says. If my judgment was impaired, it was innocently so. I also believed (and I still believe and can't imagine anyone disputing) that the criterion "for good cause...which he disrupts by tendentious editing" was met quite objectively. I would like to ask the present ArbCom to clarify the meaning of "any administrator" even if they consider it obvious already; I will of course abide by the decision without exception.

Dmcdevit's claims.

  1. As I stated just above, I am willing to concede that Dmcdevit is likely to be right about the meaning of "any administrator". However, his reasoning is not overwhelming. His first error is to assume that the ArbCom can't make an exception to a general rule if they want, including permiting actions to people not normally allowed to perform them. His second error is to forget that such exceptions already exist (example: afaik there are no limits on which admins can block a known sock of a banned user).
  2. Dmcdevit claims that an earlier ArbCom case involving me was similar to this one. He is wrong. This time I honestly believed I was acting as permitted by an explicit ArbCom ruling; otherwise I would not have so acted. On the previous occasion I had no such excuse and served my time without complaining.
  3. Dmcdevit is wrong to describe the repeated removal of obviously unacceptable material as "edit warring". Actually it is called "enforcing the rules". I'm not claiming I did this as well as I could have, but that's what I believed and still believe I was doing. My understanding is that enforcing the rules is something admins are specifically enjoined to do, but Dmcdevit judges me as if I was an ordinary user.
  4. Dmcdevit says that I didn't use the article Talk page in conjunction with my edits. He is right, but he forgot about the edit summaries. In each case I gave a precise reason for the edit at least the first time (and often more than just the first time) I made it. As I stated at AN/I, I believe my overall record in using Talk pages is as good as that of any other editor in the mideast section. In the case of disagreements with good-faith editors I have often spent many hours on Talk pages and I believe my record in bringing good sources to discussions there is probably one of the best in all of Misplaced Pages.
  5. Here is an example of what "discussing with Zeq on the Talk page" actually means in practice. Zeq claimed that a photo taken personally by Doron was not what Doron reported. Over the following 14 edits, Zeq produced a single web link that doesn't even mention the subject, while Doron and I produced excellent sources to show how he is mistaken. Then Zeq started up on it again as if nothing had been said, see this edit and responses in 10 of the following 12 edits; then Doron and I wrote a whole article on the subject based on the latest professional archaeological sources. After all this effort, Zeq came back with exactly the same claim all over again. In other words, neither the "discussion" nor the production of the best sources that exist had any effect on Zeq whatsoever. Having experienced Zeq behaving like this over several years, I felt a reluctance to try reasoning with him over his recent blatant disruptions.
  6. Dmcdevit's claim that I misused the administrative rollback is highly debatable. First, I had already explained those edits in previous edits. Second, the "undo" feature available to everyone provides almost the same functionality, so this can no longer be considered a special admin action. Third, the use of administrative rollbacks to remove material they consider to be objectively unacceptable is something that most admins do regularly, including Dmcdevit himself.

--Zero 12:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Amoruso. Unfortunately Amoruso is not gone as I thought. I have been remiss for not writing an Arb case against Amoruso long ago, as he is the most unprincipled POV-pusher to hit the mideast section of Misplaced Pages since the banned Lance6wins. Worse than Zeq. Amoruso appears to be a professional representantive of the extreme right, self-appointed or not I don't know. As a first example of how he operates, one of his first actions today was to reinsert stuff he found in a novel (this source is identified as a novel right on the front page). This is far from the worst charge that can be made about Amoruso, but the worst (including deliberate lying about sources) can wait for his own case. --Zero 11:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

I was involved in the early stages of the enforcement of Zeq's probation. I should be able to submit some relevant evidence on Zeq's conduct under probation, which was unusual. --Tony Sidaway 13:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved user Sjakkalle

I noticed the relevant thread on the noticeboard, and I have registered a disagreement on what the term "any admin" means in arbitration terminology. At Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 we have one admin in good standing saying that "When the ArbCom chooses to say "any uninvolved admin" they do so. When they say "any admin" that's what they mean." So I think reasonable minds might differ on this, and think that ArbCom should clarify this to prevent further confusion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Commment by uninvolved user Amoruso

From my experience with Zero0000, there is no doubt that he often abused his adminstrator status, that he has absolute zero (...) disregard to WP policies, and that he should face some sort of permanent ban for his behaivour, which is evident in this case. This is just a small summary of his violations in wikipedia that I've noticed in the past, and which he should be held liable for.

false allegations of vandalism :

incivility and non AGF:

warned me on content dispute with me (!) attacking me. I didn't respond.

his blanking of sourced material under different pretexts:

:constant and rude... and rude reason : "junk" reason :"junk"

POV pushing and lies or unsourced well poisoning : and rude and rude Amoruso 11:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Another example of Zero0000's lies and abuse of WP. The book has been accurately described by non involved users invited for comment as a perfect WP:RS . Zero0000 really should finally face his violations, as his status as an administrator makes a travesty of wikipedia. Amoruso 12:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Very strange remark by El-C below. I really have no idea what he's talking about. I'm a very respected user by many of my colleagues and have created many articles and provided much useful information, photos, and knowledge to wikipedia. El-C's remark is very inappropriate. I've been blocked by him once for a very strange 3RR offense, and that's it. The second 3RR block was later ruled by many adminstrators to have been a mistake and a wrongful block. That is highly irrelevant anyway. If El-C thinks that it's ok for an adminstrator like Zero0000 to be using popups and vandlising tools in disputes, to badmouth users, to call them names, to fight with anyone and to ban or warn with bans users that he was involved in content disputed with, then he has a problem. Zero0000 should not involve himself in articles where he has such strong opinions on then he shouldn't abuse other users, bite new users, use rude language and all the other examples I've shown above. He has clearly abused his adminstrator power and I'm bothered that someone like El-C actually is trying to support this core violation of Zero. Amoruso 10:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ElC

Although we've yet to reach the 5-block limit, I do not believe that Zeq's arbitration remedies have proven effective, overall (i.e. beyond locally), and like Dmcdecit, I strongly feel that his conduct should be reexamined. With respect to Zero's role, I have argued that it was a mistake for him to block Zeq, but I disagreed with Dmcdevit that this warrants desysoping; Sjakkalle's comment above further reinforces that notion, I think. El_C 20:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Since writing my statement, Amoruso (blocked in the past by both myself and Dmcdevit) has added a statement directly above my own. It provides many diffs but virtually zero context into the allegations he makes. That is, we observe edits and comments in isolation. Crucially, it dosen't help that this is a user who often promotes fringe, ahistorical views as mainstream scholarship. El_C 15:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I read Amoruso's highly assumptive response to the above, and I see no reason to retract anything I said thus far. I also read Zeq's point that Zero has also exceeded the word limit — it's true. I suppose I didn't notice it due to his less spacious pargarpah structure. El_C 14:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Mackan79

Regarding Amoruso's statement, I would hope these issues will be dealt with separately, as (having seen much of their interaction) I don't think they can be effectively addressed here. I agree with El_C's adendum above. I mostly wanted to respond to Sjakkalle's statement. As I said on AN/I, when I encountered Zeq's Arbcom ruling some weeks ago via AiOa, I want to make clear that I shared Zero's reading, for two reasons. 1. It seemed quite clear the intent of the ruling was to go beyond the general "probation" policy, and 2. If it wasn't, then the "any admin" language wouldn't have made sense. Having raised this on AN/I, Dmc suggested the language is often used by Arbcom with the "uninvolved" caveat retained by implication, but I frankly find this surprising, and would like to see examples. Currently, we have two: first, Will Beback stating that when ArbCom says "any admin," that's what they mean, and second the WP:Probation policy itself, which states the exception. Clearly then, the idea that this is self-explanatory is not universal. Ultimately, I think to hold Zero responsible for reading this ruling as stating that any admin could enforce it, "with good cause," is simply the wrong action at the wrong time. Mackan79 16:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Admition of guilt by Zeq

I take full responsibility on my behavior which, at times, have been collaborative but at other have been disruptive.

This is my 2nd ArbCom.

This is Zero 3rd ArbCom – he edited Misplaced Pages longer and been involved in many more conflict and disruptions than me. (due to his strong conviction on ME issues)

To save time: I admit that at times my dispute resolution efforts failed and my behavior in wikipedia on occasion have been disruptive. There are many times in which disputes ended-up without disruption in a collaborative way.

During next year, I will stay away from any article in which I had previously been in disruptive disputes.

Additional aspects

Zero and other editors edit-wars on ME issues have debilitated the community ability NPOV many ME articles.

These edit-wars occur even in articles that I do not participate – clearly banning just me from these articles did not solve the situation.

Zero and Ian have been warned by ArbCom to avoid edit-war, not to remove WP:RS sources and to follow dispute resolution – they choose not to accept these warnings.

This is not the 1st time Zero ban me for so-called "probation violation" - as in previous time he was overruled by other admins (rare that admins override so Arbcom must make note of that).

It was also explained to him personally (in detail by user:Fred_Bauder) that applying probation ban is not the first step in any edit dispute.

This violation is not the 1st, 2nd or even 3rd time user:Zero0000 looses the cool head required by an Admin. (see also his repeated 3RR violations)

His stream of attacks on me (violation of WP:NPA) will also be documented. Several admins requested him to cease using edit summaries for personal attacks - still he continue up until very recently. (diffs will be presented as well as AN/I discusions - here is a preview where Zero attacks me, my work, my language skills and violates WP:AGF:

One caveat

In 1929 Hebron massacre Zero baned me after just one single edit to the article. On April 5, at 11:32 I made single edit:

This was enough for Zero to issue "a notice of ban" 50 minutes later at 12:20 .

This was the only edit I made to this article in 2007. This single edit is not disruptive.

An edit poped on my watchlist - Zero removed a well known fact backed by a WP:RS source (other sources exist as well). This was a minor issue to restore it. (Haaretz used widely in wikipedia).


Only now, I saw that Zero has been in an edit-war for weeks over this issue: , , , , ,

Zero had similar disputes in other article. After He removed similar WP:RS source he got this reply from an editor: "Haaretz is a internationally recongnized newspaper, let it remain".

1. Zero is a clearly "involved admin" (and had been displined by ArbCom before about exact same pattern of action)

2. He should not have used his admin tolls to block me

3. Zero decision that this single edit has been a violation of my probation is also at best questionable. If the edit is not disruptive Zero had no authority to issue a ban.

4. Zero's unjustified ban was the disruptive venet that brought us where we are today.

5. There are more serious policy violations by Zero.


The power given to some admins toward users under probation makes the uneven playing field a place where conflicts can get out of hand. Zero was not the only admin who used the pretext of my probation as an excuse to take admin action against me without justification.

Summary by Zeq

I take full responsibilty on my actions - but disrupting 1929 Hebron massacre prior to the issuance of the ban was not one of them.

Zero's edit-war on this article prior (and after) my single edit should also be carefully looked at. More on this will be provided in evidence.

I will note that after Zero issued the unappropriate ban I at first tried to resolve it in a non disruptive way (on his talk page) but that attempt failed (he refused to comunicate with me - not for the first time) and I indeed engaged in reverting him after the ban was already issued - that was a mistake on my part. Zeq 08:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Appeal of Daniel Brandt

Initiated by Fred Bauder at 21:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC) at the request of Daniel Brandt

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Not applicable, really

Statement by Daniel Brandt

I was indefinitely blocked by user Gamaliel on April 5, 2006 for alleged legal threats. I feel that this blocking was unjustified. It was never fully explained, and over the last year some have interpreted this unjustified block as a "community ban." For example, this indefinite block by Gamaliel is defined as "Banned by the Misplaced Pages community" on Misplaced Pages:List_of_banned_users.

I am confused by the difference between an indefinite block and a community ban, except that the latter phrase seems defamatory if it is untrue. This difference needs to be clarified in my case. On the page cited above, as well as on the template on my user page, it says that I am "banned." In the block log itself, it says that I am blocked indefinitely. What is my status? Does anyone know?

I am interested in either getting this block/ban lifted by the Arbitration Committee, or getting a complete statement from Gamaliel as to why the indefinite block was justified. If the latter, a statement from the Arbitration Committee that they concur with Gamaliel is requested. At that point, I will formally ask the Wikimedia Foundation to confirm or reject the Arbitration Committee's position.

This block has prevented me from expressing objections to my biography, in violation of WP:BLP. The initial impetus for Gamaliel's block, as far as I can determine, was that I had a template on my user page that pointed out a new law signed by President Bush in January, 2006. This law involves criminal penalties for certain types of online harassment. I maintain that it was entirely appropriate to point this out on my user page.


Comment by Doc glasgow

What is this supposed to achieve? I've always though that the desire of certain sectors of the community to paint Brandt as some kind of Emmanuel Goldstein hate-figure was crass and overrated his impact on Misplaced Pages. I'm also on record as believing we should delete his biography, as 1) he isn't that notable 2) he's absolutely right that we shouldn't have negative biographies of nonentities where they clearly object 3) I hate the bloody-mindedness that seems to want to spite and punish him by keeping it. Misplaced Pages isn't a role-playing game where we invent and fight imaginary daemons. Having said all of that, the notion that we resolve any of those issues by unblocking him is ridiculous. It just won't work, and isn't worth contemplating as a way forward.--Doc 22:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

All this ruleslawyering over whether this is a community ban or not is really just bureaucrapic nonsense. Unless we are really seriously considering that unblocking him might be an option, it is pointless. I'm not so much against unblocking him as certain that we are not going to do it. So, unless arbcom are willing to review the wisdom of the decision to retain his bio (and I'd love you to do that, but you won't) then there is sod all point in accepting this case. All we're going to have is more wikidrama then a return to the status-quo. Unless the committee is really willing to break new ground here (and you won't be), then just reject this and be done with it.--Doc 23:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid Sir Fozzie's remarks below perfectly sum up the problem. A myopic and obsessive concern for the in-house role-playing game and that its sacred procedures aren't threatened by some dark conspiracy of Fred Bauer and the 'odious' Mr Brandt.--Doc 09:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Tony Sidaway

I share Doc glasgow's general view on this, but I recommend acceptance in order to find that the Brandt article should be permanently deleted. Brandt may be unbanned if there is reason to believe that he will not disrupt Misplaced Pages (I'm personally veering towards the "no" on this). --Tony Sidaway 22:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Superfluous comment by PullToOpen

Once again, our community has been split neatly up the middle by the issue of this guy's article, let alone his ban. Although the article isn't specifically within the scope of this request (which is nothing but a ban appeal), I feel that the scope of this arbitration case should be expanded to include it. We ought to put this issue to rest so we can stop bickering about it and get back to work with the encyclopedia. I strongly suggest that the ArbCom hear this case. // PTO 23:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs)

I wasn't as into the minutiae of Wikipolitics when this ban went down. Thus, I don't know the context of the legal threats, and I'm not sure if they existed, still exist, or will come in the future. With this said, I urge acceptance of this to review the situation and either affirm the ban in place (which is not a "community ban" as we know it or as really understood), or overturn the ban that's in place as improper. There's probably a logical fear of repurcussion if anyone does anything regarding Brandt or his article at this point, so to expect an admin to step up and unblock him to overturn the "community ban", as FloNight (talk · contribs) puts it, is (IMO) improper and expects more than anyone really should. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Gmaxwell (talk · contribs)

I feel that there is an urgent need to state my support of Doc's position.

In my view, there is no need or cause to consider Mr. Brandt's direct request to be unblocked, because arguing his position out on the Wiki is not the correct forum for complaints by the subjects of our article and he has in the past demonstrated himself to be a disruptive editor. However, the arbcom need not limit itself to directly doing as Brandt asked or nothing: There is clearly an underlying issue at play here involving the conduct of many in Misplaced Pages's editing community over which the Arbcom has suitable jurisdiction.

I am very concerned that the offhand dismissal of this complaint send the wrong message about the official position Misplaced Pages's community leaders on Mr. Brandt. Furthermore, this rejection by arbcom leaves Mr. Brandt little further recourse beyond litigation against the editors of Misplaced Pages, which would be significantly against our own interests ,and the Wikimedia Foundation, which would be unsuccessful but would be an unfortunate waste of everyone's time.

A significant number of Wikimedians believe that Brandt's article is so bad that it must be deleted, but not enough yet to get the supermajority required to actually keep it deleted. It seems that because some Wikimedians have decided to use the article as an example of our independence and freedom of speech that no consensus can be achieved.

Mr. Brandt has made an effort here, respecting our community with an olive branch by appealing to the English Misplaced Pages's designated highest power over the community (vs the foundation which avoids community involvement). We should not disrespect his efforts with such a curt dismissal.

Finally, since arbcom desysoped some of the Misplaced Pages admins who would keep the article deleted, it can be argued that the arbcom is a primary cause of the articles continued existence. I do not believe this was the arbcom's intent, so an actual judgment on the article and the editors surrounding it might be useful. --Gmaxwell 00:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie (talk · contribs)

I am very concerned that this is an attempt to do an end run around the consensus of the community on the countless number of properly closed AfD debates, in an attempt to delete an article they have a problem with. Mister Brandt has always had a method to deal with BLP violations, despite his banned status, and that is to email the WP Foundation. That does not change, no matter how odious the behavior of Brandt and his supporters. Mister Brandt has had numerous opportunities to work WITH WP, and chose not to. Indeed, he is the lead behind the "Hive Mind" site and Misplaced Pages Review, two organizations inherently inimical to Misplaced Pages. I urge the ArbCom to reject this ArbCom request, reject the attempt to cynically circumvent WP procedures to delete Mister Brandt's article, and to affirm his Ban. SirFozzie 01:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


Statement by Tbeatty (talk · contribs)

ArbCom should accept this as it is the only avenue of appeal. Rarely will an admin undo another admin's action as it is potentially a wheel warring situation. The main question is what will Daniel Brandt contribute to the project that justifies the unblock? If it is to provide input/guidance on privacy as it relates to biographies and to give input on various BLP's and policies, I think his unblock is warranted and should be welcomed. If it is to simply edit his own biography, I don't think his unblock will last very long. --Tbeatty 10:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Wikipedian that wishes to remain anonymous

Tbeatty has this right. In the current atmosphere, social pressure virtually gaurantees that no admin will unblock those blocked by another admin. On the chance that they do any action on a controversial block, it is gauranteed they will be accused of wheel-warring, and in the resulting flame wars and dispute resolution they face potentially losing their admin bit. Thus, that no one has unblocked Brandt does not provide evidence of wide consensus for a community ban. It only shows one admin did something controversial and no one wants to question it. Yes, the social pressure is so great that even questioning certain actions by certain adminis will engender a loss of reputation in the community.

The arbitrators below saying there is a "community ban" are putting up a billboard proclaiming there is a Hivemind that no-one may question. ArbCom should be a neutral source and they should stand above the crowded mob. Appeals should be viewed neutrally, otherwise there are no checks and balances to the social pressures of the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.55.53 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Mr. Gustafson

My original block of Mr. Brandt, 17 months ago today, was the result of nearly a month of legal threats and abusive use of sock-puppets by Mr. Brandt to vandalize, troll, and disrupt Misplaced Pages. The straw that broke the camel's back was his hive-mind page, utilized to stalk and violate the privacy of our contributors. Brandt's main account was banned because of this. I do not see this ban as particularly controversial, or as a "community ban." He had no history of positive contribution, spent his short time here prior to the block aggressively disrupting, vandalizing, and attacking, and he never had any intention to positively contribute to our Project. We ban users like this, without issue, every day, as we should. He was unblocked to be given a chance to contribute, but resumed his disruption on-wiki, and cyber-stalking and legal threats off-wiki.

Outside of my involvement in the original block, in my opinion of the issue as it now stands, Brandt being allowed to contribute is a non-issue: he had many chances, and continues to violate our policies to a shocking degree. He has the same rights in terms of BLP as any, and has the right to express concerns over the content of the article on him through the channels that have been set up specifically for such concerns, specifically through the Foundation Offices. However, he has no right to be a part of this community. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

He uses various IP's to edit wiki already, showing up now and then to edit the his bio. If his concern was truly to help Misplaced Pages, he would do so, yet I see zero evidence his edits are constructive overall. I find him hardly notable, so the bio on him outweighs the benefit of having it. Regardless, his animosity about anonymous administrators and other issues makes him unlikely to suddenly become a great contributor.--MONGO 22:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

Mr. Brandt's personal website is the most prominent and extensive effort to out the real-world identities of Wikipedians. Sitebanning is the normal response for that type of behavior. If Mr. Brandt were to take down that page and pledge not to renew it I might understand a basis for this arbitration request. As things stand this looks like a question about semantics. Mr. Brandt does evade the ban on IP addresses, as demonstrated here from 29 March 2007. The issue of Mr. Brandt's Misplaced Pages biography is a separate matter and I'm not certain whether it falls within the scope of Committee action. I'd be willing to support a courtesy deletion (but haven't participated in any of those discussions one way or the other). Durova 19:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a delicate procedural suggestion: Mr. Brandt's statement expresses a wish to have his status clarified (blocked or banned). Clarification could be accomplished through a formal community ban discussion at WP:CN without the Committee's involvement. I don't wish to worsen a situation that is already dismal, so I offer to open a request there and would do my best to maintain a civil discussion. Mr. Brandt may contact me via my Misplaced Pages e-mail if he is interested in this option. Durova 01:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Another aspect relevant to this proposal is this thread. It is hard for me to fathom why anyone would contemplate restoring Mr. Brandt's editing privileges while he publishes the identities of Wikipedians who prefer to edit pseudonymously. Although that particular community ban thread is the first time a psychiatric patient has developed a sexual fixation on me, it is not the first time an editor has made personal threats against me. I make every effort to interact with people politely and to apply site policies fairly, yet I become a target for no other reasons than that I am a female sysop. Yesterday I also issued a lengthy userblock on another disturbed individual who had threatened suicide, and that was not the first editor I dealt with who claimed to be suicidal. I am very glad these individuals do not know my actual identity and I am rather disappointed that there exists any controversy at all on this matter. Mr. Brandt, I hold no personal animosity toward you, but please respect the perspective of dedicated volunteers - I've put a lot of unpaid labor into this site because I think Misplaced Pages has a worthwhile mission. If you desire the community's cooperation please meet us halfway. Durova 03:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by FCYTravis

I urge the ArbCom to accept this case to review the article and its surrounding circumstances. I am in full agreement with Doc glasgow and Gmaxwell here, as I believe that some Wikipedians have tried to turn this sordid affair into a video game, where Daniel Brandt must somehow "lose" so that Misplaced Pages can "win." I do not believe that such a stark dichotomy exists - we can be a complete encyclopedia without becoming a scandal sheet for living people.

I believe that Brandt has played into his opponents' hands with his provocative and ill-advised "hive-mind" site. But that site's existence has distorted the perspective of many Wikipedians, turning it into a passionate and personal issue, which it should not be. As one of the top-10 sites on the Internet, we must rise above petty personal vendettas and consider a broader and more objective perspective. I believe the community can no longer make dispassionate decisions about this case and thus a review of the "community ban" must naturally fall on the Arbitration Committee. It is not a task which ArbCom members may individually relish, but it is a task which the ArbCom as a whole must, in this case, perform. FCYTravis 00:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


Comment by Renesis

I have not had much involvement in this matter, but have been observing it for quite a while, and I would like to say that I endorse the statement by Durova. -- Renesis (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by someone else's tedentious sockpuppet

Is this a joke? Seriously, I endorse Durova's statement. This is almost criminal. We're talking about a guy whose website outs the personal information of our dedicated volunteers, and who himself has threatened editors with real-life consequences for doing what they're supposed to be doing on Misplaced Pages. If there's one thing that really concerns me about Misplaced Pages, it's that so many people are willing to feed this troll, allowing him to edit and defending him when his actions continue to make Misplaced Pages worse, and in addition, have real-life implications for hard-working volunteers. If he has concerns about his bio, he can use e-mail like he's been told a million times before. No, I have no strong opinion on keeping or deleting his article and no, I don't think he'll stop if we delete it. But has anyone ever asked him directly?

Apparently, one of his backers is Fred Bauder. This is not the first time I've questioned Mr. Bauder's judgement here... He's the one who wanted Yanksox and Geogre banned in the past... I mean, how idiotic is that? He even requested a checkuser on Yanksox to see if he was a sockpuppet of - guess who? - Daniel Brandt. And now he's acting as a proxy for this banned user? Unbelievable. Fred Bauder needs to be removed from this committee, yesterday. Oh, and Mr. Brandt, if you're reading this: If you can figure out who I am, my real name is on Misplaced Pages, if you do just a little digging. You can use it to find my address and phone number and continue your mindless hypocrisy. If you haven't already. 75.72.150.178 08:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by someone who shall not be named

If DB wants back into our community, he must take down his "hive-mind" page and apologize to Katefan0 and anyone else he has driven away from this site. If he's here solely for the purpose of deleting his bio, then he can be considered a single-purpose account and should therefore be reverted & blocked on sight. 128.2.152.133 23:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:JzG

I think this case is going down, so I'm probably wasting my time, but under the old system a community ban was, as I remember it, any indefinite block which no admin was prepared to undo. As such, and because of his off-wiki attacks, there is little doubt that it is fair and reasonable to describe Mr. Brandt as banned.

Be it noted that I, too, think the article on Brandt should be deleted and the bytes burned, but I don't see any chance of ArbCom taking an end-run around deletion process for that. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by SqueakBox

I am very pleased to see that Daniel Brandt has made this appeal, especially as I was encouraging him to do so. I also pointed out he confusion between being blocked and banned at Talk:Daniel Brandt and see that this also confuses Mr Brandt so this pioint should be clarified and if he is banned not blocked that should be made clearer. I think Brandt should be given another chance but warned that any legal threats on his part will bhe met with a swift permanent block. I think he needs to be able to comment on his own biography at its talk page and should be allowed to edit the Daniel Brandt page as welll as a bare minimum. I urge the arbcom to unblock him and make it clear that he is banned from editing all articles and all talk or other pages except Daniel Brandt and Talk:Daniel Brandt with AE swinging into action were he to break this, SqueakBox 18:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Further statement by SqueakBox

Brandt's Hivemind page that mentioned the private details of various wikipedia ediotrs is now a not found page. I wonder if arbcom members might take this as a sign of good faith by Brandt and reconsider, SqueakBox 01:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/7/0/0)

  • Reject and uphold the community ban. A community ban is when a user is blocked and no other admin is willing to unblock them. All concerns about your article can be addressed by email. FloNight 22:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept, to consider Brandt's exact status in particular and the interaction of BLP with other policies in general. Kirill Lokshin 23:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject per FloNight. --jpgordon 00:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept appeal of community ban, consider the status of the article, Daniel Brandt, and the legal issues he has raised, see Rules. Fred Bauder 00:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept. The acrimony associated with this case makes standard avenues of appeal very difficult, and everyone does deserve a fair hearing. - SimonP 12:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject and uphold the community ban, per FloNight. Raul654 15:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject. Brandt is community banned until such time as admins start to unblock him, while in possession of the facts. (There is no shortage of facts.) It is not within the ArbCom's remit to consider whether the article on him should exist here. Charles Matthews 16:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline. I do not necessarily agree that the rationale expressed by the original blocking admins is sufficient justification for an ongoing ban. However, it is my view that Wikipedians are responsible for their actions off-wiki (c.f. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Arbitrators' views regarding IRC). Mr. Brandt's web site, as well as his posts in other public forums, goes well beyond fair criticism by publishing nonpublic contact information for Misplaced Pages editors. Thus, I would not support overturning the ban. Mr. Brandt above expresses concern that, as a banned user, he has no means of "expressing objections to biography, in violation of WP:BLP". However, he is free to share any ongoing concerns he has regarding his biography by email. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline. Although there are issues surrounding Daniel Brandt's indefinite block which are of some concern, the issue of Brandt's editing privileges is something of a red herring. I do not believe Brandt has any real interest in being a Misplaced Pages editor. Rather Brandt's real interests are, what I take to be, serious and legitimate concerns regarding the right to privacy and our articles about living people. In particular Brandt wants his own article deleted. I have some sympathy for Brandt's views in this regard, and I share the concerns of FCYTravis and others above, however deciding such issues are simply not within the Arbitration Committee's purview. Paul August ☎ 21:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline, and uphold the community ban, as per FloNight and others. Brandt has other avenues to complain about the content of an article on him; he was finally community-banned having behaved continually in ways that would have earned a ban much more quickly for most others, and has continued to behave unacceptably since. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Requests for clarification with regard to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Request_for_clarification_on_linking_to_attack_sites due to length

Requests for clarification with regard to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan

I’ve got a question with regard to Armenia – Azerbaijan arbcom case. The final decision says: After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year.

However many parties to this case have already been blocked during the arbcom case. Do those blocks count as a parole violation or the count starts from 0, as this new section implies:  ? This was discussed here: , however I believe that we need to make this perfectly clear for everyone to avoid conflicts with regard to interpretation of this decision. Thanks in advance. Regards, Grandmaster 17:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a clarification might be helpful here. During voting on the proposed decision, arbitrator FloNight stated in voting for several revert paroles that she was doing so "ith the reminder that blocks during the case count toward the duration of future blocks." Other arbitrators did not comment on this issue. Absent instructions to the contrary I believe admins enforcing the decision would follow FloNight's interpretation but it is appropriate that the ruling be clear.
Another question that occurs to me is whether the revert paroles apply to articles that the subject editors might edit on any subject, or only to articles relating in some fashion to Armenia and/or Azerbaijan. As written, the parole applies to all articles and I take it this is intended. Newyorkbrad 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Request to reopen Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was placed on article probation, but the terms do not allow direct enforcement by admins against disruptive editing. Rather, a review by the Arbitration Committee must be requested to determine whether further remedies are appropriate. This article has been the subject of numerous complaints at Arbitration enforcement of disruptive editing by single purpose accounts. I am not a party to the dispute, and I have not attempted to evaluate whether all the complaints are equally valid. Certainly some of the edits are by the banned anonymous editor's sock or meat puppets, which have grown increasingly good as masking their usual identifying characteristics. I believe that a review may be required to either sanction some editors or at least put in place a more muscular form of article probation. Thatcher131 15:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am convinced that the banned user, 195.82.106.244, is re-incarnating in various forms ranging from agressive to comical . After first appearance these usually escalate to a once or twice daily revert cycle. This user has also appeared to state his/her case on Thatcher131's talk page .
More recently another user, Green108 who I also strongly suspect is associated with the http://www.brahmakumaris.info website forums made a very agressive and attacking series of posts on the BKWSU article talk page and edits with what I consider to be a defiant, cavalier attitude. Attempts to reason with this editor were greated with the response, "...i am not interested in speaking with you" .
I would like to see a solution that strongly enforces the principles of the existing Arbcom ruling and the basic requirements of etiquette, civility, no personal attacks and good faith so that the responsible editors can continue without intimidation. I would also be happy with a solution where the article is only edited by trusted editors, even if that doesn't include me. A solution is required for the talk page as well as the article itself since the taunting and baseless accusations are off-putting for any would-be editors.
Thanks & regards Bksimonb 08:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Is Misplaced Pages capable of enforcing its desicions? Is the ArbCom for "real"? Does Misplaced Pages want an encyclopedic/academic article here with representative neutral input?
I would like to support BKSimonb idea of having this Brahma Kumaris article only edited by trusted editors. The details of how this could work could be discussed later once the principle of this idea is accepted. Blessings from the heart, avyakt7 09:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

i dont think there is a problem really ,some of us have learnt how to edit by the rules. on the 19th i came back and added 10 or 11 academic quotation at some considerable effort to myself......the Bks call this defiant and cavalier.

oh , i also removed two items one that had fact requests for over a month..........the other that is a separate organisation from the topic subject............and the Bks keep putting them back. i have a few more academic papers and a couple of books still ,

i want to be brief but i must state for the administrators benefit.......... what is "trusted"?

appledell, Bksimonb and avyakt7 are all Bks two of them at least are long term members and they are working as a team. the mentality of Bks is drilled like the marines from 4 am every morning through 6.30 am to 8 am class through constant meditation and going to meet God, in person, in India . they call themselves an army , and are taught they are fighting a war against maya or ravan (the devil). 99.999999% all they have done is edit the BKWSU topic and attack others that try to add stuff the Bks dont want made public and attack them with words like goading....aggressive......comical...suspicion....reverting everyone else. is it any surprise if reasonable people who are putting in energy eventually react against such pressure? i suppose it is what they want.............for goodness sake, they even revert changes when someone else fixes a spelling mistake just because

personally it is below me to sit here and pick out all they have said and done and inferred....................i am not interested. what i said to simon is that i did not want him to speak to me on my talk page. I do not want to personalise this ,i came back to add academic references to back up all the claims on the topic . its not personal. Green108 04:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Since the arbritration, several editors have taken the cue and provided references. Certainly the atmosphere seems more adversarial than, for example, the Cheese article, which contains few references, presumably because of general agreement among the editors about the history and manufacture of cheese. Nevertheless, the BKWSU article has, in my opinion, reached a higher standard of rigor than previously. Actions of the BK IT team mercilessly deleting material without citations, while adversarial, has resulted in an increase in cited material.Duality Rules 23:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I also think that the article is better than it used to be. I do not understand why BksimonbThatcher131 considers Green108's possible off-Misplaced Pages affiliation relevant. Andries 20:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Because I consider it to be an "attack" site with a clear agenda that is in opposition to the stated purposes of Misplaced Pages. If you look at some of the paragraphs above and imagine that it is jews or blacks being talked about instead of BKs then it should be quite obvious what the problem is. Also civility is a core policy on Misplaced Pages and that is the main basis of my complaint .
We have also been treated to a wonderful muppet show of sock and meat puppets since the arbcom ruling, you even welcomed one of them yourself  :-) Thatcher131 needs some way to enforce the principles of the arbcom ruling because right now someone or some people out there are using brute force, persistence and aggression to run rings around the rulings.
I have absolutely no problem with any editor that doesn't behave disruptively, for example, I have found Duality Rules to be perfectly reasonable and civil.
BTW I appreciate your input to the article. You raised some good points there. Bksimonb 07:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that affiliation with a website critical of a certain faith should be a problem on Misplaced Pages as long as somebody's wikipedia behavior is okay. For a comparison, I think it is crazy to ban all Christians who are memberrs of a local Christian community from the article Christianity. I am aware that most arbcom members will not agree with with me, but I continue to hold the opinion that their reasoning is completely flawed in this respect and I will continue to refute and oppose their reasoning wherever I see it. Andries 08:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Andries. I agree with you completely that affiliation with a critical website alone should not be a problem as long as someone's behavior is OK. That is why I mentioned Duality Rules because in the arbcom case he strongly promoted the site but I have found him to be civil and unbiased. So there is no problem there as far as I am concerned. The same can not be said of 244 who was found by arbcom to be uncivil, biased in editing and to have threatened another editor. The same applies to other editors who behave in a similar disruptive way. If the disruptive style is sufficiently similar then perhaps association with that website, that evidence suggests 244 is running and setting the whole tone of, has something to do with it.
Regards Bksimonb 12:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments by arbitrators

I have reviewed the editing and find it generally reasonable. Please continue to improve the article. Fred Bauder 16:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fred. Thank you for looking into this. Please let me know if you noticed the following edits (just a sample) and what your views are on them .
Thanks Bksimonb 05:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi again Fred. Actually, it just occurred to me I may have misconstrued your comment to imply that there is no reason to review the case when if fact you may have just been making an open-ended compliment. If it was the latter than sincere apologies and "thank you" on behalf of the involved editors :-) If the former then please consider recent developments linked above that demonstrate an agenda to bias the article with unreferenced contentious claims, remove any POV & citation warnings and offend other editors. Please clarify. Regards Bksimonb 20:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there are problems, but not sufficient for a review. Fred Bauder 11:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks for clarifying. Regards Bksimonb 15:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)


Archives

Categories: