Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:28, 9 October 2005

• ]

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

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

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

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

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

• Arbitration policy
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Precedents

Current requests

Template

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

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

User:ArmchairVexillologistDon - Reopening

Dtatement by Zscout370

Which the recent behavior at , which was filed by User:HistoryBA on October 2 2005 (about two weeks after the last RFAr closed), I am asking for the ArbCom to reconsider opening the case against AVD. While I know the last one closed between an agreement with AVD, User:Homeontherange and User:SlimVirgin, AVD did not get the message and wound up back at RFC. Recently, I have banned him for his statement at , but it will be lifted so that AVD could state his case here. While I have not been a major party to the main issues, but I still highly believe that no matter what we say or do, we cannot try to find a happy medium with AVD. Zach (Sound Off) 08:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

1. SlimVirgin: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:SlimVirgin#RfC_against_AVD
2. Homeontherange: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Homeontherange#RFAr
3. Ground Zero: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Ground_Zero#RFAr
4. RFC page against AVD: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/ArmchairVexillologistDon#RFAr
5. HistoryBA: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:HistoryBA#RFAr

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

User:Everyking 3 - reopening

With Everyking has withdrawn from the agreement that led to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 being closed. In light of this, and his continued harassment of admins on AN/I (Most recently his criticism of jguk when he had clearly done no research into the situation), I ask that Everyking 3 be reopened, and that the previous requested penalty of him being banned from AN/I be instituted, or at the very least that the voluntary agreement be re-instituted by decree. Snowspinner 22:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not criticize Jguk; I made a brief comment that the litany of evidence presented against him seemed "rather bad", and then I expressed a hope that he would show up to present his own side of the story, which he did. I find it unimaginable that Jguk could have taken what I said as criticism. Moreover Jguk is not an admin anyway (at least not on the list). If this is the best Snowspinner can think of to attack me with, my record must be virtually spotless.

The point of contention between us here is whether he should refrain from criticizing me as I have done with him (this arose because he recently attacked me in connection with his latest RfC). He refused to do so, so I withdrew from the agreement, since that's entirely unfair. If he would like to agree to that now, I will be happy to resume the agreement. Everyking 23:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

A) That was not part of the original agreement, and I am not incluned to have things added to the agreement after the fact. B) The only criticism I have made of you was in the context of your endorsing an RfC against me. Surely you are not proposing that your agreement allows you to endorse RfCs against me (Which I don't dispute that it does) but that it binds me from in any way responding to that endorsement. Snowspinner 23:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly what I propose: that the same apply to you as applies to me. If I would be allowed in the same situation to say the same thing you did, then you have a point, but this is not my understanding of the agreement. Everyking 23:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall any component of the agreement that bound me - in fact, if you look at the Everyking 3 page, you'll see that the agreement only ever bound you. Snowspinner 01:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall that James F. was present when this was being negotiated. I certainly would never have agreed to it if I hadn't thought the spirit of the agreement was that we would both hold ourselves to an equal standard. Everyking 23:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to suggest we disqualify Snowspinner from any further involvement regarding administrative action against Everyking. Not doing so would create an appearance of unfairness, even if there isn't any. We have a responsibility to take an extra effort in removing doubt about our impartiality in our administrative actions. Users who appear to carry a grudge, rightly or wrongly, simply shouldn't be involved because the community trusts these decisions to be made objectively and not emotionally. Any decision which results from this proposal will be seen as tainted by the community and as a result, it will almost certainly fail to be binding. --Gmaxwell 00:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Any further administrative action? What administrative action have I taken against him already? Snowspinner 01:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

any further involvement regarding administrative action. For example, bringing up this request. --Gmaxwell 02:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

How is raising an arbcom request administrative action? It's not as though I'm an arbitrator and capable of voting on it, nor as though I wouldn't recuse if I were. What grounds can there be for stripping my ability to raise arbcom cases against a user? Particularly when the user in question has been the subject of two arbcom cases, and two mediated agreements, both of which he renegged on, and I have never once been reprimanded or sanctioned for my conduct in relation to him or any other issue? Snowspinner 23:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I think everybody knows why you have not been reprimanded or sanctioned for your conduct (yet?), and it doesn't speak well of you or the ArbCom. Everyking 00:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I think everybody knows why... You would be wrong. How about enlightening those of us not into reading tea leaves? --Calton | Talk 01:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

He seems to be a very strong influence on the ArbCom, frequently putting forward cases which are invariably accepted and recommending penalties which the ArbCom usually goes along with, which makes it very unlikely that they would sanction him (maybe after the elections, if there's a major shake-up), even though he's done more wrong than half the people they've banned outright. It also makes it effectively impossible for me to get justice when he's the accusing party. Everyking 01:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you've returned to your conspiracy theories, though I assure you, it's actually all the Gnomes of Zurich (Which had better not be a redlink. I'll cry if it's a redlink.) Snowspinner 02:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Right, well, it's fitting that you'd disparage the logical conclusion as a "conspiracy theory". Actually I expected you to respond with the "me and the ArbCom are very reasonable, unlike you, and great minds think alike" argument, so I'll give you a point for originality. Everyking 02:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, you know, I've made all the reasonable points enough times, now I've pretty much got to resort to the absurd ones involving gnomes. Snowspinner 02:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Gmaxwell

The arbcom also decided to warn Snowspinner not to bait Everyking. As an outsider to the dispute it is clear to me that Snowspinner did not heed this warning. While the agreement in question was only between EK and the Arbcom (or the community, if you will), we have failed to uphold our side of the bargain by failing to later add teeth to the warning when it wasn't heeded. It's always better to ask than to order, but we must accept the consequences of our more conservative actions, Quite a few others have expressed the thought that the enforced cease fire should be bilateral. If anything goes forward here, I would suggest that it be a rethinking of the nature of that warning to snowspinner. Surely we should not take action against EK based on that comment on Snowspinner's talkpage, even if we accept that it has meanging at all it was quite clearly conditional on Snowspinners compliance with the warning. --Gmaxwell 00:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Please find me this warning. I am unaware of it. And, again - are you seriously saying that if Everyking weighs in on an RfC against me, I'm blocked from responding? Snowspinner 01:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner's response to my RfC endorsement is this: "What a surprise. Now you , Mirv, and Everyking have all weighed in against me. At this rate, I expect to wake up tomorrow and see that the sun rises in the east." Surely that's a personal attack by any standard. Anyway, again I ask whether he would tolerate the same out of me, in the context of our agreement? Everyking 01:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by RN

I concur with Gmaxwell. It seems to me Everyking followed his ruling to the letter until now (in a rather unfortunate incident). Maybe if Everyking and Snowspinner just agree not to get into these useless fights with each other the arbcom members would be satisfied? I find a re-opening of this case very tragic as Everyking is one of the best editors here, and from what I hear Snowspinner is a good editor too. I'd just hope they'd agree to take some time off from each other. People may find Everyking's criticisms annoying but that does not seem to partian to this particular case, and really, criticism for admins is a good thing I think, even if some think it smacks of conspiracy theories :). Ryan Norton 01:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on reopening this matter (3/0/1/0)

• Reopen; a new case seems unnecessary. James F. (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

  FWIW, Everyking's suggestion that the agreement was two-way is laughable. I wish this problem would go away of its own accord, rather than return to us e'er and on. James F. (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Reopen Fred Bauder 01:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain for the moment (if I do accept, it'll be to accept it as a whole new case to consider the larger issues involving EK). Before we accept yet-another case, I'd like to see if it's possible to resurrect the agreement. →Raul654 05:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Reopen ➥the Epopt 04:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Lightbringer on Freemasonry

Involved parties

• User:MSJapan et al.
• User:Lightbringer

The unsupported edits being made by User: Lightbringer to Freemasonry have led to a revert war, which has made it difficult to add new and better information to the existing article.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Notice on Lightbringer's Talk page is here and a notice was also posted on the Freemasonry Talk page here

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

User:Lightbringer states clearly on his user page that he is anti-Masonic. He was asked to support his evidence; he did not do so. Someone has also seen fit to vandalize his user page, which is a separate issue. He continually reposts edits that have been proven to be false in other discussions, and makes claims that essentially boil down to "you're biased against my bias". He has shown himself to be unwilling to accept other viewpoints, and merely rants at the injustice he sees visited upon him by "pro-Masonic" people (i.e., thew people who are trying to make sure everything is factual and cited), which makes any further attempt as resolution futile.

I certainly do not make any such statement about anti-masonry on my page. It is an interesting insight into the mentality of Freemasons however as it show anyone who says they have an open mind and refuse to accept Masonic claims at face value as being ipso facto 'anti-masonic'. The label of 'anti-masonry' is theirs not mine. A critic perhaps, but so what is the problem with that? Furthermore there has been absolutely no attempt at dispute resolution, this is a complete falsehood. They have insulted and belittled me continually as an 'anti-mason', offer no references or explanations, and engage in bullying and 'tagteam' deleting of anything I post.

It is quite curious that it is MSJapan making the arbitration request as actually 90% of the 'edit wars' have been between myself and 'Dreamguy', another Mason who 'edits' here. This indicates that the Masons here are closely working together here co-ordinating their 'editing' of Misplaced Pages by e-mails to each other.

This entire 'dispute' centers around my refusal to let stand these Masonic 'editors' continual deletion of links to articles about Freemasonry that THEY don't like, primarily the article by the Archdiocese of Arlington, Virgina and the New York Times aritcle about a fatal shooting inside a Masonic Lodge ritual. The remainder of the edit wars came after it became clear to me that these Masons would not be reasonable and allow both sides of the story to be included here. Dreamguy in particular refused to allow any link to articles that contained information about the Freemasonry theories in the Jack the Ripper killings. Remember we are just talking about the posting of a couple of external links here. After realising what other "edits" the masons were doing here to an otherwise balanced article(you can see MSJapans idea of edits he made on Oct. 6), which are a slow march wholesale deletion of the balanced Misplaced Pages article on freemasonry replacing it with propaganda cut and pasted from Masonic websites.

MSJapan and Dreamguy are not doing any research they are just turning this page into a mirror of dozens if not hundreds of other 'official' masonic p.r. websites. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be different, including both sides of the debate.Lightbringer 13:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by MSJapan

User:Lightbringer has repeatedly reinserted an edit regarding Freemasonry and Satan Worship that has been factually proved wrong, yet he deleted that part of the argument in favor of his own viewpoint. Through discussion, he has shown that he is not at all interested in NPOV, but rather in showing the world the evils of Freemasonry through uncited or poorly cited sources, relying on zealotry rather than fact.

I have shown him clearly and objectively why his edits were refused, yet he stll persists in making and remaking the same edits. He ranted about a Washington Post article being removed, when it was a copyright violation in the first place. He cited a book unconnected with Freemasonry except via its author's status as a Mason as a source for Freemasons worshipping Satan. He took another quote out of context, in the process removing the statemrnt that the quote's existence is not disputed; only the interpretation.

This constant need to revert edits is causing we the editors to have to spend more time fixing the Freemasonry article than we do contributing to the polishing up of the article by adding citations.

Furthermore, from looking at the talk pages, Lightbringer is confusing facts and trying to support conspiracy theories with other conspiracy theories. He would rather post material that is supportive of his point of view, even if they havebeen proved to be factually inaccurate or clearly violate copyrights. His recent actions have spurred a revert war, the article is now at a length warning, and a request has been made to lock the article. This is getting out of hand and really needs to be dealt with swiftly. MSJapan 02:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The article was locked, with the result that the Talk page is now a mess. There also seems to have been complaints made on Lightbringer's Talk page regarding some bad edits to Jack the Ripper and Juwes(noted by User:CambridgeBayWeather), a similar denial of wrongdoing, and furthermore, a distinct possibility that Lightbringer was or is using a sockpuppet called User:Squaredeal to perform the same sorts of edits he was making as Lightbringer. I was unaware of this until now, but I think this definitely points to the existence of a systematic issue regarding Lightbringer and any tangentially Masonically related subject. MSJapan 02:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by DreamGuy

I'll try to keep this brief. User:Lightbringer now denies being an anti-Mason, but his edit history is quite clear, focusing only on edits to Freemasonry, Jack the Ripper, Juwes, and many others solely to include information from highly discredited anti-Mason sources as if they were factual. His first edits were on an anon IP account, User:24.68.243.40, where the exact same edits he has taken up under the Lightbringer banner started. His comments on that page shows that he thinks Masons are "are stupid and they are liars." Note that even the name of his account is a reference to the claim that Freemasons worship Lucifer. He falsely claims that I am a Freemason solely because I undo his policy-violating edits, and he makes personal attacks against anyone and everyone who removes the bias he keeps inserting. A quick look at his edit history shows no attempt to follow the NPOV, WP:V and WP:NPA policies. He is now full aware that his attempted edits on Freemasonry go against clear consensus and violate policy, yet he consistently puts them back (accompanied by insults) regardless of the number of editors who remove it. DreamGuy 04:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Lightbringer

'They are stupid and they are liars' - in the first place that is taken out of context, it was in reference to the behaviour of Masons at Dmoz gaining control of the Opposing Views catagory and refusing to post links to websites with actual opposing views, but instead doing what Dreamguy is doing in the Satanism paragraph, turning it into a lampoon of "antis". In the second place the offending phrase was 'up' for only 30 seconds as I thought the better of it 'in the spirit of not making personal attacks' and deleted it. You can verify this for yourself if you care to.

It is extremely difficult to retain ones 'cool' when one is being provoked by Dreamguy and others. He maliciously stalked me, wherever and whenever I made an edit on wikipedia he found it and deleted it, almost always with a derogatory comment about 'this antimason has a pov and his references have all been discredited' or some such malarky. Then when I didn't go away after his taunts about never allowing me to contribute, they dreamt up this plan to have me banned from Misplaced Pages, first by the false charge of 'sockpuppetry' and now by this arbitration, which you will see in the post by MSJapan on my talk page, is actually directed at me personally.

I posted quotations from Masonic books giving author and page numbers that related to Masonic teachings about Lucifer. MSJapan, a Freemason keeps deleting them. He has provided no justification for his deletions, in fact he usually clandestinely deletes them as part of his edits on different paragraphs.

I posted links to articles from The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Arlington, Virgina Catholic Herald on the topic of Freemasonry. MS Japan, a Freemason keeps deleting them. He has provided no justifications for his deletions, in fact he usually clandestinely deletes them as part of his edits on different paragraphs.

I explained in Talk section that MSJapan and another Mason editor were 'cut and pasting' material from Masonic websites in violation of Misplaced Pages's terms of use. The material was lengthy and seem designed to push down to the bottom of the page the critical viewpoints. Material included lengthy links to Masonic Grand Lodges and questionable and lengthy material documenting the supposed history of the Grand Lodge of Estonia. I placed the material on new seperate pages as the Misplaced Pages message at top of page stated article was getting too long at 76kb. MSJapan reverted all of the edits with no explanation.

MSJapan continues to go through the article on Freemasony and delete and modify any entry or line, written by others not I, that could call into questions any aspect of masonic teachings. I point in particular to his edit of Oct 06 that attempted to delete the history of athiesm in Freemasonry. MSJapan considers this "improving the page".

Additional activity by MSJapan and his Masonic confederates includes repeatedly placing derogatory "explanations" after any non-masonic webpage links, and continually deleting links to non-masonic websites that question their own narrow masonic p.o.v..

In fact I can say with certainty that not a single solitary edit I have made, no matter how minor, has not been reverted by MSJapan and his Masonic confederates who obviously feel the Misplaced Pages entry on Freemasonry is the sole editorial preserve of Masons. I find these Masons continual deletion of a link to an article written by the Rector of the Archdiocese of Arlington, Virgina on the subject of Freemasonry and Catholicism, with no explanation ever given, extremely offensive and no doubt motivated by hate.Lightbringer 18:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Pjacobi

I've stumbled over Lightbringer's edits in Taxil hoax, , , . I've reverted the first two ones, because they looked rather strange and like a complete unsourced reversal of the article. As the third one was at least formally semi-reasonable, I didn't revert that one but asked on the talk page and informed Lightbringer . The reversal was later done by others, no party using the talk page. --Pjacobi 20:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I did that last revert, because I couldn't even get through the first sentence without tripping over the grammar. :-) I'm willing to consider reverting my change and trying to clean up instead, but I'm not sure there's much point.--SarekOfVulcan 23:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverted. --SarekOfVulcan 23:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Spinboy

I don't contribute to the Freemasonry article regularly, just a minor edit here or there to revert edits. I should also note I am not a mason. If you look at Lightbrigher's contributions, you can see he purposely seeks out articles related to mason's, and reverts edits where he believes masons have undue influence, in fact, he'll go out to tip the balance of an article.

Comments he has made in his edit summaries:

• revert vandalism of link by Masonic Hysteric
• restored deletion vandalism by extremely P.O.V. biased and intolerant Masonic editor who has had many complaints made against him across Misplaced Pages
• reverted vandalism by junior member of Masonic Sockpuppetry Tagteam
• reverted deletions of links to NYT & Washington Post and additional quotes about Lucifer, plus MS Japans latest Masonic Propaganda deletions and cut and past copyright violations

As can be seen, he does not contribute to any article that isn't involved with masons, or that he believes is involved with masons. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by CambridgeBayWeather

While involved in RC patrol I came across what appeared to be a copyrighted article on List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects from Freemasonry Watch that had been placed there by . I tagged it with a copyvio notice. A few minutes later I realised my error and went back and reverted it to the last non-copyright version. After checking to see if there were any more edits by this user I found that Juwes was also a direct copy from Freemasonry Watch and I reverted it. I also notified Lightbringer on his talk page. He has since stated that these articles are not copyright material, and while not expressly stated on the Freemasonry Watch page I would, and did, assume that the copyright is implied. He also, without proof, stated that "you and other Masons don't seem to mind continually cut and pasting Masonic propaganda directly from Masonic websites." I am not a Mason and I do not believe that I have made any edits to any other Masonic themed page. I have most certainly not copied any material from any website, be it Masonic or otherwise. I was unaware of any edit war going on between these parties and of this RfA until notified of it by User:MSJapan CambridgeBayWeather 03:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

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

• Accept Fred Bauder 22:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 04:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Researcher99 on the Polygamy and Group marriage pages

Involved parties

• User:Researcher99
• User:Nereocystis

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

notification of Researcher99

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• 6 June 16:40 Nereocystis requested 3rd opinion.
• 18 June 10:29 Hawstom suggests forgetting past conduct, starts poll on resolving differences.
• 16 August 13:54 Uriah923 attempts informal mediation.
• 7 October 19:14 Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Researcher99
• 13 September 23:14 Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Researcher99 and Nereocystis Researcher99's AMA advocate started the mediation, then Researcher dropped out of mediation. 13 September

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Researcher99 has repeatedly refused attempts at resolving differences with User:Nereocystis on the Polygamy and Group marriage pages.

Most recently, on 30 September, Researcher99 refused mediation if it included a discussion of the text of the polygamy article.

Previously, I filed an RFC about Researcher99's behavior. Only Researcher99 and his advocate supported his version of the results. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Researcher99.

Researcher99 did not agree to attempts at resolving differences in the following edits:

18 July Researcher99 opposes Hawstom's poll, offers no alternative

18 July Nereocystis suggests Association of Member Advocates for Researcher99, mediation or arbitration. No response from Researcher99

28 July Nereocystis suggests mediation]. No response from Researcher99.

Researcher99 refused to discuss the article and insisted that we discuss past actions:

August 5 Researcher99 suggests resolution, insists that Nereocystis defer to Researcher99's proven expertise.

Researcher99 has been repeatedly abusive toward Nereocystis.

16 May created Solution Needed for Gangs of Sneaky Vandals

29 September Researcher99 states that being polite is abusive here:

7 September Researcher99 compares Nereocystis to a rapist and a terrorist

29 September Mediator asks question about what Researcher99 wants; question is unanswered

30 September long rambling post by Researcher99 accusing Nereocystis of fake graciousness, refuses to discuss content]

1 October Mediator asks Researcher99 question which is not answered

Researcher99 is a Christian polygamist. His edits about Christian polygamy are POV, and he refuses to consider writing them in an NPOV format. He insists that his Christian polygamy group is the only such group, though there are others. See Talk:Polygamy/Archive 4#Possible theory about BFree, citation removal, and Love-not-Force URL for my research, and his response.

He engages in link spam. Researcher99 posts many sites which are hosted by standardbearer.com, which is a Christian polygamy group which I believe is run by Researcher99:

1. http://www.pro-polygamy.com Pro-Polygamy.com
2. http://www.lovenotforce.com
3. http://www.christianpolygamy.info
4. http://www.truthbearer.org
5. http://www.anti-polygamy.com
6. http://www.2wives.com

Researcher99 removes links to Christian polygamy sites which he disagrees with:

• removed 2 links to Christian polygamy groups
• Talk:Polygamy/Archive 4#Invalid links

Nereocystis 19:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

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

• Accept and merge Fred Bauder 21:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 04:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Abuses on Polygamy article

Involved parties

• User:Researcher99 (initiating party through official AMA advocate User:Imaglang aka Neigel von Teighen)
• User:Nereocystis

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Nereocystis has been informed

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Researcher99
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Researcher99 and Nereocystis (mediation failed)

Statement by advocate of party 1

Statement by User:Researcher99's advocate Neigel von Teighen as it can be confirmed by

User:Nereocystis has incurred in a long term abusive behaivor against User:Researcher99 (aka Researcher) in the Polygamy page and, specially, in Talk:Polygamy. This user believes that Researcher has been doing POV edits in the article and so it does think my 'client' about Nereocystis, but that is not the main point of this case. The discussion of either the content is POV or not has been totally displaced by abuses performed by Nereocystis as it can be shown by the list of diffs at the bottom of the statement. Thus, we're seeking the Misplaced Pages:Civility policy to be applied.

Preliminary evidence:

• (Sorry, this diff is an edit made by another user not involved in the dispute! --Neigel von Teighen 22:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC))

I have contacted User:Researcher99 by mail so he can send his statement soonly. Thank you. --Neigel von Teighen 23:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

I am out of time, today, to completely respond here, but I will come back and do so in the next day or so. I am also aware of the great difficulty for me to try to present this abuse situation in under 500 words, which I am not sure can really be effectively accomplished in this very comprehensive problem. One recent post I made does give a very brief insight into the abuse problem, this DIFF here. But there is so much more to report. Until I can come back and specify more, this situation still has mountains of evidence of the abuse to read, about the "running right over me." A serious chronology is provided in My Response to the RfC that was made against me. Please also see that RfC's TALK page. After that, please see my posts in the subsequent RfM. As one of my latest posts there comprehensively shows, no matter how many times I explain something, they "run right over me" anyway and even make outright false statements against me. There is so much abuse to report that I do not know how else to say it without laying down all the mountains of evidence. If deemed preferable, I would be glad to proceed on a step-by-step basis of smaller digestible chunks if that helps. While waiting for my subsequent reply here, understanding the situation all begins with the chronology given at My Response to the RfC. Researcher 20:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I am back to add more now. I will do my best to add what I can. Since a week ago Wednesday, the only contact I have had from my AMA advocate, Neigel von Teighen, has been one email they sent to me a couple days ago. It was only to let me know that Neigel von Teighen had made this RfArb. So, without their help at this particular moment, I will still try to offer some background and purpose for this RfArb.

I am not the kind of person who came to Misplaced Pages to practically live here. Instead, I am a different kind of user, I come only to provide expert knowledge of years of research into a little-known topic called polygamy. Unlike Nereocystis who seems to spend every waking moment at Misplaced Pages and cleverly knows how to manipulate the Misplaced Pages procedures to abuse me, I am not a Misplaced Pages expert. I am only a topical expert/researcher.

The polygamy article rarely gets much editing attention actually. The most attention it ever got at any one time is only when Nereocystis creates a controversy to call for others. They know that finding other anti-polygamists to join them is easy to do. They bring others to the article by creating things such as the RfC against me and previously inciting a very suspicious AfD of the anti-polygamy article I had tried to create as a resolution possibility. As we proceed here, I have many DIFFs to show the hostile anti-polygamy POV agenda and reasons why these suspicions are not unreasonable to ask.

I first encountered Nereocystis in the debate they created on the polygamy TALK page from 09:36, 29 December 2004 through 20:10, 13 January 2005. It was regarding their edit and my corrective adjustment while I was also trying to still accomodate some of what they had added. As the debate shows, while I was trying to accomodate them but with accuracy, they would have none of it. Finally, they "left" fo a few months.

Eventually, a "new" user showed up, called Ghostintheshell. (As I will show later, I believe that "new" user is the same as Nereocystis.) Pretending to be a "pro Muslim polygamy," Ghostintheshell instead was a sneaky anti-polygamist who deliberately pushed me into an edit war. As one who is not a Misplaced Pages expert, I mistakenly fell into my first and only error of WP:3RR. The only thing I had been trying to do was to return the article back to the STATUS QUO so that a discussion could then be had. Ghostintheshell would have none of it. They used outlandish obfuscatory tactics calling false things true and vice versa. On May 7, I posted a lengthy evidence of the chronology of the events, called, The Ghostintheshell Situation. The outline of that evidence may be read first by starting at the top of the Archive page here. In it, I explained the call for the Misplaced Pages Guideline to restore any contorvesial article to STATUS QUO and then to TALK, when things like that happen. In Section 1.2, I very clearly spelled it out, "Throughout, I sought Wiki Guidelines: STATUS QUO until TALKed." That section there provides the principles of the "Don't Be Reckless" Misplaced Pages Guideline.

That "Don't Be Reckless" Misplaced Pages Guideline is the entire premise of what I have been calling for ever since.

Just as the TALK page was in that situation on May 7, 2005, Nereocystis came "back" on May 10, 2005.

The next day, Ghostintheshell made their very last post, admitting they had violated the WP:3RR by creating a new account to circumvent the temporary suspension. Later that very day, Nereocystis made their first edit again.

It is is very necessary to understand what Nereocystis knew was going on at that very moment. They knew that I was still in that situation with Ghostintheshell on the TALK page. They knew that the very lengthy The Ghostintheshell Situation was on the TALK page there and that I was still involved in solving that. Most importantly of all, Nereocystis knew that I was calling for the "Don't Be Reckless" Misplaced Pages Guideline to be followed, for us to first restore the article to STATUS QUO in order to then TALK about any changes.

Nereocystis ignored all that and began an editing rampage to the article. Since Nereocystis's first return back to the polygamy TALK pages and first editing the next day, they have been on a very aggressive strategy of "running right over me" and undermining every single thing I do. I came to spend my time helping Misplaced Pages on the topics I am an expert/researcher, but instead Nereocystis has so sabotaged everything I do that I have not been allowed to do anything but deal with this abuse, for almost six months now. It has so destroyed the fun of the Misplaced Pages experience for me, which is only to share my knowledge.

On May 16, I posted the evidence to TALK, Solution Needed for Gangs of Sneaky Vandals. On May 27, I explained how these were clearly anti-polygamists, with Sneaky Vandals' Anti-Polygamy Destruction of Polygamy Wiki.

Throughout, Nereocystis has undertaken an enormous effort to abuse me, by constantly "running right over me."

In my attempts to follow the Misplaced Pages Guidelines to restore to STATUS QUO so that we could then TALK, Nereocystis destroyed everything I did.

• My 13 edits of 19:09, 6 June 2005 to 20:20, 6 June 2005 were then all rv'ed by Nereocystis on 22:09, 6 June 2005.
• My 18 edits of 14:24, 30 June 2005 to 16:38, 30 June 2005 were then all rv'ed by Nereocystis on 17:05, 1 July 2005.
• My 11 edits of 16:42, 8 July 2005 to 16:58, 8 July 2005 were then all rv'ed by Nereocystis on 16:59, 8 July 2005.

As we proceed, here's a list of just some more of things which they did:

• Sneakily sabotaged the creation of the anti-polygamy article, a resolution possibility I was offering. (Eventually, that wrongly deleted anti-polygamy article will need to be undeleted.)
• Refused the completely NPOV resolution offer I made on group marriage TALK page (DIFF here).
• Refused the smallest of efforts for a WIN-WIN in a resolution in August I had offered, which we almost achieved (until interrupted.) See: Researcher's Offer for RESOLUTION 5 August 2005.
• After a newcomer, Uriah923, interrupted that August resolution with a possibility to help, but when Uriah923 also "ran right over me" before I had even had a chance to really decide anything about it, Nereocystis tried to accuse me of refusing it and so they "ran right over me" anyway.
• They made the outrageous RfC against me.
• When my AMA advocate made the RfM, Nereocystis refused the only declared purpose of it that the AMA advocate had stated, but then sneakily tried to say that "I" was the one supposedly "refusing Mediation."
• Misrepresents what I say.
• Makes me answer issues several times, even forcing me to say the same thing numerous times more before they might listen.
• Has used the identical obfuscatory tactics as Ghostintheshell.
• Has Called NPOV as POV and called POV as NPOV.
• Has lied more than once.
• Has acted extremely aggressively.
• Has abused me with an extreme double standard.
• Has had the agenda to always look to see if they can falsely accuse me of "refusing resolution."
• Keeps doing the hypocrisy of trying to say I am some public figure in polygamy while they simultaneously deny hearing my proven knowledge of the topic which they do not know much about. If I was that person, then they are actually admitting that that I have that much knowledge, while they target me with their abuse.
• In their vindictive copied RfArb, they introduce a new idea of "link spam." They do that while knowing the proven-quality and reocgnized sites are using a community webhost, and knowing that they are inventing "groups" out of previously-explained rejected lunatic-fringe one-man sites. That proves they are the ones trying to fill the article with spam, not me.

I know there are more things to point out, but the list is starting to become overwhelming. I also need to be as brief as possible. I can come back and Wikify this more. I can also provide DIFFS as we proceed.

As I have only just recently learned the term "sockpuppets" here (the DIFF is here), I do believe a serious question of sockpuppets does very seriously apply to Nereocystis. While I may have only just learned the term, I have long been saying that I think Nereocystis might be others. I do believe an investigation needs to be made into the very suspicious similarities and behaviors of 63.167.159.194, 209.33.198.237, Ghostintheshell, Spatfield, and possibly even Kewp (from here and here) and other easily-found anti-polygamists ready to gang up on a minority expert.

All I have sought is the STATUS QUO according to the Misplaced Pages Guidelines, especially the "Don't Be Reckless" guideline. So, I have never refused anything. I simply want the Guidelines followed and the abuse to end. Instead, though, I have been the target of hostile anti-polygamists' abuse of "running right over me" and trying to make my experience so miserable that I eventually leave Misplaced Pages. I am hoping this can be resolved once and for all. I only want to get to the NPOV content-writing of the polygamy related articles, as that is what I know about.

I hope to hear from my AMA advocate soon. I hope I have done correctly here what I am supposed to do. - Researcher 20:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Another quick update of additional information.

Here is another example of what Nereocystis does to me. They tacticly overwhelm a situation with multiple issues or "questions" all at once and then unreasonably expect me to have the time to immediately answer all of them, knowing it is not possible for me. Then they turn around and misrepresent my inability to have the time to answer everything they as if it means I somehow ignored or rejected it. Here's an example from their Statement on this RfArb. They accuse me of supposedly "dropping out" of the Mediation request (when it was they who rejected the only one valid basis of the RfM.). As my edit-comments on a recent post I made to the RfM, explained, it is "Impossible to say I 'refused mediation' when I said SEVEN TIMES what this RfM is about." Despite that, they still "run right over me" even here and continue to make the false accusation again on this RfArb. They know that I can only respond with limited time availability. So, they cleverly accuse me of "dropping out" because I allocated my limited time to reponding here on this RfArb rather than on the RfM. If I had instead allocated it to replying to the RfM, then they just as abusively turn around and would accuse me of not answering the RfArb here.

The anti-polygamists have been "outed" despite their claims to the contrary. It is necessary to read the entire section of the evidence-piece, titled, Sneaky Vandals' Anti-Polygamy Destruction of Polygamy Wiki. Before reading it, please review its entire outline of subheadings at the top of the page there. It is Section 3 there. Second, it will be necessary to see the entire activity of how the anti-polygamy article was sneakily deleted immediately from very suspicious means. The suspiciously deleted anti-polygamy article, its TALK page, and the VfD discussion are all archived here. (By "suspicious," I refer to the whole issue of its being called for deletion, not just that it got deleted.) Third, for additional data on the suspicious maters surrounding the deleted anti-polygamy article, it is also essential to read the entire evidence piece, title, Nereocystis acted recklessly aggressive - 2 Examples of Proof. Like the above piece, it will be helpful to first read the outline of subheadings at the top of the page there. It is Section 1 there. As those all show, it is a common tactic of anti-polygamists to pretend to be "pro-polygamy" specifically with the purpose of attacking polygamy. In addition to those necessary pieces of evidence to read, I will be able to provide additional DIFFs, proving anti-polygamists.

At this point, I have run out of further time to add any more here. I might possibly have more time later today. If not, then I will try to come back after the weekend, at the start of next workweek. (Weekends are always tough for me.) Researcher 20:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

AMA advocate preliminary evidence #6 (currently visible as ) is stated a bit stronger than I usually prefer, but Researcher99 consistently refuses to answer direct questions and often refuses to provide references.

AMA advocate preliminary evidence #8 (currently visible as shows that I suggested mediation, and many other steps for resolving our differences.

Unfortunately, I don't know quite what I am being accused of.

We did try mediation in Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Researcher99 and Nereocystis. However, the mediation fell apart when Researcher99 refused to allow a discussion of the content of the polygamy article, as suggested by the mediator.

Researcher99 did not agree to attempts at resolving differences in the following edits:

18 July Researcher99 opposes Hawstom's poll, offers no alternative

18 July Nereocystis suggests Association of Member Advocates for Researcher99, mediation or arbitration. No response from Researcher99

28 July Nereocystis suggests mediation]. No response from Researcher99.

Researcher99 has been repeatedly abusive toward Nereocystis:

16 May created Solution Needed for Gangs of Sneaky Vandals

29 September Researcher99 states that being polite is abusive here:

7 September Researcher99 compares Nereocystis to a rapist and a terrorist

Nereocystis 08:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not an anti-polygamist; I support the legalization of polygamy. I consider Researcher99's claims otherwise to be a personal attack, though perhaps a mild one if it weren't repeated so frequently.

I don't use sockpuppets. I once made an anonymous edit, though it wasn't on a polygamy-related article. I'm willing to check specific edits to determine whether I accidentally made other anonymous edits. I am not Ghostintheshell, Spatfield, or Kewp. I have communicated with 2 out of the 3 of these and each has verified that they are not me. Researcher99 seems to believe that everyone who disagrees with him is one of my sockpuppets.

I am not sneaky. I make my edits publicly.

I did revert many of Researcher99's changes, and requested that he explain the changes on the Talk:Polygamy page:

• 6 June 16:38
• 1 July 11:03
• 1 July 10:12
• 8 July 10:30

I discussed deleted the anti-polygamy article, but I did not vote on the deletion of the article; I preferred to leave the vote to people not involved in the polygamy dispute. I was not sneaky. `

Statement by uninvolved third party PurplePlatypus

I am a relatively new user going over the RfA page basically just to see how everything works. I have not edited any articles related to polygamy or otherwise interacted with Nereocystis, Researcher99 or anyone else who I am aware of being involved in this dispute in any way.

Having said that, it appears to me that this case (unlike the immediately above one, against Researcher99) is completely frivolous. At the moment, the "preliminary evidence" links above are visible as 3 through 10. I don't see the slightest evidence of abuse by Nereocystis toward Researcher99 in any of them, and in fact several of them point to evidence of the reverse. It is not at all clear what Neighel or R99 thinks is inappropriate about any of them. I see good-faith edits, wholly appropriate requests for references, and quotes of abusive statements by R99. Only the one currently labeled #7 seems slightly questionable (if there is a serious dispute about whether this constitutes precendence, don't claim it does; leave arguing about what the law is to the lawyers) and one slightly iffy edit hardly seems grounds for an arbcom case.

This being the case, I would be interested in the reasons why two arbcom members so far have accepted the case; personally my instinct would be to reject it on the grounds that no evidence of wrongdoing has been presented and that the whole case is almost certainly retaliatory in nature. Obviously everyone on the arbcom knows vastly more than I do about Misplaced Pages arbitration, and so there could easily be something I am overlooking. If this is the case, I look forward to being educated on it (in some venue such as the RfA talk page, or my own talk page - this page is not for discussion, though I notice there is some here and there anyway). PurplePlatypus 07:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I should add that I posted the above before R99 posted his statement. However, it would have changed little had this not been the case. R99 has not, as far as my admittedly incomplete check could determine, actually pointed to any abusive behaviour towards him, and has in fact arguably pointed to some by him. Most of his links are not to actual evidence of abuse, or indeed even to other people's edits at all, but to lengthy and nearly incoherent rants written by himself. If there were abuse, he could point to the actual abusive edits and they would speak for themselves. Where's the beef? While R99 has exceeded the 500 word limit by a factor of nearly four, he does not appear to have actually said anything. PurplePlatypus 05:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Outside party Kewp

I have been involved with the dispute on the Polygamy page for almost two months. From what I have seen, Researcher99 is a very difficult person to work with, he is disingenuous about his actions and extremely dismissive of other editors (not limited to Nereocystis) who come to the polygamy page.

Particularly disturbing is his edit to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Researcher99 on September 15 . In this edit, Researcher99 responded to separate comments that Nereocystis and I had made expressing our concern over this edit that Researcher99 had made refusing mediation and comparing other users to a rapist and a terrorist. In his response to my concerns, Researcher99 whitewashes the fact that he had made an incredibly offensive post by choosing to ignore it and instead accusing me (and Nereocystis) of "lying" because Researcher99 had made a subsequent post in which he said he was "open to mediation," a statement which I hadn't seen, due to my carelessness and anger at the fact that he used the words "rapist" and "terrorist" to describe another user , an action for which Researcher 99 has never apologized.

In his same September 15th comment , Researcher99 wrote "Could it be that Nereocystis is Kewp?" and alleged that I was a sockpuppet of Nereocystis. He repeated this baseless accusation here . Researcher99's advocate, Neigel von Teighen also alluded to my being a sockpuppet here . Researcher99 never amended or withdrew his comments about my being a sockpuppet.

When Neigel von Teighen posted the Rfa against Nereocystis his first piece of evidence against Nereocystis, was, in fact, the same post that I, Kewp, had made earlier concerning Researcher99's comment comparing other users to rapists and terrorists. I requested that Neigel von Teighen clarify this matter , but he has so far ignored me. It seems to be another attempt to accuse me of being a sockpuppet, and a disingenuous attempt at obscuring the matter at hand. Nereocystis has already mentioned this above, but I wanted to comment on the matter since my actions were listed under "abuses performed by Nereocystis," which is totally incorrect. --Kewp (t) 09:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Neigel von Teighen has subsequently removed my edit from the list of alleged "abuses performed by Nereocystis." However, Researcher99 has just repeated the allegation above, again with no real proof.--Kewp (t) 06:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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

• Accept and merge Fred Bauder 21:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Mike Garcia

Involved parties

• Mike Garcia (Michael)
• Fvw

• Possibly also Guanaco and Danny, his mentors, as well as Jimbo Wales, the architect of his current mentorship arrangement.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

User talk:Mike Garcia User talk:Danny User talk:Guanaco User talk:Jimbo Wales

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried. If not, then explain why that would be fruitless.

This is a continuation of a previous issue that was hoped to have been handled but as it turns out the remedy either didn't work or has stopped working. I don't see how an RfC would help given the number of people who have already made clear that they disapprove of Mike's behaviour, and mediation isn't appropriate as this isn't about content but about behaviour, and the behaviour issues are clearly policy violations.

Statement by Fvw

Mike has a long history of problems on wikipedia, though for a while after Jimbo unbanned him things seemed to be under control. The last few months he has been getting progressively more troublesome however: He has made personal attacks, threatened people, repeatedly violated the 3RR, removed comments of people reporting him for 3RR violations from WP:AN/3RR and user talk pages, evaded blocks editing under different IPs (which also violates his agreement with Jimbo), and generally broken CIV in every way possible.

Though I must commend Danny and Guanaco for their effort in taking on such a mentorship in the first place, I feel that they currently aren't intervening enough to defray the damage done to wikipedia by Mike, nor am I sure that there's any level of mentor involvement that could do this. While I'm all for rehabilitating editors who've had troubles in the past, I'd rather have fifty unblockable vandals than one editor who continually creates ill will and ruins the general good spirit which wikipedia is built on. --fvw* 00:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Mike Garcia

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by Snowspinner

I remind the arbcom (And fvw) that they have previously declared that they do not have jurisdiction over Mike due to the special nature of his parole, which came directly from Jimbo, and thus is not something that it is within their power to overturn. Snowspinner 01:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh? I must have missed that. I didn't see it in the RickK-Guanaco case, and that's the only ArbCom case relating to Michael I can find. Could you give a link? --fvw* 01:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

While I'm not necessarily disagreeing with snowspinner, I honestly cannot remember us making such a declaration. Can you please refresh my memory. →Raul654 04:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not finding it. Possibly I'm delusional. Possibly it was something that was said off of the arbcom page. My recollection is David saying it - you might ask him. Snowspinner 22:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I vaguely recall it ... I said something like the ban and its lifting not having been an arbcom matter, but down to Jimbo. In practice, the AC was set up by him to deal with this sort of stuff so he can get on with other work, and if it bounced to him and he asked us then it'd be in our court. So it probably is - David Gerard 16:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd still think that essentially vetoing Jimbo (As any overturning of Mike's ban would be) would at least require Jimbo's permission. Has anyone actualyl left Jimbo a message asking "Hey, is Mike's unban overturnable by the arbcom?" Snowspinner 17:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Two users have brought it up here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Mike_Garcia_RfAr Pasboudin 22:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Just as a suggestion, you can also try the mailing list. Sasquatcht|c 00:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Statement by third party Nandesuka

In this edit summary, User:Mike Garcia's edit summary was "PASBOUDIN, PLEASE STOP NOW OR I'LL KILL YOU". I don't know the detailed history of their dispute. I don't think it matters. I am not inclined to make excuses to allow this sort of behavior. Death threats are not funny, they are not excusable, they are not understandable, and they are absolutely not acceptable. I have seen literally thousands of content disputes on Misplaced Pages where the participants, although upset, somehow resisted the temptation to threaten bodily harm on others. It is my personal opinion that we need an absolutely zero-tolerance policy towards death threats. They have a chilling effect on bold editing (which was, of course, the editor's intent), and they shatter any pretense to an atmosphere of civility. I urge Arbcom to act on this matter (and any other matter where an editor issues a death threat, no matter what the justification) swiftly and firmly. Nandesuka 12:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Statement by third party the wub

I'd just like to add my opinion that whether it is by the Arbcom, or intervention by GodKing, something has to be done. As I see it death threats are totally unacceptable, and I imagine any other editor would recieve a very long or indefinite ban. Nor is this a first offence, Mike has repeatedly broken WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Yes he has made and continues to make many good edits, but when he gets into conflict everything breaks down. the wub "?!" 21:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC) Just to clarify, when I refer to Mike's behaviour I am talking about after Jimbo unbanned him, I don't think I was even around before then. the wub "?!" 21:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Statement by third party Ral315

I don't have any personal relationship to this case; I just want to note for the record that Mike Garcia is currently blocked for 72 hours for 3RR violation, and subsequent use of IP addresses to circumvent these blocks. Ral315 04:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Just as an explaination, he was originally blocked for 48 hours for a 3RR on Hypnotize, however, I noticed that an anon IP continued to revert edits with summaries like this so I thought it was safe to assume it was Mike evading 3RR so I reblocked for another 24 hours. However, even after that, he continued with ANOTHER 3RR with even more threats like this one. This kind of hostility is not in any way helpful to the Wikicommunity and as such, I blocked him for an extra 24 hours ontop of the original 48 he had yet to serve and posted another warning on his talk page. Anyways, just saying something needs to be done as this kind of behaiviour should not be tolerated at Misplaced Pages without some sort of reprimand. Sasquatcht|c 21:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved third party Erwin Walsh

Arbitrators should probably seek comment from Jimbo Wales before accepting case; authority is not clear. Erwin

Statement by third party Flcelloguy

Just as clarification, I have blocked Mike Garcia twice. The first time was on September 5 for 24 hours (); this was a clear-cut WP:3RR violation. In the hours after the block, I suspected that he was editing from an AOL IP because of some similar edits, but only warned him and did not extend the block (). Then, on September 21, I blocked him for 48 hours following another 3RR violation (). The reason I gave a 48 hour block, as explained on his talk page, was because of the multiple reverts, the harrasing edits and death threat (as noted above), and because I had warned him explicitly before about violating the WP:3RR rule, and his past history (he has eight WP:3RR blocks to date ). This 48 hour block has been extended by Sasquatch because of Mike Garcia circumventing the block using AOL IPS, continuing the harassing edit summaries and reverts. This is the current block in place. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I did make this statement; it just credited it to my IP in case anyone is wondering. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Statement by third party Jtkiefer

I have admittedly have not had as much interaction with Mike as many of the other people who have made statements here however I'd like to note that even though he can be troublesome at time and appears to have major issues dealing with other editors, on the contributing sense he has done some great things since his return, for example his work on music related articles. I think though that death threats and personal attacks should not be tolerated though and I agree with all the previous statements that any other editor would have been perm banned quite some time ago for this type of behavior. Jtkiefer ----- 23:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter 2/3/0/0)

• Accept Fred Bauder 22:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Reject, refer to Jimbo directly. This is outside of our area, as Snowspinner has pointed out. James F. (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Accept: I believe we have jurisdiction ➥the Epopt 11:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Reject, refer to Jimbo per James's suggestion above. Neutrality 00:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. If Jimbo wishes to veto us, then that's his perogative, but I do believe we have juristiction here. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Reject, mentor arrangement remains in effect under Jimbo's supervision Fred Bauder 14:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Theathenae

Involved parties

• REX
• Theathenae
• Tony Sidaway
• MATIA

Theathenae refuses to accept some proven facts that are found on credible sources if they conflict with his POV. He edit wars anyone who implements these facts without providing any sources to prove that his edits are true.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

User talk:Theathenae, Revision as of 11:33, 6 September 2005

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

I REX have on various occasions requested to try other steps in dispute resolution process. The Talk:Arvanites page is very long due to attempts of other people including me to reason with him. Also, I have tried to reason with him on his . In vain obviously. I have on at least one occasion asked if we can request Meditation: (quote from Talk:Arvanites) I suggest that we request for Meditation. This might help us resolve this dispute. REX 15:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC) They refused in favor of RfC. I later requested for comments (quote from Talk:Arvanites): I requested for comment. REX 10:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC) Check the request here. Nothing happened. So I believe that Arbitration is the only solution that can work because as I shall demonstrate below, Theathenae will not accept anything which contradicts his POV, however credible my sources may be (one of them is even an agency of the UN).

Statement by party 1 (REX)

On the Misplaced Pages article Arvanites there has been a dispute going on for quite some time over whether the Arvanitic language is a language in its own right or a dialect of the Albanian language.
I have provided the following references:

• Encarta refers to Arvanitic as a variant of Albanian.
• UNESCO RED BOOK ON ENDANGERED LANGUAGES: EUROPE refers to Arvanitic as a diaspora dialect of Tosk Albanian
• Ethnologue calls the language Arvanitika Albanian.

These are wholly credible sources, especially UNESCO which is an agency of the United Nations and they specifically refer to Arvanitic as a diaspora dialect of Albanian. User:Theathenae utterly rejects these sources and will edit war anyone who disagrees with him, however credible his opponent’s sources may be. He has written on the article Arvanites: Their language, Arvanitic has developed separately from Tosk Albanian and has been heavily influenced by Greek over the course of the past five centuries, to the extent that it is today considered a separate language by speakers and linguists alike. This statement is utterly his POV. He has provided no evidence to support such a statement and it contradicts with what UNESCO says. He also says on Talk:Arvanites that the article sould say: Their language, Arvanitic shares a common origin with the Tosk Albanian language this statement is also wholly inaccurate because it calls Arvanitic a language which shares a common origin with Tosk Albanian, rather like English and German are separate languages which share a common origin. This statement is also influenced by his POV and contradicts with UNESCO's statement. I have pleaded with him on his Talk Page and on Talk:Arvanites for him to consider his stance carefully, but he refuses only saying that (quote from Talk:Arvanites): I will continue to defend their right not to be labelled against their will. This statement that it is against their will is quite inaccurate. The Helsinki Report on Human Rights clearly says that some Arvanites use the term Shqiptar to describe themselves, that is the same term that Albanians use to describe themselves. Therefore, how can being called Albanians be against their will? Anyway, UNESCO, Encarta and Ethnologue wouldn't use that phrasing if it were against their will as he puts it. The UNESCO, Encarta and Ethnologue Reports were written by professionals, they knew what they were doing. I have proved all his sources to be false here but he has not indicated that he will observe Misplaced Pages policy. His behaviour is utterly unacceptable on Misplaced Pages I have told him on many occasions, but he refuses to listen. I have asked him to provide some references so that I could know that the scholarly community view Arvanitic as a separate language and not that he is not speaking off the top of his head (Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:No original research). He can't, I have already demonstrated above that at least linguistically Arvanitic is a dialect of Albanian, and my sources above indicate that the scholarly establishment view it the same way (Both the UNESCO Report and the Ethnologue Report were compiled by professional linguists). If a certain phrasing is good enough for an agency of the UN (UNESCO), then it is certainly good enough for Misplaced Pages. We simply cannot accept User:Theathenae’s word over the word of institutions like UNESCO. This would be a violation of Misplaced Pages policies Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:No original research. REX 11:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Theathenae (talk · contribs)

Statement by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)

I've intervened in this little brawl a couple of times, at first to deal with a page protection issue, latterly to kill an edit war-cum-shouting match with a brief block to the participants.

Against my feelings that I should be more discreet and get involved less in arbcom cases, I've been asked to intervene and put the case for dismissal, a case which believe in very strongly.

This is a piddling little dispute, mainly a matter of breakdown of good faith and communication between theathenae, REX and a third party who hasn't been mentioned here. Fred Bauder may well have a point that some Greeks find REX's description of the Arvanitic language as a dialect of albanian insulting, and I'm not a linguistics expert so I cannot say whether it has any merit.

Whatever that may be, the parties haven't even begun to explore the possibilities of dispute resolution yet. They're not well versed in Misplaced Pages policy and I suspect that nobody has really sat down and explained to them that they're expected to do anything other than scream and throw things at one another if they have a difference of opinion. This is abominable behavior, but doesn't appear to involve malice, but rather an unfamiliarity with the territory in which they find themselves.

I had decided to work with these people and try to bring them through this to a mutually satisfactory conclusion. I think I have had some limited success; the edit war has died down and I think they're likely to listen to advice. I need more time and it cannot work if an arbitration case is brought. Please grant me that time. The committee should not be getting involved in affairs where there are still editors of good faith and proven skills willing to try to heal the situation without the huge and potentially damaging upheaval of an investigation. The committee has also, if I may say so, taken on a huge caseload for itself in the past couple of weeks. Even though there may soon be more mid-term appointments, this case would in my opinion be an unnecessary burden on an already overloaded committee.

I ask the committee to reject this case.

Statement by party 4 - Matia.gr (talk · contribs)

I was trying to gather some evidence on my user page. I didn't wanted this to end in RFArb and I've tried many other ways to solve these. I've asked in the past various admins to help me regarding personal attacks by REX (talk · contribs). I've also contacted Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs). I believe he presumed bad faith for me. I want to clear my name and leave this project. I'm too frustrated to do anything - gather evidence, support my case, proove that there was indeed a census in Arvanites, etc. I believe Mr Tony Sidaway has misused his admin priviledges, when he blocked me while I wasn't even editing. I've requested for an apology. I can't find where he warned me or the other two users. Probably he should apologise to REX and Theathenae too. Someday someone will show what happened in Arvanites. I just want to clear my name. +MATIA ☎ 22:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

What I've gathered so far is on my userpage. +MATIA ☎ 22:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I've stated many times in the past that I don't want REX to be blocked, and this haven't changed. I apologise for the lack of proper structure and good wording of my statement, but I'm unable to write an essay tonite. +MATIA ☎ 23:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by MarkSweep (uninvolved party)

I was briefly involved as an administrator in the debate on Talk:Arvanites, instating page protection, and trying to get the three main parties to work out their dispute. As I understand it, the content debate is actually quite simple to resolve: all parties should refrain from insisting that their terminology and their version of the facts is the absolute truth. The NPOV alternative is quite simple: describe all relevant viewpoints fairly and neutrally, to the extent that they can be verifiably attributed to reliable sources. While cultural identity in the Balkans is a touchy subject, Misplaced Pages contributors have successfully dealt with many other subjects that are just as hard or harder.

While the content dispute would seem to be rather minor and not something the ArbCom is expected to get involved in, the fact that the debate is so drawn out and bitter indicates that there's a serious problem here with the behavior of the three main parties. Their exchanges are characterized by name-calling, abusive remarks, filibustering, accusations of lying and general lack of good faith, etc., and the whole debate seems to be going in circles while drawing in more and more pages (most recently WP:AN and WP:AN/I). Revert paroles and personal attack paroles, perhaps even as part of a preliminary injunction, may be in order. --MarkSweep✍ 09:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

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

• Reject, I might entertain a complaint against REX (talk · contribs) for repeatedly insisting on referring to a language used by Greeks as "Albanian" (which I know to be insulting), but in the absence of input by Theathenae (talk · contribs) making such a complaint and in consideration of our considerable docket, I will refrain. As Stephen Gaskin a spiritual teacher once said. "When you are wrong; quit" Fred Bauder 15:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Accept to consider the behavior of REX (talk · contribs) Fred Bauder 19:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Accept as with Fred. James F. (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude

Involved parties

• Rangerdude (talk · contribs)
• Willmcw (talk · contribs)
• Katefan0 (talk · contribs)
• Johntex (talk · contribs)

Summary

Rangerdude is harassing editors who disagree with his POV.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

User talk:Rangerdude#Requests for Arbitration 19:59, August 23, 2005

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

On June 10, I received a request from mediator user:MacGyverMagic to enter mediation on "Houston Chronicle". I acknowledged my interest in mediation, and on June 14 I saw a mediation page had been set up so I tried to participate. Rangerdude refused.

Rangerdude and I filed cross-complaints on June 15, including and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Rangerdude. We subsequently agreed to mediation and the RfC was withdrawn.

We both agreed to a mediator, Andrevan. Mediation never proceeded because we couldn't agree on how to proceed, despite the mediator's repeated inquiries (Rangerdude said that I might stalk him via email, and I said that I did not want a public mediation). Rangerdude referred in some places to "mediation against" me, possibly indicating bad faith in the dispute resolution process.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Cberlet & Willmcw was posted by Rangerdude on July 25, 2005 and closed by him on July 30, 2005.

Statement by Willmcw

Harassment of editors Rangerdude is harassing and bullying editors who disagree with him or his edits. His goal seems to be either to end our involvement as editors or to punish us for disagreeing with him.

Cberlet Rangerdude brought an RfC against Cberlet and myself on account of our edit work on Ludwig von Mises Institute. The RfC charged us with "lack of civility, disruption, POV pushing, personal attacks on other editors, disregard of WP policies, disregard of talk page and consensus-building efforts, bad faith edits and assumptions". Only four editors (two of them LvMI associates) certified or endorsed Rangerdude's statement, while 14 endorsed Cberlet's statement and a total of ten editors posted separate views, most of which were against Rangerdude and some which received wide support. On the basis of that outcome, it appears that the community strongly rejected Rangerdude's view.

Rangerdude then heavily and contentiously edited Chip Berlet's biography and sought to have Berlet's published research deemed too extreme to use as a source for Misplaced Pages articles. At the same time he actively edited and created articles about one of Berlet's real-life adversaries, David Horowitz, with a positive POV.

FuelWagon FuelWagon was one of the more vocal editors in the RfC, despite having had no prior involvement with either of us. He wrote a clearly-worded and boldy-formatted comment saying that the problem lay more with Rangerdude than with Cberlet or me. Rangerdude first reformatted his comment then effectively tried to add FuelWagon to the RfC. Shortly after the close of that RfC Rangerdude filed a separate RfC against FuelWagon. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/FuelWagon. The charges include having a "belligerent" tone in RfCs and filing a "false 3RR warning against another user". The RfC against FuelWagon received no endorsements or co-certifications. An opposing view received four endorsements within the initial 48-hour period.

SlimVirgin Rangerdude has also harassed SlimVirgin, who had had no editing interactions with him prior to commenting on the Cberlet/Willmcw RfC, and whose crime seems to have been speaking positively about us. In a number of edits he attacked her by name and he has made attacks on "wiki-cliques" that seem directed at SlimVirgin and other editors. He apparently opposed Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/FeloniousMonk simply because SlimVirgin was the nominator.

Willmcw Rangerdude has been attacking me as a "stalker" since June, 2005. He uses the de-listed RfC as an "attack file" with an ever-growing list of charges. I responded initially, but have not replied to every new addition. Rangerdude has copied and extended that file (minus my responses and other discussion) at User:Rangerdude/sandbox1/Evidence of willmcws wiki-stalking. He brandishes the charge as an attack in talk pages and edit summaries. (Recent instances: ) He seeks out other editors to warn them about my supposedly-abusive behavior, encourages them to bring dispute actions, and repeats the charges as a reason for editors to disregard my opinion.

Katefan0 Rangerdude bullies Katefan0 in their editing disagreements, such as in Talk:Jim Robinson and Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Jim Robinson.

Other issues From his earliest edits Rangerdude has been a POV warrior with a strongly pro/neo-confederate bias. He both shows bad faith and fails to assume good faith in others. He has followed my edits with an apparent intent to harass, in ways that mimic his own definition of wikistalking.

Statement by Katefan0

Rangerdude has made unfounded and potentially damaging personal attacks against me and has attacked other editors, has bullied and harassed editors who disagreed with him, disrupted Misplaced Pages to make a point, and aggressively inserted biased information throughout Misplaced Pages, while bludgeoning and smearing good faith editors who disagree with him. I have engaged Rangerdude in extensive dialogues on talk pages, largely to no effect. I opened an RfC over our main disputed article, Houston Chronicle, which received no replies. I then requested mediation, which formally opened on June 10. However, the mediator has been absent since that time and the dispute remains stalemated. Rangerdude continues to bully editors on Misplaced Pages:Stalking, through RfC’s and on other articles.

Personal attacks and harrassment

Rangerdude made a serious (and potentially libelous) attack against my personal and professional integrity . When I protested, Rangerdude’s response was to escalate . He has also targeted other editors who have disagreed with his conduct or biased edits: , , edit summary, , , among others.

Rangerdude often bullies and intimidates people who disagree with his positions (particularly during RfCs and other instances in which a vote or poll is taken) by commenting on their votes or comments, sometimes extensively, with the intent of discrediting (and thereby discounting) their opinions. , , , , , , .

He has purposefully misrepresented my position in a debate to further his own position my original posting here. Misrepresentations: , , . Despite my admonitions to the contrary, , he continued harass me about my own opinions , , .

He does not truly seek to resolve conflicts, seemingly preferring to argue his opponents into submission or deflect blame (here suggesting I alone am creating an impasse ), often reverting up to his limit under 3RR and haranguing dissenters on related talk pages. Reversions: , , , . Talk: .

Dismissing or manipulating consensus

Rangerdude rarely accepts consensus unless it furthers his position or he is forced to yield. (Here he harangues Tony Sidaway, the VfD closer on Jim Robinson ). Or, he interprets consensus to suit his needs: Here, a consensus of two editors is enough when it furthers his position , but when it does not, a consensus of two (myself and Johntex) isn't enough; moreover, he harasses Johntex in an attempt to discredit his opinions: , .

He has manipulated policies to circumvent or defy consensus: (here he adds a {{disputed}} tag to the VfD vote on Jim Robinson ), and later on the redirect created as a result of the VfD vote ), .

He has violated WP:POINT when consensus has not gone his way. When Jim Robinson was properly VfD’d, and then failed to be undeleted through VfU, Rangerdude began voting keep on several other articles up for VfU at the same time. , , , . He has not voted on VfU since.

Bias

Rangerdude seems primarily interested in editing articles into which he can insert conservative viewpoints both positive (Ludwig von Mises Institute) and negative (Sheila Jackson Lee). This would not be a problem, except that Rangerdude doesn’t seem to care about ensuring that articles he works on are balanced; he regularly inserts so much conservative criticism into articles that it makes them biased, then washes his hands of the article. After these additions , , , the article referenced contained three short paragraphs of bio information on a multi-term member of the U.S. Congress, and more than a page of cheap shots: . Rangerdude left it up to others (primarily, me) to insert bio information that would serve as a balance to his additions. He later created what basically amounts to a hatchet page on her husband and, similarly, on a liberal university professor . When challenged on these edits and the directive on balance in WP:NPOV, Rangerdude’s response is to say, essentially, that he doesn’t have time to make it balanced (while continuing to work on other articles almost daily). , , , , , , , .

Additionally, he often justifies his biased edits with dubious sources which he deems reliable, including partisan blogs, partisan student-published tabloids, organizations with misleading mandates such as this one (which is criticized here) and unverifiable radio broadcasts , which he insists be retained when challenged. He has also been known to delete or oppose criticism of conservative figures (here scrubbing information critical of Tom DeLay (and edit warring in the process)): , , , , ). Other biased edits: , , .

Statement by Johntex

Rangerdude has harassed Misplaced Pages editors, including myself. He has violated Misplaced Pages policies, including WP:NPOV, WP:CIV, WP:DEL, and also Misplaced Pages guidelines, including WP:POINT.

Much of his harassing behavior is an attempt to inject his POV into article, such as in the example I illustrate below, where he harasses me by maliciously listing for VfD an article I created.

POV-pushing

User:Rangerdude has shown a history of POV-pushing on Houston Chronicle. His edits attempt to include as much negative information about the paper as possible. He even admits he does not feel responsible for making balanced edits, as in this exchange:

It is not enough to add information that unbalances an article and then wash your hands of it by saying "you can add other things if you wish…” User:Katefan0

• Since edits here are made on a voluntary basis, it is more than enough..” User:Rangerdude

In his attempts to create a biased article, he displays a willingness to cite any source that agrees with his POV, regardless of how un-noteworthy or biased the source. He also tries to create Misplaced Pages articles about these sources in an effort to bolster their apparent credibility in his arguments.

Introducing spurious sources

Rangerdude created an article on Texas_Media_Watch (TMW) because he wanted to quote TMW in POV arguments he wished to make on Houston Chronicle. I looked into TMW and found evidence that it was simply a one-person “organization” pushing the agenda of Sherry Sylvester and that the “organization” had not even been active since her departure. TMW did not qualify as a reputable source to be quoting at Houston Chronicle, and she/they certainly did not meet the notability standard for her/its own article. Thus at I listed TMW for VfD. The result of the VfD discussion was "Delete":

Harassment of editor

After I listed TMW for deletion, Rangerdude took a sudden interest in an article I created on college football player Dusty Mangum and listed that page for VfD. I believe he did this in an attempt to intimidate me and anyone else who might dare consider listing one of his non-notable articles for VfD. Looking at Rangerdude’s last 3 months of edits: He has made no other edits to topics relating to college football, The University of Texas at Austin, or similar topics that would lead one to believe he was interested in Dusty Mangum for any other reason than to harass me. He has nominated no other article for VfD. He rarely even votes on VfD at all.

Among this discussion on the Dusty Mangum VfD was this statement:

• Comment. Misplaced Pages:Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. -Willmcw 07:14, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

To which Rangerdude made this unsigned reply:

• • Comment. Misplaced Pages:Don't_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point#If_you_must...

Thus, Rangerdude ‘’’admitted’’’ that he violated WP:POINT by listing Dusty Mangum on VfD solely because I had created the article. This is also a violation of WP:DEL which states that users should sign their posts of VfD pages. The VfD result on Dusty Mangum was "Keep"

According to Rangerdude's own postings, he has shown himself to be harassing me. He is causing serious detriment to the project.

Statement by Rangerdude

Given the timing of this dispute and the editors involved in it, I can only respond by noting that it appears to be a frivolous retaliatory move by User:Willmcw against me for filing a request for arbitration against him and User:SlimVirgin following an extensive pattern of harassment and belligerency by both of these editors towards myself. It should also be noted that this is not the first time that Willmcw has made retaliatory complaints against other users who have reported him for violation of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Willmcw filed a similar frivolous retaliatory RfC against me in June 2005 only hours after I posted my initial complaint report against him on the incident noticeboard for wikistalking. His purpose in both cases should accordingly be viewed as a disruptive and bad faith attempt to deflect investigation into his own repeated bad behavior and policy violations by way of initiating a competing complaint against his accusers.

As I detailed and documented at length in my arbitration case against Willmcw and in a list of evidence assembled for that case and its related RfCs , Willmcw has engaged in a continuous pattern of harassment and wiki-stalking against myself since shortly after I arrived on wikipedia. In my experience with Willmcw I have found him to be an extremely vocal POV pusher who actively promotes a liberal/leftist viewpoint in his edits and who uses his editing privileges on Misplaced Pages to engage in political activism on a number of pet causes, among them: pro-illegal immigration, political correctness, environmentalism, and politically motivated attacks on conservatism, libertarianism, the U.S. Republican Party, and figures, groups, organizations, and publications affiliated with each.

Recent examples of POV pushing by Willmcw:

• Use of POV weasel words - Willmcw adds/restores the scare-term "controversial" to the opening sentence of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a libertarian philsopher who is of the opposite political viewpoint of his own. Willmcw removes the same scare-term "controversial" out of the opening sentence of Southern Poverty Law Center, a liberal organization that he agrees with.
• Use of POV qualifiers - Willmcw adds the term "neo-confederate," a pejorative, as a descriptive qualifier of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (LVMI), a libertarian think tank he disagrees with. Willmcw removes the word "leftist" as a descriptive qualifier of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) from the same sentence, calling it a "POV term". Willmcw removes "leftist" from SPLC and reinserts "neo-confederate" before LVMI (thus keeping the pejorative on the group he dislikes and removing it from the group he likes) after I pointed out the inconsistency and noted that NPOV dictates the article should contain both, to balance each other out, or neither.

Willmcw has a bad habit of harassing other editors who differ with this viewpoint both on political and non-political articles alike. He has done this to me since we first encountered each other and I have seen him treat other editors who come from conservative or libertarian viewpoints similiarly. His stalking of me includes his following me to over 40 different articles on such diverse subject matters as United States trade law, astronomy, libertarian philosophy, the American Civil War, historians, think tanks, newspaper and radio outlets, and academic biographies. As I described in detail here, many of these cases of following were for the explicit purpose of disrupting and harassing my edits including staging challenges against settled and documented factual material and generally trolling for reasons to delete, disrupt, or even make minor unnecessary alterations to my contributions on wikipedia for no other reason than the fact that I am the one who made them. As Willmcw noted, this did indeed lead to me filing an RfC against him and another user over POV pushing and belligerency on the Ludwig von Mises Institute article (located here). What he fails to inform you of are the reasons behind this RfC, which included a blatantly inappropriate attempt by Willmcw to disrupt this article's content with quotations from David Duke, the notorious Ku Klux Klan activist. Other inappropriate behavior by Willmcw on this article included attempts to disguise edits in which he removed content as "adding citations" and censoring out sourced material that differed from his political POV. It should also be noted that several other editors involved in that article concurred that this behavior was inappropriate and others who read the RfC subsequently helped with extensive work on the LVMI article to remove the biased and inappropriate material Willmcw was pushing there at the time.

I find it unusual that User:Katefan0 and User:Johntex would choose to join this arbitration request based almost entirely upon an ongoing editing dispute at the Houston Chronicle article. As the matters involving the Houston Chronicle article are currently the subject of a still-pending mediation case on that article, I consider it inappropriate and premature that they would seek to join Willmcw's arbitration case as other dispute resolution mechanisms on that article have NOT yet been exhausted, and as far as I am aware all parties to that dispute had previously agreed to mediation including Katefan0, who described her position there at length. The dispute on this particular article is political in nature and entails difference in content regarding opinion. While Katefan0 accuses of "POV pushing" on this article, she fails to disclose that she is guilty of the very same offense in her own right and perhaps even more so. Examples include deleting = sources that she deems to be critical of the Houston Chronicle ; Adding passages from far-left wing sources containing unrelated political attack information on sources used in the article ; Making ad hominem attacks on conservative sources, such as the Houston Review and Texas Media Watch, to portray them as politicized or unreliable while simultaneously adding and promoting politicized left wing sources like the Austin Chronicle.; adding original research on indirectly related subject matter for the purpose of attacking U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay. Katefan0 has also pushed a pro-Chronicle POV by multiple reversions and extreme stubbornness exhibited on the talk page in which she has sought to remove the word "criminal complaint" from a description of a legal motion the newspaper filed (Katefan0 quote- "I will resist any attempts to use "criminal" as an adjective for the complaint") despite the fact that Texas law and even the newspaper itself described it as a criminal complaint. When the statute itself was directly cited in the article text to show that the complaint was classified as criminal under state law Katefan0 also deleted the reference. It should be noted on the Houston Chronicle article that Katefan0 has repeatedly volunteered that she is a former employee of the Houston Chronicle and cited that employment as a basis for her desired edits and in discussions about those edits . While she has been accusing everybody else who says anything critical about the Houston Chronicle of being "biased" or "POV" since the moment she arrived at this article, Katefan0 seems to exhibit a strong personal POV of her own toward this paper as a former employee and many of her edits have been aimed at removing, watering down, or spinning any criticism that's been made of the paper by another source or media outlet.

I also suspect that this move by Katefan0 may be in part retaliatory dating back to an unrelated disagreement we had many months ago on the Jim Robinson article. From that time until the present Katefan0 has been occassionally following my edits to such articles as the Houston Chronicle, Sheila Jackson Lee, various VfD's and RfA's, RfC's I have initiated on other unrelated matters (including the earlier stages of the dispute with Willmcw) and most recently Misplaced Pages:Stalking - typically for the purpose of opposing whatever position I am advocating or voting against whatever way I vote, seemingly for no other reason than for my involvement. This particular editor also has very strong political opinions on many articles and frequently confuses differences of opinion with "personal attacks" on herself. Thus, opposing her opinion on article content, article subject matter, a wikipedia administrative matter, or even a vote is, in her mind, "personal attacks" or "bullying." This description has been applied by her to dozens of links to our past disputes in her case above, yet virtually every one of them is a content dispute where she has mistaken differences on wording or opinion for a personal affront to herself.

Katefan0 also seems unaware of or unwilling to abide by Misplaced Pages:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance, which states of articles that have viewpoint imbalance on sourced material that they "should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda." This provision also specifically says that "The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it." Yet as her complaint above evidences, Katefan0 has both used a temporary imbalance in articles such as the Houston Chronicle as a reason to justify her subtraction of critical material, no matter how sourced it is, and as a basis to attack me personally with allegations of pushing propaganda. When I suggested many times that she should add to the article instead of subtracting from it as this guideline instructs Katefan0 responded in hostility toward me personally, shunned this suggestion, and now even cites the fact that I made it in her RfAr complaint against me! If adding to the article is not the remedy for balancing it then why does the guideline say that it is and why should I be held at fault for simply informing her of the same thing that the guideline says to do?

I am at loss for an explanation of what could have induced JohnTex to seek this case beyond the fact that he was on Katefan0's side of the Houston Chronicle dispute (and was personally recruited by her to participate there). Beyond that, I have not even had substantial interaction with JohnTex on wikipedia since early June! As I have no current disputes with JohnTex and rarely if ever even encounter him on wikipedia, and as his case her pertains entirely to subjects involving an article that is currently still in mediation, I see little purpose that his arbitration request could accomplish and consider it little more than a bad faith attempt to assist Willmcw and/or Katefan0 in pressing what ultimately comes down to a frivolous complaint that was intiated without any doubt for retaliatory reasons. I do find it curious that he would choose to make WP:POINT allegations against me for a VfD at the time of the Houston Chronicle dispute given that he himself was simultaneously VfD'ing new pages I created for WP:POINT reasons and consider it outright bizarre that he would try to make a case upon the fact that I forgot to sign a single message post out of dozens in my exchanges with him. Such behavior on his part could rightly be described as a nitpicking personal vendetta and appears to offer very little if anything of relevance wikipedia's quality, content, or even genuine editing disputes. It should be noted that Johntex seems to be similarly unaware of Misplaced Pages:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance, hence his support for Katefan0's attempts to subtract legitimate sourced information from articles.

As a concluding note - should this case proceed involving the allegations made here, I will similarly be asking the arbitrators to examine evidence of severe POV pushing on the part of Willmcw and Katefan0 as well as the disruptive retaliatory behavior entailed in filing this case, which constitute WP:POINT abuses, in the case of all three editors. Rangerdude 03:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by third party (Willmcw RFA v Rangerdude): FuelWagon

I already posted my comment about Rangerdude's RFC against Cberlet and Willmcw in this diff. It is my statement as a third party in the Rangerdude RFA against Wilmcw and SlimVirgin bookmarked here. That comment applies to this RFA as well. FuelWagon 20:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by MacGyverMagic

My apologies for allowing this dispute to end in arbitration. Obligations outside of Misplaced Pages have prevented me from doing anything as time-consuming as mediation for a while now, and this particular case turned out more difficult than I initially thought. I've taken steps to ensure active people are tending to the mediation requests now. - Mgm| 07:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

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

• Accept. Merge into below case, if both are accepted. James F. (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Accept and merge Fred Bauder 19:10, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept and merge ➥the Epopt 03:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

UninvitedCompany

Involved parties

• -Ril- ("party 1")
• UninvitedCompany ("party 2")

Summary

• Abuse of adminship
• Blocking, permanently, without support from the arbitration comittee, a user who opposes the admin's POV being pushed

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• -Ril- is the initiating party
• UninvitedCompany has been made aware

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Prior RFC - Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/UninvitedCompany resulted in name calling against -Ril- by -Ril-'s "enemies"
• Statements at WP:AN/I mostly resulted in name calling, despite having partial support from two arbitrators -

• • AHEM! Haven't you forgotten the Mediation Committee? (Me and Brandon Yusuf had an outstandingly successful mediation.) Uncle Ed 02:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 1 (-Ril-)

Getting inappropriately involved in Edit Wars

• An important detail is that UninvitedCompany is anti-Islamic in the extreme (UninvitedCompany admits this)
• Religious conflict and Islam was the subject of an edit war over alleged anti-Islamic POV between Germen (who has strong anti-Islamic views - see Germen's RFC that was co-signed by 3 editors, and endorsed by 10 more) and -Ril- (the differences between Germen and -Ril-'s versions)
• UninvitedCompany protected Religious conflict and Islam at Germen's version (on 6th august - it is still protected three weeks later)
  • While there definitely was an edit war going on, someone with an extreme POV on the issue shouldn't really be getting involved in protecting a version that supports their extreme POV
• The Bible and history was the subject of an edit war over a week between Noitall and -Ril- (the differences between Noitall and -Ril-'s versions).
  • Important background notes:Noitall is an editor with a right wing christian agenda e.g.
    • calling Mustafaa "beyond redemption"
    • being one of the founders - the number 2 - of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency
    • see also Noitall's user page)
    • particularly with regards to Islam and its position as an Abrahamic religion e.g.
      • Ishmael,
      • Abraham
    • etc., and related "Islamic" issues - e.g. Suicide Bombing
  • I am pointing this out only to demonstrate that Noitall's views on Islam are not exactly pro-Islamic, and thus would find support with UninvitedCompany's "extremely anti-Islamic" POV
• UninvitedCompany protected The Bible and History at Noitall's version (on 10th august - it is still protected two weeks later)
  • The time between -Ril-'s edit and Noitall's was 1 hour and 40 minutes
  • The time between Noitall's edit and UninvitedCompany's protection was 5 minutes
  • Therefore I alledge that UninvitedCompany deliberately waited for Noitall to make the edit before protecting the page.

Taking revenge for preventing POV pushing

• UninvitedCompany then blocked (at 01:14 7th August UTC) -Ril- alledging a violation of 3RR
  • Ril's 4 previous edits were at 22:51 5 August 2005 UTC, 23:00 5 August 2005 UTC, 08:58 6 August 2005 UTC, 23:12 6 August 2005 UTC
  • Between 22:51 5 August UTC and 22:51 6 August UTC, there were 3 reverts
  • Between 23:00 5 August UTC and 23:00 6 August UTC, there were 2 reverts
  • Between 23:11 5 August UTC and 23:11 6 August UTC, there was 1 revert
  • The edit at 23:12 6 August 2005 therefore constitutes the 2nd revert in 24 hours
  • There is no 1RR rule.
  • -Ril- was not personally subjected to a specially created 1RR nor a 2RR rule
  • There is also no reason to block for 72 hours rather than only 24
• When challanged about the block, Uninvited company admits he broke the blocking policy, but won't do anything about it
  • -Ril- was later unblocked by a responsible admin

Taking further revenge

• -Ril- later made an edit to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency in order to provide illustrations and examples as per normal "ideal article" principles including
  • A renaissance image that is usually considered decent, together with a modern photograph of a similar, and indeed more clothed, pose, to demonstrate how ideas of decency vary depending on the context of use, not the raw image
  • an image of two women that wouldn't be that indecent if it was added to illustrate Lesbian
  • An image of a nude in shadow suitable to illustrate shadow, demonstrating that nudity can be quite artistic, particularly in fine art
  • An image from the Stanley Kubrick film "eyes wide shut" to illustrate the section discussing "full frontal nudity"
• Violet/Riga claimed this was vandalism, and blocked -Ril- for 24 hours
• During discussion of this block on -Ril-'s talk page, UninvitedCompany blocked -Ril- indefinitely (03:34 18 August 2004)
• UninvitedCompany then vandalised -Ril-'s User page
• UninvitedCompany also organised a lynch mob
• and UninvitedCompany additionally protected -Ril-'s talk page so that -Ril- was completely unable to respond at all
  • UninvitedCompany claimed this was due to the images placed there (the same images placed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency, for the purposes of discussing their merits, and permissable usage)
    • If UninvitedCompany has a problem with the images then they should be taken to WP:IFD
    • If the images have survived IFD or haven't been taken there, then the community clearly doesn't have a problem with them
    • Additionally, User space can be used how that user wishes, consistent with not breaking laws, etc., e.g. User:Evil Monkey/Nudity (now deleted by Evil Monkey to avoid being brought into issues with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency)

Summary

UninvitedCompany is clearly an involved user, who clearly has an opinion of -Ril-, and is clearly, and self-admittedly, extremely anti-Islamic, in contrast to -Ril-. Therefore, UninvitedCompany should not be blocking -Ril- unilaterally, or indefinitely.

Requested Temporary injuctions

I, -Ril-, would like, solely for the duration of this RFAR, the following temporary injunctions

• UninvitedCompany to be de-sysopped ("adminship is no big deal, so why should de-adminship be" - paraphrase of Ed Poor)
• -Ril- to be unblocked
• -Ril-'s talk page to be unprotected
• UninvitedCompany to be prohibited from editing -Ril-'s user page

--~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 15:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2 (UninvitedCompany)

My position, and that of the Misplaced Pages community, with regard to -Ril- is already summarized at these locations:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/UninvitedCompany
• User talk:-Ril-/ban

I would be happy to provide a further statement if any of the arbiters request it.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Statements by other parties

Michael Snow

Please note that -Ril- is still subject to the indefinite block imposed by UninvitedCompany. -Ril- has resorted to a number of sockpuppets and IP addresses to evade the block. There has been a notable lack of enthusiasm for lifting this block (this is what -Ril- characterizes as a "lynch mob"). Given the concerns expressed by two arbitrators and alluded to by -Ril-, I offered to lift it if the Arbitration Committee devised an appropriate temporary injunction against -Ril-, but no such injunction has been forthcoming.

Additionally, a number of users suspect -Ril- to be a reincarnation of banned user Lir. Actually, I personally do not believe this, but have instead come to the conclusion that -Ril- is a different banned user. Based on language and IP evidence, -Ril- is clearly British, whereas Lir as I recall was in the US. Additionally, -Ril- has a couple notable characteristics, a tendency to latch onto particular biblical topics, and a habit of naming sockpuppet accounts along a particular theme. This combination leads me to believe that -Ril- is another notoriously disruptive user of sockpuppets, specifically CheeseDreams. --Michael Snow 16:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Phroziac

This has gone a little too far, in my opinion. It is gaming the system to make a fourth revert 24:20 after the first, and say it is not 3rr. There is never an excuse to violate 3rr. I have never violated 1rr personally. The block was an obvious example of a perfect IAR use. WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency did not need pictures of "indecency". This is no different then putting a picture of a penis on the main page. UninvitedCompany should probably not use admin features on a page he has a very strong POV in, except for obvious vandalism, 3rr, etc. An indefinite block is not the same as permanent, and UninvitedCompany was well within IAR to do that. The "vandalism" on -Ril-'s userpage was useful information, but perhaps it should not have been blanked. There is nothing wrong with those images, but they are there to illustrate articles in the encyclopedia. They are not there to put on wikiprojects, the main page, or anywhere else that they obviously do not belong. That was not a lynch mob. -Ril- should not excessively use loaded words to push his argument. This RFAr is very silly. --Phroziac 23:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Ed Poor

It's not true that UninvitedCompany is pushing any POV, least of all an anit-Islamic one. Ril has misconstrued UC's reply to a comment Ril made (see diff).

Furthermore, it is a complete waste of everyone's time to allow an RFArb for this sort of thing. Ril is not helping this project, and is abusing this page to thwart UC's enforcement of policy.

This entire RFArb amounts to a personal attack on UC and is in itelf ample grounds for a ban. I would have done it myself, if UC hadn't beat me to it.

Misplaced Pages accounts are only for those who are trying to help organize and present the world's knowledge. Those who interfere with, or thwart, this goal should be shown to the door. Uncle Ed 16:43, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by smoddy

I urge the Arbitration Committee to take on the views of the community. -Ril- made the point himself that no-one had unblocked him. If anyone seriously thought he should be unblocked, he would have been. No admin has seen fit to unblock him. Many have supported the block on the relevant page. The Misplaced Pages community does not want -Ril- around. It would be foolish to unban -Ril- simply because there was no reason in policy for the block. Sometimes what is needed goes beyond policy, hence we have Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules. If any editor is really unhappy that -Ril- has gone, I urge them to come and say their piece. But, in my opinion, UC has done a great service. ] 18:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Bmicomp

The mere fact that nobody has unblocked -Ril-, but instead congratulated TUC on the block speaks volumes. From Misplaced Pages:Banning policy:

"The decision to ban a user can arise from four places. Bans from all places are equally legitimate.

1. The Misplaced Pages community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself. The quickpolls policy was one example of this. Some editors are so odious that not one of the 500+ admins will unblock them."

Statement by Klonimus

Ril is a disruptive user, if there is any controversy about TUC's actions they should she be merged into the Ril Case, and delt with in that context. Given the general issue with slowness of ArbCom, TUC was being predictive of what that outcome would be. Klonimus 23:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Erwin Walsh

Locking Ril's talk page seems poor form, as this prevents Ril from legitimately querying the block. Erwin

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/2/0/0)

• Accept Fred Bauder 13:58, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Reject - innuendo and supposition aside, this request is wholly without merit. →Raul654 16:46, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept; possible merge into current case? James F. (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Accept and merge ➥the Epopt 03:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Reject. Jayjg 18:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous Editor 24.147.97.230 and other addresses

Involved parties

• Party 1 (requesting arbitration): Robert McClenon
• Party 2 (against whom arbitration is requested): 24.147.97.230 and other addresses.

Statement by party 1

Either a single anonymous editor, using multiple IP addresses but primarily 24.147.97.230 , or multiple anonymous editors, have been engaged in an extended edit war on the Ted Kennedy page, and now also the Rosemary Kennedy page.

A complete list of addresses in use is found at Misplaced Pages: Requests for comment/24.147.97.230.

There are two issues, content issues and conduct issues. I am not asking the ArbCom to resolve the content issues. However, the conduct issues make it impossible to resolve the content issues. The page has been under page protection twice in the past two months to stop the edit wars and revert wars.

The content issues are whether particular sections that are negative to Ted Kennedy and to Joseph Kennedy Sr. should be included. The majority of signed-in editors think that these sections are non-encyclopedic and should not be included. The anonymous editors have insisted on continuing to add (revert) the same sections. They have accused the other editors of failing to negotiate in good faith.

The first content issue was the inclusion of an external link to an attack web site from the Ted Kennedy page. Multiple anonymous IP addresses added the link, no more than three addresses in a 24-hour period, which appears to be gaming the system. The page was then protected by an admin. After some search for a mediator, Kelly Martin agreed to try to mediate. This resulted in her conclusion that there was a consensus against inclusion of the link.

The anonymous editors have now tried to add the link to the web site for Rosemary Kennedy, who was only a victim and should not be the subject of having her family ridiculed. Claims that there was a consensus against the inclusion of the link are being rejected.

There were two more revert wars over the inclusion of material of little encyclopedic value. Editors who think that these paragraphs should not be included have been willing to have quickpolls on their relevance. However, the anonymous editors have altered the polls, and have accused their opponents (incorrectly) of POV pushing and disregard for consensus.

Since discussion is not working, and requests for other methods of discussion are not working, I request arbitration as a last resort.

ArbCom actions requested by party 1

I am requesting, as an interim measure, that the ArbCom issue a temporary injunction against anonymous edits to the Ted Kennedy and Rosemary Kennedy articles until this matter is arbitrated.

When the ArbCom accepts this case, I request that the principles cited include a statement that disputes should be resolved by consensus, but that consensus does not mean unanimous consent. (These anonymous editors are arguing, based on competing dictionary definitions, that consensus does mean unanimity, and so are demanding a liberum veto.) I also request that a statement be made that, in an encyclopedia, which is a compendium of knowledge, editorial judgment is required as to what is appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Hello, I'm not sure exactly what User:Robert McClenon is really looking for here. This user has filed FOUR RFCs to have users blocked in 30 days, the same 30 days of his new membership. I am the target of one of these RFCs. This is an average of one per week. As to my conduct, my conduct is proper. The issues I have involve a group of editors who delete and revert material on pages related to Kennedys. They are extreme POV pushers and refuse to negociate. As to User:Robert McClenon, If he can give a specific and exact description of what his is looking to come to an agreement on I would be willing to participate. It is a bit of a surprise as this user wrote this today, "I have no interest in mediation with any anonymous editor. Robert McClenon 22:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)" 24.147.97.230 02:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Interested third parties

I urge ArbCom to deal with this matter. This editor's conduct has not been proper in any way, shape, or form. This IP address initially started editing here by inserting a promotional link for the fatboy.cc anti-Kennedy website and now is intent on inserting large chunks of material derived from that website. S/he has unleashed an army of sockpuppets to start a revert war to insert two large, POV sections of dubious encyclopedic value. A large consensus of editors of numerous political persuasions opposes the insertion of the material in its current form. Instead of seeking a compromise or an alternative way to insert some of the same facts in the article (as many of those editors have repeatedly stated they were open to) this editor insists that everyone who disagrees with the insertion of those two sections is a pro-Kennedy partisan, a vandal, a POV warrior, etc., etc. This editor is essentially a one issue POV war and this sort of anti-wiki behavior should be stopped now. Gamaliel 04:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If taken to ArbCom, Gamaliel needs to be a party to this. He/She is one of the most POV editors at the Kennedy Site and has co-written an RFC against me. 24.147.97.230 15:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I did not write the RFC, though I did sign it, as did four other editors to date, and I agree with what Robert McClenon wrote. Also, if I am drafted into this proceeding, so should the rest of the ten or so editors who have participated in forming the consensus against 24.147's POV edits in that article. Gamaliel 16:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

comment from third party (Robert McClenon RFA v 24.147.97.230): FuelWagon

My involvment in this article was to post a reply to an article RFC some time ago regarding whether or not the article should include the "fatboy.cc" link. My comment at the time was something to the effect that the website seemed one step above juvenile bathroom humor, its only claim to fame is several pictures of Kennedy's naked stomach and a picture with a roadmap superimposed over his nose. This site is equivalent to finding a comment about someone scribbled on a bathroom wall with anatomically correct sketches included. I consider the site to be an embarrassment to be listed on wikipedia. And to use policy-language: it is unencyclopedic and non-notable. a number of editors agreed and the consensus seemed to be drop it. several anon IP editors voted to keep the link, but user jpgordon pointed out that most of these anon votes are from IP addresses that made only 1 edit, which would indicate ballot stuffing by one of the editors engaged in the dispute or the strangest voting dynamic I've seen on wikipedia. Despite consensus to drop it, 24.147.97.230 continues to push to have the fatboy.cc website listed. The ballot stuffing incident and the insistence to include a grout-writing URL despite consensus to drop it (at least among the registered users) is enough of a red-flag that good faith can no longer be assumed and that processes for dispute resolution that require good-faith (RFC's and mediation) will not work. FuelWagon 00:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

RE: ballot stuffing. In any wikipedia poll, I could find a website or mailing list or blog that supports my position and spam them saying "hey people, wikipedia is trying to suppress your point of view. Your vote is needed now!" or some equally partisan bit of propaganda, give them a URL to a wikipedia talk page with the poll in question, and then sit back and watch the votes tally up. I could do that, but I wouldn't. To me, polls are among editors who are actually doing the work, making the contributions, and investing the time to make the article better. i.e. polls are a way for editors to resolve disputes amongst themselves. The idea of getting outside, non-contributers to vote in a poll simply to force the result a certain way is not what I would call a good-faith attempt to resolve a dispute between editors who are actually working and contributing to an article. FuelWagon 14:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Previous Dispute Resolution

There have been three previous article Requests for Comments to try to resolve these content and conduct issues.

There was one previous attempt at mediation (via a non-MedCom procedure), by Kelly Martin. She concluded that there was a consensus against adding the "fatboy.cc" link to the Ted Kennedy site. However, the advocates of adding the link dispute the claim of consensus.

Please understand that I, the "anon" initiated this previous attempt at mediation and contacted Kelly Martin24.147.97.230 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Since a previous RFM has not resulted in a truce, I have no reason to believe that mediation will have any effect again.

A Request for Comments was posted about the conduct of the anonymous editors. Their response was to post a Request for Comments about my conduct. This does not seem to provide any evidence that they are willing to try to change their conduct.

Again, please understand the user Robert McClenon has posted the above mentioned RFC...as he has done to 3 other users in 30 days, his first 30 days at Misplaced Pages24.147.97.230 02:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

This arbitration request is premature. The last step of dispute resolution should be a request for arbitration. User:Robert_McClenon has, to date, refused to engage in mediation with User:24.147.97.230,. An attempt at mediation should always be made before it reaches this stage.--Agiantman 21:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Response to claim of premature arbitration request:

1. Mediation, as noted above and below, has been attempted. I see no reason to delay arbitration simply to permit another round of mediation, which I expect will not result in a compromise, to delay arbitration.
2. The above statement that the RfAr is premature is being filed by someone who is not a first, second, or third party to this proceeding at this time. I have stated that I am willing to go to mediation with Agiantman, but not with 24.147.97.230. Robert McClenon 22:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Confirmation of Parties' Awareness

1. Party 1 Robert McClenon 01:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
2. Party 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:24.147.97.230&diff=21539886&oldid=21536212

Statement by involved third party

I was invited to mediate a dispute on this article related to the inclusion of a specific external link. However, I concluded that the dispute was not mediatable as there was no middle ground that the parties would consider acceptable. The parties were (understandably) unwilling to submit to third-party arbitration of the acceptability of the link. At that point, I listed the issue on RFC and a reasonably civil discussion ensued, in which a number of editors (all save one posting from anonymous addresses) argued in support of the link, and a number of established Wikipedians argued against inclusion of the link. At the point where it appeared to me that the discussion had terminated, I offered my opinion as to the apparent consensus of the Misplaced Pages community regarding the issue. At the time the lead anon advocating for this link (the only one with any significant edit history) appeared to accept that conclusion. I have not, however, continued to monitor the article after the point at which the dispute seemed to be resolved, nor have I monitored the editing of any of the parties on other related or unrelated articles.

It is my impression that the flock of anons are not sockpuppets of the lead anon, but instead distinct likeminded individuals acting at his direction or urging: this appears to be a "grassroots" effort to influence Misplaced Pages consensus rather than a single individual trying to appear to be more than one person. Kelly Martin 18:58, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by jpgordon

I urge Arbcom to involve themselves in this case. Though it may seem like a simple content dispute, the intransigence of the "fatboy anon", which has led to Ted Kennedy being protected for much of the last several months, is a classic case of a user with no grasp whatsoever of Misplaced Pages principles of cooperation, NPOV, and simple honesty. The RFC on the anon makes it clear that he is willing to call in non-Wikipedians (I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that they are not outright sockpuppets) to stack the deck to make it appear that he has the support that in reality is almost completely missing; he simply refuses to accept that consensus is overwhelmingly against him, and instead insists on inserting exactly the same text that he has been trying to insert for months. Please help. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Expansion on statement

As the first party to this RfAr, I see an issue of whether Misplaced Pages can develop quality NPOV articles on controversial politicians and similar public figures. There is a consensus (in Misplaced Pages terms, which does not mean unanimity) on whether particular text should be included in full (that it should not) or abridged (that it should). The user in question then repeatedly refers to the removal of sections that are considered non-encyclopedic as vandalism. He then requests page protection against "vandalism", which has resulted in the article being page-protected at least three times, each time for more than a week. Robert McClenon 15:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

• Abstain, for the time being. →Raul654 02:54, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Recuse Fred Bauder 14:25, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 03:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Jayjg 18:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Willmcw and User:SlimVirgin

Summary

Willmcw is stalking and harassing other editors who disagree with his political POV for disruptive purposes. SlimVirgin has engaged in extreme personal belligerency toward other editors, has made repeated personal attacks, and has engaged in coordinated disruptive actions with Willmcw.

Involved parties

An administrator incident complaint was filed by User:Rangerdude against Willmcw for wiki-stalking and general harassment on June 15th. Willmcw filed a retaliatory RfC against Rangerdude later the same evening, alleging that Rangerdude's wiki-stalking allegation against him was a personal attack. Mediation was suggested in response to Rangerdude's complaint, both parties agreed to mediation with User:Andrevan, notice was posted to the incident board and the RfC, which was then withdrawn. Attempts to proceed with mediation from then until the present have been unproductive due to mediation backlogs and disagreement over the format for conducting mediation. In the meantime the conflict has intensified. Allegations of Willmcw's harassing behavior and wiki-stalking of Rangerdude continue to the present. User:SlimVirgin has also become involved in the controversy, supporting Willmcw. Additional incident complaints were filed yesterday by Rangerdude against Willmcw for disruption of Rangerdude's edits and against SlimVirgin for harassment, promotion of Willmcw's disruptive activities, and abuse of her administrator powers in page protecting Rangerdude's user page at a time she was a party to the disputes. Page protection was removed by SlimVirgin after Rangerdude complained, but additional disputes remain. Rangerdude subsequently posted an additional request for mediation disputing Willmcw's recent activities as harassment and requesting mediation with SlimVirgin for the same. SlimVirgin refused this mediation and Willmcw denied that Rangerdude's original complaint, located here had ever been filed against him.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Post by Rangerdude informing SlimVirgin of RfAr after SlimVirgin refused mediation.
• SlimVirgin acknowledges Rangerdude's intent to file RfAr
• Notice posted to Willmcw of Rangerdude's intent to file RfAr
• Willmcw acknowledges RfAr has been filed

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

• - Incident complaint by Rangerdude against Willmcw for wikistalking and harassment, June 15th.
• - Incident complaint against Willmcw for continued harassment, August 18th
• - Incident complaint against SlimVirgin for harassment and abuse of page protection policy, August 18th
• - Request for Mediation by Rangerdude with SlimVirgin & Willmcw.
• - SlimVirgin refuses mediation request.
• - Willmcw denies original complaint was ever made against him.

Statement by Rangerdude

Rangerdude complaint against Willmcw

• Willmcw has engaged in a pattern of harassment, disruption, and wiki-stalking towards Rangerdude from February 2005 to the present and involving over 40 different articles (evidence). This stalking has been disruptive including dismantling of Rangerdude's additions without justification, removal of source material for political and POV reasons, and general harassment aimed at pestering Rangerdude's day-to-day edits on unrelated articles. This violates Misplaced Pages's policies on civility, disruption, assuming good faith, and existing Arbcom precedent and Jimbo Wales' Recycling Troll case ruling about pestering other users with stalking .
• Willmcw's stalking of me has included disruption of the Houston Chronicle mediation including the unilateral addition of himself to a closed mediation between Rangerdude and another editor and revert warring to retain his self-addition after it was removed.
• Willmcw has repeatedly attempted to disrupt Rangerdude's efforts in the current guideline proposal of Misplaced Pages:Stalking. This includes multiple bad faith edits aimed at dismantling, weakening, and deleting the proposal's text , revert warring to add an unfriendly and undesired change to the proposal , , and removing material authored by Rangerdude from the proposal while it was being drafted on account of its authorship.
• Willmcw has made WP:POINT disruptions aimed at harming the Misplaced Pages:Stalking proposal. Willmcw announced his intent to file a counter-complaint of wiki-stalking against Rangerdude for the purpose of disruption after objections were made to his dismantling edits to the proposal that are described above. He was warned of WP:POINT in response , but subsequently followed through with the complaint posted to Rangerdude's talk page.
• Willmcw has repeatedly attempted to alter and remove a question posed to him by Rangerdude regarding his purposes and disruptive edits on the Stalking article from that article's talk page. Edits were for the purposes of removing the fact that the question was addressed at his edits specifically.
• Willmcw has engaged in and promoted revert warring against Rangerdude's edits and in disregard of talk page discussions that are pending. Note: this particular case of revert warring was on an article that Willmcw has repeatedly stalked me to dating back to February 2005 and has edited in a disruptive manner previously.
• Willmcw has a history of filing retaliatory motions against Rangerdude in response to reports of his policy violations and bad behavior by Rangerdude. Examples include filed 4 hours after Rangerdude reported Willmcw for wikistalking on the administrator incident board ; Threats to post and followthrough on posting a retaliatory wikistalking counter-complaint against Rangerdude after Rangerdude voiced concerns about Willmcw's intent in editing the wiki-stalking proposal despite having a long history of having been accused of that same practice in the past; and filing a retaliatory RfAr against Rangerdude 4 days after this RfAr was posted regarding him. These examples are violations of WP:POINT and are attempts at gaming the system in response to complaints that call his editing behavior into question.
• Willmcw recently responded by disrupting several Misplaced Pages articles when Rangerdude removed a POV qualifier added by another Misplaced Pages newcomer from the name of Thomas DiLorenzo, a libertarian economist who Willmcw dislikes, in an article that quoted DiLorenzo. The qualifier attempted to bias the introduction of DiLorenzo's quote with a politically charged statement about his membership in a controversial group & Rangerdude removed it to bring the article into NPOV compliance noting in the edit description "rem. non-encyclopedic non-neutral fact ref. (see WP:NPOV) - already mentioned on DiLorenzo article in fuller context." Willmcw responded by disrupting at least four different articles in which he removed a directly quoted and sourced self-description of Ed Sebesta - a liberal political activist he likes - while mockingly copying Rangerdude's note to apply to Sebesta "rem. non-encyclopedic non-neutral fact ref. (see WP:NPOV) - already mentioned on Sebesta article in fuller context" It appears that Willmcw's sole intent in making these changes was to prompt a reaction and foster further ill will with Rangerdude, all the while disrupting existing Misplaced Pages content.
• Willmcw has engaged in heavy POV pushing to promote a liberal/leftist political agenda and to disparage conservative/libertarian viewpoints that disagree with his own. Example: Willmcw added the scare term "controversial" to the opening sentence of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a libertarian philsopher, yet removed it from the opening sentence of Southern Poverty Law Center, a liberal organization that he agrees with. In pursuing this political agenda Willmcw has become unusually skilled at content manipulation on wikipedia articles about conservative and libertarian writers, politicians, organizations, and think tanks. One of his most common tactics is to insert insinuations of racist, anti-semitic, neo-nazi, KKK, and other hate group affiliations into articles about mainstream conservative and libertarian topics, thereby trying to discredit them through guilt-by-association links with notorious political extremists. Example: Willmcw attempted to insert David Duke quotations into an article about a libertarian think tank.

Rangerdude complaint against SlimVirgin

• SlimVirgin assisted Willmcw in the WP:POINT disruption described above by posting a coordinated note publicizing it to the Village Pump announcement where community input was solicited for the Misplaced Pages:Stalking guideline proposal. This was done for the apparent purpose of disrupting or discrediting the Village Pump request for community input on forming the guideline, as indicated by her edit summary description and accompanying comments.
• Moments later SlimVirgin abused her administrative powers to page protect my user page, apparently aimed at preserving and promoting Willmcw's WP:POINT complaint that she had just linked to. Misplaced Pages:Page protection prohibits administrators from protecting pages in disputes where they are involved. The protection was removed after Rangerdude complained on both the Admin noticeboard and the Page Protection board. SlimVirgin also made an accompanying second post at this time to the Village Pump aimed at promoting Willmcw's note after another editor removed it apparently for WP:POINT reasons. This post demonstrates that her purpose in protecting the userpage and pursuing the other editor was motivated primarily by her coordinated promotion of Willmcw's note for purposes of disrupting the guideline proposal Rangerdude was working on, rather than a simple case of vandalism as she has claimed.
• SlimVirgin has made repeated personal attacks and bad faith allegations against Rangerdude. SlimVirgin rudely accused Rangerdude of deleting another unrelated user's comments from a noticeboard when the culprit was an apparent scripting bug that has been causing problems to that particular board. SlimVirgin made a similar bad-faith accusation of deletion agaisnt Rangerdude for merging a simultaneous and duplicate request for input on the Misplaced Pages:Stalking proposal into one notice post. SlimVirgin responded with extreme belligerency and personal attacks when Rangerdude responded to this allegation by stating it was a simple attempt to merge two redundant posts. SlimVirgin also removed Rangerdude's comments explaining this merge.
• SlimVirgin has engaged in multiple personal attacks including demeaning personal comments in response to the incidents mentioned above. Examples: "What is wrong with you" and "You're a disruptive editor" .
• SlimVirgin has made similar personal attacks towards Rangerdude previously, has exhibited extreme personal belligerency toward Rangerdude as an editor ("What's wrong with it Rangerdude, is in part that it's you who's suggesting it. My position is that you should not be editing this page") and has made attacks against Rangerdude that could be construed as a legal threat. Note: SlimVirgin has been cautioned by the Arbcom previously for making personal attacks.

Statement by 216.112.42.61; complaint against Willmcw

May I say something here? I just noticed this complaint by chance when looking at this page. Rangerdude is not the only one that has been stalked by Willmcw. I too have been stalked by said user, though it was a while ago so I don't remember it well. I just gave up rather than reporting it, but since others are now reporting on Willmcw, I am also. If I remember correctly, Willmcw was trying to push his own biased POV in the article 'terrorism', and I reverted his edits for a while, then gave up. Willmcw then stalked my IP to the article 'ballotechnics', which I had done substantial work on, in which Willmcw falsely portrayed it by classifying it as a pseudoscience, to discredit my contributions in anger over my attempt to prevent his pushing his biased POV. Being as others have also been stalked by Willmcw, it is clear that he has got to go.

Statement by Herschelkrustofsky; complaint against Willmcw

I wish to second the remarks of 216.112.42.61; I too have been stalked by said user. Willmcw has anticipated my contribution to this discussion in his response below, but I would like to make it official. --HK 14:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

...And, Willmcw has resumed stalking me. I have begun compiling a log of frivolous edits, which I will submit as evidence if the Arbcom decides to accept this case. --HK 00:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I too have been stalked by WillmcwJonah Ayers

Recusals

As this RfAr involves two fairly well known administrators on Misplaced Pages, I am also requesting in compliance with Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy on conflict of interest for any arbitration participant who has a strong historical editing relationship with or other personal allegiance to SlimVirgin, Willmcw, or both to disclose this information and, if applicable, recuse him or herself in accordance with this policy. Thank you. Rangerdude 00:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Willmcw

Rangerdude raises five points in his complaint against me. I consider two of them (#1 & #4) serious enough for the ArBCom to arbitrate. I believe that the other three complaints are minor and/or are based on mistaken interpretations of events. Here are my specific responses:

1. I previously responded to Rangerdude's "wiki-stalking" allegation here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Rangerdude#Description. Rangerdude also made this accusation during my Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Willmcw. At that time three editors, each barely or not known to me, wrote to say that they'd checked the "wiki-stalking" evidence and found no wrongdoing.. However Rangerdude has continued to attack me with this charge for months. I request that the ArbCom decide whether my own behavior towards Rangerdude has been wikistalking harassment, or whether his repetition of the charges has been harassment. I am eager to reply in detail to any of Rangerdude's specific charges that the ArbCom wishes.

FYI, since Rangerdude began calling me a wikistalker I also have been accused of it by these editors:

• Thodin (talk · contribs) 00:01, June 18, 2005, 08:39, July 14, 2005, 23:06, July 14, 2005, 00:31, July 15, 2005 21:19, July 16, 2005, 21:44, July 16, 2005
• Poetatoe (talk · contribs) 00:06, June 18, 2005
• 24.94.181.211 (talk · contribs)/Chuck0 (talk · contribs) 19:32, August 5, 2005
• Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs) 22:35, August 8, 2005 06:53, August 23, 2005
• Steve espinola (talk · contribs) 00:43, August 10, 2005
• Bigelow (talk · contribs) 08:44, August 18, 2005
• Agiantman (talk · contribs) 21:08, August 21, 2005
• 216.112.42.61 (talk · contribs) 02:56, August 23, 2005

2. The mediator invited me to join the Houston Chronicle mediation on June 10th and I promptly accepted.. After hearing no reply I posted a note asking if anything was happening then, having seen a notice of mediation, I just dove in on June 14th. Rangerdude made repeated efforts to remove me from the mediation. Rangerdude had previously demanded that I not be included and the mediator had agreed, but no one had informed me of this agreement. When the mediator asked me to leave the mediation I did so promptly. Prior to my participation, Rangerdude promised to limit his edits "to existing texts to a minimum during mediation excepting extraordinary unforseen circumstances". That restriction did not cover the large new, POV section and other POV material that he added to the article over the next two days. After June 15, Rangerdude never made another contribution to the mediation or to the article.

3. Rangerdude has reverted as much or more than I have. In fact, he recently amended this charge against me after having just violated the 3RR himself.

4. My charge of "wikistalking" against Rangerdude is based on his following me with the apparent intent of harassment. I will address his harassment of myself and other editors in a separate request for arbitration.

5. Rangerdude's question on Misplaced Pages talk:Stalking asked about the personal motivation of my edits and had my username in the heading, both of which I consider to be violations of talk page wikiquette. I first responded by simply removing my name from the header, but Rangerdude wouldn't settle for that. Then I tried to move it to my talk page, but that not would do either. Rangerdude reverted three times, demanding that it be on the proposal's talk page with my name in the header. I finally gave in.

Submitted by -Willmcw 08:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

It's hard to know how to respond to this, because I don't feel I have a dispute with Rangerdude. My interest in him is only as an admin. I see him as a disruptive editor and a vexatious litigant, who seems to spend most of his time on Misplaced Pages complaining about people.

Rangerdude takes a tiny factoid about an editor, twists it out of all recognition, then inserts it into multiple complaints in long-winded, quasi-legalistic posts to anyone he thinks might listen. Within the last month, he's filed two RfCs — Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Cberlet & Willmcw and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/FuelWagon, the latter deleted as uncertified and apparently filed because FuelWagon supported Will and Chip during the first RfC, making it WP:POINT — at least one RfM, and now this RfAr. It's practically impossible to defend yourself against his complaints, because he twists any response you make and uses it against you.

I first became aware of him, and began to think he was a disruptive editor, on June 15 when someone set up SlimVirgin's Left Boob (talk · contribs) and used it to post encouragement to Rangerdude on WP:AN/I regarding one of his complaints about Willmcw allegedly "stalking" him. This was the first I'd heard of the allegation against Will. My next encounter with him also saw him on the same side as sockpuppets. On June 18, he defended a malicious vandalism listing made against Will by Poetatoe (talk · contribs), a new account believed to be a sockpuppet of Thodin (talk · contribs), another disruptive editor who thinks everyone's stalking him.

Because of his support of abusive sockpuppets and their support of him, and because he was making (as I saw it, absurd) complaints against a good editor, I formed a view of Rangerdude as disruptive. I therefore left a note on his talk page asking him to reconsider his complaints against Will, and to consider taking a break from interacting with him. He replied complaining about Will's editing of Eric Foner but when I checked the page, it was clear that Rangerdude was reverting to unsourced material, and all Will was doing was politely asking for a source. I therefore told Rangerdude that Will was following policy, as he always does in my experience.

It seems this was enough to turn me into one of Rangerdude's targets. Since then, he was posted a lot of criticism of me (which I see as personal attacks), for example this . I won't give detailed responses to his specific charges unless the case is accepted, except to say that they're nonsense, and in particular I haven't abused any admin powers in relation to him. I once protected his talk page for 10 minutes when a new account Bigelow (talk · contribs) (another abusive sockpuppet who strongly supported Rangerdude) kept deleting a message that Will had posted, so I briefly protected the page from being reverted until I could work out what to do about Bigelow (who responded to the page protection with a personal attack and was therefore blocked). Rangerdude writes above that I unprotected the page only after he complained about the protection, but that isn't correct. The protection log shows:

• 08:48, August 18, 2005 SlimVirgin protected User talk:Rangerdude (vandalism);
• 08:57, August 18, 2005 SlimVirgin protected User talk:Bigelow (abusive account; blocked indefinitely)
• 08:58, August 18, 2005 SlimVirgin unprotected User talk:Rangerdude (vandal has been blocked).
• It was at 09:05 August 18 that Rangerdude made his first complaint. SlimVirgin 12:20, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by third party (Rangerdude RFA v Willmcw and SlimVirgin): FuelWagon

My involvment in this situation stems from an RFC that Rangerdude filed against Willmcw. I was not involved in the original dispute and saw the RFC and made a comment as an outside, uninvolved, and neutral party. Rangerdude was complaining about Cberlet and Willmcw's edits on the Ludwig Von Mises Institute (LVMI) article. I looked at the evidence given and the responses made, then looked at the article and talk page histories, and made my comment that the three people who certified the RFC (DickClarkMises, an LVMI employee, Nskinsell, an "adjunct scholar" for LVMI, and Rangerdude) were far more the root of any POV problem around the LVMI article than Cberlet and Willmcw.

Rangerdude related to this RFC as if he "owned" it. He reacted to my comment by going in and reformatting my comment and then he replied to my comment, calling it "extremely one-sided", "troubling", and "revolting". He claimed my "insinuation ... plainly violates Misplaced Pages:assume good faith" He claimed I "misrepresented" his edits. And he concluded "Given these clear cases of misrepresentation, bad faith personal insinuations, and inconsistenly-applied 'conflict of interest' allegations, I am disinclined to give further credence to the neutrality or accurracty of FuelWagon's take on this matter."

I got the feeling that Rangerdude was using the RFC as an attempt to punish editors who disagreed with him. I told Rangerdude that "an RFC is a mechanism intended to resolve a dispute. It is not a place to "build a case" against an editor to bring punitive measures againt them"

Rangerdude's reply indicated that he believes an RFC is needed prior to arbitration. "Were I to seek arbitration at this point before conducting an RfC into user conduct as this one is plainly categorized and designated, the request would likely be denied"

This only reinforced my opinion that Rangerdude was not using the RFC as a way to resolve his dispute with Cberlet/Willmcw, but as a way to build a case so he could eventually take it to arbitration and punish them. "You're attempting to convict someone of being rude when you broke nearly every traffic law in the book before coming before the judge. ... Take a break. give yourself a day to breathe."

Rangerdude's reply indicated his refusal to change course. "this RfC can and will proceed in a proper and responsible fashion be it with or without your assistance"

Rangerdude continued relating to the RFC as if he "owns" it, and opened an RFC-in-a-RFC, commenting on my comments and asked other editors to endorse his comments.

Throughout that RFC, Rangerdude related to the entire RFC page as if he owned it. He responded to many editors who commented against his position, he resisted attempts to move his replies to that talk page, and he even took it upon himself to put his own comments in the "response" section normally reserved for the individuals being accused of violating policy. He even declared the "requirement" to close the RFC was that "the new revisions (to the LVMI page) are allowed to remain"

Soon thereafter, and in a further demonstration of using RFC's for punitive means, Rangerdude filed an RFC against me for some comment I made on another RFC, accusing me of personal attacks. No one else certified it, so it was removed.

I went back to editing articles and didn't bump into Rangerdude again until I happened upon the proposed policy against "stalking". Rangerdude seemed intent on making it against policy to "stalk" another editor. The overall consensus was largely against the proposed policy, and it was eventually merged in with "harassment". I believe Rangerdude became heavily involved in the policy proposal for wikipedia:stalking with the specific intention of accusing Willmcw of "stalking" him. "stalking" is an accusation that is easy to make and is extremely difficult even for an innocent editor to disprove.

While I haven't been involved in the current dispute that Rangerdude is requestion arbitration for around Willmcw and SlimVirgin, it is my opinion that Rangerdude's edits qualify as POV-pushing and he wikilawyers against anyone who opposes his POV edits. In my opinion, this request for arbitration was his intention from the start when he filed the RFC against Willmcw and Cberlet. Rangerdude's edits were consistently POV. And he consistently reacted to anyone who opposed his POV edits by RFC'ing them, building a case against them, and accusing them of countless policy violations. His reaction to my comment read more like a prosecuting attorney than someone attempting to resolve anything: "Given these clear cases of misrepresentation, bad faith personal insinuations, and inconsistenly-applied 'conflict of interest' allegations, I am disinclined to give further credence to the neutrality or accurracty of FuelWagon's take on this matter." )

It's my opinion that Rangerdude's approach to dealing with editors who have a different point of view than him is to wikilawyer them, find a way to punish them, file RFC's and negotiate a change to the article in exchange for closing the RFC, attempt to change policy to make it easier to accuse them of policy violations, and accumulate enough empty charges to bring it to arbitration. FuelWagon 16:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't have direct experience of SlimVirgin's behaviour around this specific incident. However, my experience of SlimVirgin saw three good editors leave wikipedia in disgust after a run-in with her. While not directly related, it may reflect a pattern of behaviour on SlimVirgin's part that may have contributed to the above situation.

On 11 July, 2005, the Terri Schiavo article looked like this. The talk page marked the article as "controversial topic" and "in mediation". Ed Poor was mediator. SlimVirgin came into the article, performed 9 edits over the course of 3 hours. During that time SlimVirgin inserted the "in use" tag , which displays "This article is actively undergoing a major edit."

Several long term editors on the article protested that SlimVirgin's edit qualified as reckless for an article listed as "controversial" and in "mediation" and that her edit contained numerous factual errors.

SlimVirgin never once acknowledge a single factual error in her edit, although she continued to ask us to point out any error. "If I made a factual error, point to it" , "You also mention errors of fact, but again, don't cite any. Please do." , "Show me one factual or grammatical error that I edited into the article" , "Show me one error I made in the article" , "neither of you has said what your objection is" , "If you feel I've introduced errors, please list them on talk" , "please discuss your objections on talk" , "Please say what your specific objections are" .

Several editors pointed out factual errors in her edit, including user:Neuroscientist who posted a 5,000 word explanation here . Rather than acknowledge a single error, SlimVirgin replies " I don't appreciate the personal comments you've lobbed at me." SlimVirgin accused several editors of various policy violations including "POV pushing" , "taking ownership of the page" , "violating NPOV and No original research" , and "arguing for the sake of arguing" . When asked to support her accusations, she neither provided evidence nor withdrew her accusations. Demands for evidence to support these accusations were met with silence. I filed an RFC against SlimVirgin and it was supported by 5 editors. I eventually withdraw my certification to allow the RFC to be deleted.

When the RFC fails to resolve anything, a long time contributer to the Terri Schiavo article, User:Duckecho quit wikipedia, citing SlimVirgin's "arrogance" as one reason for leaving . User:Neuroscientist quits wikipedia soon after .

SlimVirgin withdraws from Terri Schiavo mediation, saying it was "silly". . One editor who had been working on the article "A ghost" called it "self-centered, naked arrogance" . Ten days later, "A ghost" stops contributing to wikipedia .

These three editors (Duckecho, Neuroscientist, A ghost) had been working on the Terri Schiavo and other articles on wikipedia for several months and had 2,000 edits combined. And all of them leave wikipedia immediately after this incident with SlimVirgin. Despite SlimVirgin's accusations of rampant policy violations by these editors on the Terri Shiavo article, none of these three editors had any RFC's or admin blocks against them.

The end result of SlimVirgin's behaviour was that three valuable editors left wikipedia in disgust, two specifically blaming her of arrogance. FuelWagon 19:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

update: Having filed the above comment, SlimVirgin informed me she can no longer assume any good faith of me . Later that same day, she questioned the validity of an RFC that I filed against another editor (Bensaccount) about a week and a half prior. SlimVirgin said it looks like "another example of an inappropriate RfC filed by" me . She questioned several aspects of the legitimacy of the RFC on the RFC talk page. I told her that given her declared bias against me, and given that she hadn't said one word about this RFC up until this point, that she shouldn't be involved with this RFC at all. We went back and forth on the talk page. SlimVirgin eventually deleted two posts of mine that comment about her behaviour, she attempted to justify the first delete as a personal attack and saying "reverting" for the second one. . I tell her she's trying to suppress criticism of her behaviour as an admin and as an editor. Some time later, SlimVirgin says that she asked another admin to look at the RFC, and based on what they said, she wasn't going to delete it. , which means the RFC was fine in the first place.

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

• Just noting that I'm waiting for a response before coming to a decision. James F. (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC) Accept. James F. (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 14:45, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 03:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Requests for Clarification

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

Jarlaxle Artemis

Is Jarlaxle Artemis blocked indefinitely by an admin, or banned by the ArbCom (the ArbCom doesn't usually ban indefinitely)? I ask because he is strongly suspected of still creating articles: if he is banned, they are speedies, if he is merely blocked, they are not. The text of the final decision signed by Raul654 uses the word banned, but the case was closed. -Splash 01:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, Jarlaxle Artemis has been banned by the community. Such bans are rare but not unknown.

James F. (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur with James - they are speedies. →Raul654 20:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Banned by the community? Huh? Was there a vote? How was this done? Everyking 22:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

People who are banned by the community have historically not been voted on - note Willy on Wheels and Mr. Treason. Snowspinner 22:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

But Jarlaxle wasn't a vandal...anyway, how can somebody be banned by the community if the community has no way to express its wish? Surely there was some way that the community gave its opinion? Everyking 22:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You'll want to go unblock Mr. Treason then, who was not a vandal, but a personal attack making asshole. The usual method of this getting done is a lack of hue and cry when someone tries to ban the user. Snowspinner 22:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, in my book that's not banned by the community, or even close. Banned by the community would mean community discussion/consensus/vote. It seems misleading to call it that, like a way to claim wider approval of actions when we don't know if that approval actually exists. Everyking 23:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

"in my book that's not banned by the community" - I think you just answered your own question. →Raul654 23:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

What? Everyking 23:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Errr... he's being kind of dismissive or something :). Anyway I think what they mean is that when admins know about a person and one of them blocks them indefinately for something really bad (vandalism etc.) and no one unblocks the person, then its sort of considered "banned by the community" I guess. I could be wrong though - I imagine its something like that. Ryan Norton 23:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the problems with that are A) how many people would even know about the block? B) admins with any kind of sense don't go unblocking when certain other admins made the blocks. That can be very dangerous to your future at Misplaced Pages—hell, with Snowspinner I have virtually never countered any of his blocks (I can think of one time, and after he reblocked I didn't unblock again), only questioned the need for them or the manner in which they were done, and look at all the trouble I'm in. C) how do non-admins, the large majority of the community, feel about it? So to call it "banned by the community" I maintain you have to actually present the issue to the community for its approval or rejection. Everyking 00:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, as for (A) by the time some admin musters up the guts to block someone indefinately its probably been mentioned several times on WP:AN/I and other venues. As for (B) AFAIK admins arn't supposed to reblock generally (thus getting into a rather unfortunate "block war") - and well, *sigh* I don't know the exact specifics of the SS vs. EK debate with the blocks, but I know that for people who arn't used to constant criticism it can seem rather annoying and seem frivolous (I.E. maybe he just got sick of it and cracked, but I don't really have enough info to judge here...). And (C), I'm assuming that by "the community" they mean that admins represent the community in situations like these. These are all assumptions and I could very well be wrong though. Ryan Norton 00:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi everyking! I think they are talking about Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis_2, namely User:Linuxbeak/Admin_stuff/JarlaxleArtemis Ryan Norton 22:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

If someone makes so much trouble that they are blocked indefinitely by an administrator and no other administrator sees fit to unblock them (including all the Arbitration Committee who generally are administrators) the arbitration committee may chose to not unblock them merely to render a decision regarding their behavior. Obviously if they return as a sockpuppet the case may be either reopened or the sockpuppets also blocked depending on how much general uproar ensues. Fred Bauder 22:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Gavin the Chosen

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

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

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

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

It only says he may choose another username, but this is very disturbing and I agree that the block should be reset in addition to disabling his account or something of that sort. I haven't received any emails yet; want to send me one now, Gavin? ~~ N (t/c) 14:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

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

the requested response

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

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

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

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

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

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

thanks, and feel free to send this message to other arbitrators, or to contact me for conversation at gagb@gabrielsimon.com on MSN or filmbuff42 on YIM.

thanks for listening.

For some little reason, I'm inclined to believe DreamGuy here. Do the developers have any way of logging/checking use of Special:Emailuser? I have asked him what a false RfAr is - does he mean this request for clarification? ~~ N (t/c) 22:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply: "sorry, i thought it was an RFAr. in any case, the reast of it apllies, i think,. his accusations are totoaly false. i beleive this attempt at deception on his part to be typical of his rather childish behaviour and overall lack of maturity and civillity on this site."

addendum

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

thanks for listening again

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

afterthoughts

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

i cant see the harm...

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

...

(after I had posted the above)

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

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

Because it's your word against DreamGuy's, and while you both have had civility problems in the past I consider him to be far more trustworthy. DreamGuy, it might help if you posted some evidence, like links to the attacks from users you think Gabriel had been emailing. ~~ N (t/c) 22:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, was mostly gone for the weekend. I no longer have he emails in question, as I deleted them in disgust (and now that I think of it, I thought I had blocked his email address because of other harassing emails previously, so I don't know if something about the forward process doesn't work with my filter or if it came from another similar account/email that happened to use Gabriel's language style and so forth, which is pretty distinct). Talk:Urban legend is full of the tirades of an editor claiming that an editor emailed him to "warn" him about me. I believe User:Khaosinfire was the other main one talking about "email warnings" on his/my talk page. There was someone else too, but there are a variety of editors who like to play the same style game of troll accusations so that they hope to prevail (User:Lightbringer maybe? I know he's gone off the deep end lately) but keeping track of which ones claim they got email warnings and which ones are just bad editors in general without that claim can be rough.

I think I'll just not worry about it anymore at this point, as if he does it again (or there are similar accusations from others) there should be plenty enough evidence to hang him, and if he doesn't do it again he's learned that he'll be caught doing this too. like he was caught with all his other nonsense (sockpuppets, anon IP to try to get around 3RR, etc.). And of course his responses above show absolutely no improvement, so I suspect that when he comes back he'll just continue on with his nonsense and get blocked for multiple months, and knowing his history will cntinue to do so until it becomes effectively permanent. DreamGuy 23:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

=+==Again===+

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

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

After seeing this notice he has yet again emailed to toss out insults (and yet claims it's not harassment, because of course nothing he ever does he considers harassment) and admits to contacting multiple editors to "warn" them about me, leading to more disputes and here. He is on yet another 24-hour block, his second since his one month block ended just a couple of days ago. DreamGuy 04:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

And it continues with a third... I'm saving them this time in case somebody wants them as proof. DreamGuy 02:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Mlorrey

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

I have repeatedly stated that I never initiated any legal proceedings in any court against Meelar or Firebug, despite their clear abuse of accepted standards of arbitration process. I initiated my injunction just as they were making things up and railroading me through a process without seeking to negotiate or discuss anything, all the while making me look like the bad guy. This episode is a clear example of how NPOV ISN'T, when people act in bad faith and learn to write with NPOV language while pursuing a biased agenda in attempting to suppress facts they dislike. I do not plan on initiating proceedings against anybody provided my own rights begin to be respected, which they have not. The wiki arbitration process violates so many commonly accepted principles of arbitration and jurisprudence I don't know even where to start, but I can start with this ban you put on me: your groups action in banning me for exercising my human rights to legal process is itself a violation of my rights under international legal conventions. Your flawed process allows a small cadre of insiders to suppress individuals they disagree with or whose statements they do not like, and THAT is most definitely, not NPOV, and violates the spirit of wikipedia.Mlorrey 21:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The above does not make me confident that this user can be civil and will not continue legal threats if unblocked so I must say that I am against the unblocking of this user due to the fact that his attitude does not seem to have changed at all. Jtkiefer ----- 22:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

From above: I do not plan on initiating proceedings against anybody provided my own rights begin to be respected, which they have not. My reading of this is that it is a renewed threat of legal action, albeit one with a rather hollow ring to it. The difficulty with legal threats on Misplaced Pages is that they poison the working environment even when they are baseless, and cartooney, and even when there is a transparent lack of willingness and/or ability to follow through with actual litigation. In light of this, I conclude that Mlorrey is continuing the behavior for which he was banned, and I therefore decline to lift the block at this time. As always, I welcome comments from others. In particular, I think I'll leave a note for Meelar and Firebug to see if they believe that any legal action is now resolved. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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

On second thought, perhaps this legal dispute: "The wiki arbitration process violates so many commonly accepted principles of arbitration and jurisprudence I don't know even where to start, but I can start with this ban you put on me: your groups action in banning me for exercising my human rights to legal process is itself a violation of my rights under international legal conventions." ought to be resolved first before the ban is lifted. Fred Bauder 18:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Fred; we'd want that to be looked at that first.

James F. (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat

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

• Coolcat prohibited from mediating
  • 1) Due to lack of community support, Cool Cat (talk • contribs) is prohibited from holding himself out as a mediator or attempting to serve as a mediator of any dispute, ... This ban shall continue in effect until such time as he is officially appointed to the Mediation Committee.

    I do not see how this works, I cannot be a member of Mediation Committee unless I demonstrate I can mediate. --Cool Cat 03:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Coolcat prohibited from restructuring
  • 4) Cool Cat (talk • contribs) is prohibited from moving the comments of others around on the talk page of any article or any user talk page other than his own. Additionally he is not permitted to archive any talk page other than his own. Cool Cat may make no edit to a talk page which is not at the end of a section unless he begins a new section at the bottom of the page. This restriction shall last for one year.

    What exaclty does this mean? I dont have a history of "restructuring". I just moved embedded convos into my post on that instance (I also forgot about this). I cannot abide by the "Cool Cat may make no edit to a talk page which is not at the end of a section unless he begins a new section at the bottom of the page" as that would mean I cannot respond people in votes for example. I also dont see the purpose it serves. --Cool Cat 03:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

On the first point, it refers to mediation, not Mediation. Cool Cat is prohibited from acting as an informal mediator. If the Mediation Committee is satisfied that he is sufficiently able to mediate that he can Mediate, if you see what I mean, then we defer to their judgement on that.

James F. (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The way I see it, pardon me if I am beeing blunt, I will need to demonstrate mediation skills with out mediating which makes little sense. This ruling appears to be indefinate hence by nature is restricting me from mediating forever. --Cool Cat 12:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Archive

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (unofficial)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution