• The copyvios just keep showing up, one after the other, over and over again. And every time they get removed, or the article tagged, charges of POV, intellectual dishonesty and hidden agendas are made against the people cleaning up the mess. --Duk 00:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Stevertigo

User:TDC has been a consistent and active foe and violator of Wikipedias NPOV policy in controversial areas and topics such as this one. He should be banned from editing any and all controversial topics related to U.S. military conflict. As stated above he has been consistent in using revert wars, policy and process rules (copyviolation, protection, 3RR, etc.) to POV war against the very existence of an article. How the Arbcom has managed to avoid banning him until now should be taken as evidence of the need for WP:DRR. -St|eve 01:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo, you have little room to talk about my violations, I am not the one who was stripped of his admin powers. TDC 22:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Tony Sidaway

This seems to be a case of an editor deliberately choosing to treat Misplaced Pages as a battleground. I have tried to rein back the edit warring. TDC sometimes goes for the better part of a week apparently going down his watchlist and doing reverts. A month or two ago I blocked TDC for a couple of days, and more recently I admonished him, and he seemed to get the point and stop. Although others are involved, when TDC stops the warring stops. Past experience leads me to the expectation that he will simply wait until my attention is elsewhere and resume. 08:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Tony, it would be nice of you to include the small detail that several other anons had target me and all my contributions with cute edit summaries like Die Nazi, DIE !. And you are right, for all the reasons stated above, I will not give up on this article. TDC 17:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

.

Joshuaschroeder

Involved parties

• User:Joshuaschroeder

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I have placed a notification on Joshuaschroeder's talk page

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Extensive discussion on Talk:Redshift
• Extensive discussion on Talk:Plasma_cosmology including an RfC: Requests for comment.
• Extensive discussion on Talk:Electric_Universe_(concept), including two Votes for Deletion.

Statement by Iantresman (Talk)

I feel that contributions from User:Joshuaschroeder in the articles above, may contravene certain Misplaced Pages policies, such as exhibiting a non-neutral point of view, and indirect personal attacks. For example:

1. Despite surviving a Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/Electric_Universe_model at 06:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC), Joshuaschroeder attempts to delete and redirect the page elsewhere, six hours later at 12:09, 20 July 2005 (History)
2. Having added information to the page on Redshift on "Causes" and "Neutrino redshift", (History) both with peer reviewed references, Joshuaschroeder removes them both and comments in Talk:Redshift in the section Variable particle mass theory, that "This article should not be a dumpster for any huckster's fanciful suggestions". The implication that peer-reviewed scientists are "huckster's" I consider a personal slur, and the dismissal of peer-reviewed referenced information to be point of view.
3. In the discussion on Talk:Plasma_cosmology, on 14:25, 1 November 2005, Joshuaschroeder writes that "Until you understand the basic difference between comparison and explanatory theory, there is no reason to continue this discussion.", which makes it difficult to discuss matters.
4. On the Plasma cosmology page on 12:20, 26 October 2005, Joshuaschroeder adds the Pseudoscience tag (History). As a science developed by Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfvén and by other scientists shown at the bottom of the page, I consider the Pseudoscience tag to be quite insulting, and a personal attack.
5. I feel that further comments by Joshuaschroeder demean the article on Plasma Cosmology, see my comments "Deeply troubled with Joshuaschroeder" (8 Nov 2005) , and hence are not neutral points of view.
6. In Talk:Plasma_cosmology a contribution "Eric Lerner's criticism" (6 Nov) from plasma cosmologist Eric Lerner, also suggests that "Joshua Schroeder, has devoted a vast amount of time to vandalizing entries on plasma cosmology", which if true, is against Misplaced Pages policy.
7. In Talk:Redshift Joshuaschroeder has refused to allow certain types of redshift to be added to the page, claiming the article is about a specific kind of redshift. This is not a neutral point of view. The discussion on the "Wolf Effect" provides detail.
8. In Redshift, Joshuaschroeder adds a comment (15:31, 9 October 2005) about other kinds of redshift, suggesting that "These are frequency-dependent effects", when I have provide three peer-reviewed reference indicating that is not always the case, and I have mentioned in Talk:Redshift that I have had my facts checked by some of the authors. In this respect Joshuaschroeder is contradicting peer-reviewed scientists, and hence it is not a neutral point of view.
9. In Electric Universe history on 19:47, 13 October 2005, Joshuaschroeder comments that "there is no way that the Electric Universe corresponds to an interdisciplinary approach since most proponents are not in any discipline". Despite being over-general, he is implying that none of the proponents are educated in any discipline, or have belonged to an education establishment? Either way, this is a personal attack and against Misplaced Pages policy. It's also inaccurate. Despite the subject being based on astronomy, physics, history, rock art (which I consider being interdisciplinary), the History section in the Electric_Universe_(concept) article clearly specifies proponents' disciplines.

Statement by Joshuaschroeder (Talk)

User:Iantresman has not gone through the traditional channels of trying to resolve this dispute and instead has appealed directly to arbitration. I do not object to his desire to resolve the conflict, but I do think that this is a bit premature. I spend much of my time trying to work with editors on a number of these articles who are not overly familiar with science and consequently make fairly poor contributions to particular articles. User:Iantresman is one such editor who has a tendency to add material that is either poorly researched, poorly worded, or out-of-place. He doesn't like having his edits removed and I think this is the true basis for his RfA. Joshuaschroeder 12:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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

• Reject for lack of a prior attempts to resolve this conflict through the dispute resolution process. No user conduct RfC, and I can't find the article RfC alleged to in the complaint. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Ben

Involved parties

• Aggrieved party: Ben | talk
• Party 1: Administrator FeloniousMonk | talk (main conduct complaint)
• Party 2: Administrator RoyBoy | talk (secondary conduct complaint)
• Party 3: Administrator Duncharris | talk (secondary conduct complaint)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• FeloniousMonk has been informed.
• RoyBoy has been informed.
• Duncharris has been informed.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Ben has spoken with administrators Ryan Delaney | talk and SlimVirgin | talk regarding the problem. Ben also filed an article RFC regarding the content of the article which did not prove fruitful. FeloniousMonk has informed Ben that he will not participate in a Request for comment regarding his conduct. .

Addendum: Please compare this with FeloniousMonk's personal statement later in this RfArb: "I'm not going to waste too time responding to this because Benapgar has failed to seek any other form of resolving this dispute first, jumping straight to arbitration." Ben 11:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: Please also note that FeloniousMonk's RfC against Ben was filed 18 minutes after Ben initially filed this RfArb. --Ben 23:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Ben | talk

FeloniousMonk is an administrator who edits and participates in the discussion page of the article Intelligent Design|talk. The user is currently involved in a dispute with Ben regarding the knowledge structure of the topic and the characterization of the current article. Ben's comments were initially hostile towards the structure of the article, saying the article was "horrible." While inappropriate, this opinion regarding the article is not unique to Ben . FeloniousMonk's response was off-topic and dismissive of Ben's concerns. Ben then modified two sentences in the disambiguation paragraph to what he believed more accurately reflected the nature of the article and which was helpful. FeloniousMonk quickly reverted this change without explanation, violating revert policy Subsequently Ben has been explaining his views and position . FeloniousMonk's responses are off-topic and dismissive and do not adequately address Ben's position in the slightest. The majority of his responses consist only of his opinion without explanation, for example simply stating a change is "inaccurate and POV" and generally acting contrary to assume good faith policy. Ben also believes FeloniousMonk is using his networks as administrator to further obstruct Ben's and other potential editors' contributions .

Ben's position regarding the article content is that as the topic is presented and defined, the article violates No personal essays policy.

Ben asserts FeloniousMonk is conciously and repeatedly obstructing Ben's and other editors' ability to contribute and as such is violating ownership of articles policy and assume good faith policy.

Many other users also have strong concerns about the article and about FeloniousMonk's conduct and violations of ownership policy. FeloniousMonk has even claimed that "new editors edit this article all the time," however in a week's period the changes are not substantial though the article averages 15-20 edits/day and the discussion page 40-50 edits/day.

On November 5, 2005, FeloniousMonk used his administration privileges to block Ben for inserting into the introduction, almost verbatim, FeloniousMonk's own assertion regarding the factual accuracy of the introduction .

RoyBoy is an administrator and has violated civility policy and troll policy by engaging with contributors on the Intelligent Design talk page whose comments served no purpose other than to insult the contributors to the article. Both RoyBoy and FeloniousMonk used this as an opportunity to insult the user. Later RoyBoy generally made offensive comments regarding creationists . When confronted about his actions he said "LOL, yeah that's my favorite" in reference to what he called his "joke." Later he said "I'd concur its needless to improving the article, but that's not the end all be all of a discussion page. Of course if you had enough experience to be an admin; you'd stand a good chance of understanding that."

Duncharris is an administrator and has violated civility policy by referring to Ben as "a lowly troll." Duncharris was not involved in any way with the dispute on the Intelligent Design talk page and showed up solely to make this comment. Duncharris subsequently reverted without comment a contribution by Ben on the Coingate article. The reversion was entirely unnecessary and inaccurate. Duncharris had previously not contributed to that page. Ben asserts this is a case of intimidation and harassment. Ben further believes that Duncharris' actions were a result of communication with RoyBoy or FeloniousMonk with an intent to harass. Ben also is concerned that an earlier case of vandalism on a similar page may be related .

Statement by FeloniousMonk | talk

I'm not going to waste too time responding to this because Benapgar has failed to seek any other form of resolving this dispute first, jumping straight to arbitration. Needless to say, there is a user conduct RFC I have filed on Benapgar's chronically disruptive behavior, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Benapgar, and my comments on the trouble Benapgar has been causing for the last two weeks of personal attacks and disruptive refusal to accept consensus can be found there. FeloniousMonk 00:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by RoyBoy | talk

My first RfAr, I'm in the big leagues now. Ben has a habit of taking things out of context and attempting to read my mind in order to prove something and/or silence/bully me by making baseless/opinionated allegations and then calling for my resignation. On top of that he seems to think he can beat us over the head with WikiPolicy. Which makes me inclined to not like him; and I hope WikiPolicy has some sort of mechanism with which to send a message even Ben can't ignore; that Ben's not only in the wrong, but is going about it the wrong way. In summation; repeated attempts to read my mind, motivations, actions indicates to me – that as of now – Ben is not suited for Misplaced Pages. <--- 131 words, not too shabby! - RoyBoy 22:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Dunc | talk

Ben is a lowly troll, as can be seen by his trolling at talk:intelligent design and indeed this frivilous complaint. He is the latest in the long line of religiously-inspired creationist POV warriors to try to tell us that there are POV problems with the articles on evolution or intelligent design because they follow the policy at WP:NPOV#pseudoscience:

represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view

A lot of work has gone into these articles to make them NPOV on a tricky subject. (Yet again) A newbie turns up and wants to completely rewrite it. Yet he does not understand the (admitedly quite complex) motivations and subtleties of ID, for example drifting into theology, and cannot provide a scientific theory of creationism.

Yet irritated that he's not got his way he's throwing his rattle out of his pram and complaining that there is a cabal. This RFA is simply another escalation in a childish harassment campaign. I can hardly believe that I am being forced to respond to this trolling, and anyone just needs to look at his RFC to see how unreasonable this chap is being.

I reverted his coingate since I believe he can't be trusted, though that whole article is a mess and he really couldn't've made it any worse! I have no interest or knowledge on that subject, and reverting him may have been an error on my part, but he's just nitpicking and his own record speaks for itself.

I really have found this little episode quite amusing and for the record would like to say that I am not intimidated in any way by this pathetic individual. Dunc|☺ 22:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

• Reject. Please try earlier parts of the dispute resolution. James F. (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Accept for NPOV reasons Fred Bauder 15:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Reject without prejudice until currently open RfC is concluded. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Reject as per Kelly ➥the Epopt 00:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Reject with great prejudice. One need only take a cursory look at Talk:Intelligent design to see that FeloniousMonk's actions are EXACTLY what we expect our admins to do. →Raul654 07:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Accept to review evidence raised in RfC of potential abuse of administrative authority and misconduct by adminstrators. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Requests for Clarification

Speeding Ticket

I think in analogies, so I have one for this situation. Right now, POTW is much like a speeder on the highway, going 90 miles per hour when there are no police around or when he feels like it, going down to the speed limit when police are around or when he feels like it, and then once he feels like it or the police presence is gone, he goes back up to 90 miles per hour.

However, unlike traffic cops, you don't need a radar gun to see evidence, you can see it in his behavior in the past from his contribs and the RfC. Whether he's speeding right now or not is irrelevant, he deserves a ticket. Karmafist 16:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you please let me know which arbitration this refers to? Samboy 07:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The 'Request for Clarification' and 'Speeding Ticket' sections above were connected to the 'Pigsonthewing' arbitration request, but got left behind here when it was accepted. --CBDunkerson 08:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It comes down to a philosophical question—is it the ArbCom's role to 'ticket speeders'? That is, should the ArbCom be handing out punishments when people break Misplaced Pages's rules? I'd like to think that the ArbCom is here–along with every one of our other processes and policies–for the purpose of building an encyclopedia. The ArbCom should be prepared to step in where an editor's behaviour is interfering with that primary goal (and where other attempts at resolution have failed.)

In other words, if an editor has made a nuisance of himself but later ceases the offending behaviour, it may not be necessary for the ArbCom to interfere further. If there is a sign of further trouble, we still have a record of the previous bad behaviour, and the ArbCom can 'throw the book at them', as it were. Obviously the amount of misbehaviour we should be prepared to set aside depends quite heavily on the circumstances. Some offenses are akin to 'speeding', others are closer to aggravated assault. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Ten. Whether or not he's doing something now is irrelevant. He's been a problem user in the past, he has refused to reform, so therefore he's going to continue to be a problem user in the future. Something has to be done, and I fear that the ArbCom is the only place where it can happen with the current structure of Misplaced Pages.Karmafist 22:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The primary goal should be to build a encyclopedia witch has a certain quality. This quality in the case of wikipedia is obtained by letting persons with different opinions argue on a level playing field and let them reach a version which is acceptable to all. When you don't see the need to offer a level playing field, one side of the argument will just walk away. Making Misplaced Pages a encyclodedia of low quality. You don't offer a level playing field when you say that some persons don't have move inside bounds of their parole.--MichaelSirks 12:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Based on the lack of enforcement of RfAr/Climate change dispute, there are no ArbCom actions. (SEWilco 21:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC))

Aw diddums, won't the arbcomm conduct your vendettas for you? How sane of them. But in fact that case shows you who wrong you are: the arbcomm very effectively banned JG and Cortonin. Did you forget that? William M. Connolley 22:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC).

The amount of game playing/favoratism associated with ArbCom procedings is truly a disgrace. Klonimus 07:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The Bogdanov Affair case, recently closed

There are a few outstanding issues which I would be most grateful if the Committee would please clarify for me regarding the status of the accounts which were banned under the former temporary injunction. Since I was requested by Fred to make the various blocks on the temporary injunction, it means I have been receiving the e-mail dialogue from the parties wishing to be unbanned, and as a consequence of the recent closing of the case a few have written to me asking to be unbanned. My queries are as follows:

1. The final remedy decided upon by the Committee has been that the various Bogdanov Affair participants are indefinitely banned from the article itself. The previous temporary injunction was that they were banned indefinitely from Misplaced Pages; since this has now been replaced with only an article editing ban, does this mean all of those users are now entitled to edit Misplaced Pages, and thus should be unblocked?
2. A specific user, XAL (talk · contribs) was initially banned by Fred prior to the passing of the injunction, although she is named in it. If the above is true, that is the users should now be unblocked, should XAL also be unblocked or is she a special case due to Fred's direct involvement?
3. Also, XAL has never edited the article, but has only been involved in the talk page. She has never edited the Bogdanov Affair article itself; there are a number of other users like this. Does this mean they fall outside of the purview of the enforcement decision? That is, is the ban from editing the article to be taken to also refer to the talk page? If not, we shall have to suffer a repeat of the whole talk page débâcle once again, since the users currently indefinitely blocked from editing shall be able to legitimately edit the talk page, and thus we may end up with yet another arbcom case about their talk page editing.
4. Regarding the decision on enforcement: "Any user banned from editing Bogdanov Affair who nevertheless edits it, may be briefly banned from Misplaced Pages entirely, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses, and after the 5th offense, up to a year." Since it was I who set the blocks, it must likewise be my duty to unset them. Also, others have indefinitely blocked a multitude of sockpuppets of Igor Bogdanov. Does that mean that I must go through the contributions of all of the users who have been indefinitely blocked, change those bans on users with 5 offenses or more to a year's ban, and unban the rest? (since, after all, they have been blocked for longer than 1 week). Also, this decision is liable to give rise to a whole load of Bogdanov sockpuppets that are discarded after they have been used for 5 offenses. If this really is what the admins involved must do, this would be a most laborious task considering the vast numbers of sockpuppets used.
5. No decision has been made regarding the page protection. The present scenario of having to revert changes, and protect the article regularly, due to banned users editing is most unsatisfactory. Undoubtedly, the article will need to be protected more often as a result of the above enforcement decision, since we shall not be able to block sockpuppets solely on the basis of name or after having made only a few edits which blatantly disclaim who is operating the account.

I am most grateful for the Committee's work on this matter, and would appreciate an expeditious response since I have been receiving some consternation from various blocked users via e-mail. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Unblock anyone who is blocked but who has not been trying to edit the article. Those who you are sure have been trying to edit the article during the injunction, need not be unblocked. Please don't unblock XAL. I'll try to help you with this tomorrow. Fred Bauder 04:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you are responsible for this mess. You only need to unblock folks when you have time. Fred Bauder 05:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Rex071404

Per this page, , and it's advice to bring issue's pertaining to enforcement of a previous arbitration ruling to the RfAr, this information has been posted here.

Recently, Rex has been causing a lot of trouble at John Kerry. He has consistently edit-warred and has forced the page into protection Twice while at the same time violating 3RR Twice . The issue is the same exact one that has been brought up in previous ArbComm hearing's: John Kerry's 1st Purple Heart. In fact Rex talks about that in his opening statement in his first ArbComm hearing. . Numerous people have attempted to dialog with Rex regarding this, so much so, that the discussion now occupies 6 archive spaces and approximately 700 kb worth of talk not including the current talkpage. A vote was recently attempted to try and close the discussion. Even after that, Rex continued to push his POV, which resulted in the page being protected for the second time.

My question is this, do the Remedies, Enforcements and Judgements from previous Arbitrations still apply to this case? Or have they all expired as Rex claims they have? Do the three previous arbitration cases and two previous RfCs which involved this same exact issue; John Kerry's 1st Purple Heart; constitute an attempt at other methods of dispute resolution? Does the community need to go through a 4th Arbitration Case against Rex over the same issue? Or is there a "Requesting Enforcement of Previous Arbitration Ruling" template that I am missing? -- Mr. Tibbs 20:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

May I back up Mr Tibbs's intervention here. Rex has reduced the John Kerry page to chaos with endless nitpicking rows (Does a wounded man have a 'wound'? Is a bandage necessarily made of cloth? Medical definitions ad nausuam, a list of 50 'issues' he wants discussed, which actually boil down to five repeated in different ways over and over again, etc.) Rex's antics have alienated people who tried to be fair to him and listened to his endless raising of the same issues over and over and over and over, or rather his agreeing something, moving on, then returning back to square one 48 hours later and starting the argument all over again. The article and talk pages are right now unusable and will remain so until until Rex's antics are dealt with and ended. FearÉIREANN\ 21:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll throw in my own voice here. Though Rex is technically more polite than he was before the previous RfArs, he is doing exactly the same thing: obsessively focusing on doing whatever he can to make sure that John Kerry is not elected President in 2004. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)