Revision as of 14:05, 24 October 2009

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

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Requests for arbitration

Rjanag

Initiated by Epeefleche (talk) at 21:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Backslash Forwardslash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DGG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draeco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Greg L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HWV258 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kiac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Seresin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Contains Mild Peril (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Rjanag
• Backslash Forwardslash
• DGG
• Draeco
• Greg L
• HWV528
• Kiac
• Seresin
• Contains Mild Peril

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• I and others tried addressing his behavior with Rjanag directly many times both on talk pages and at the AfDs. To no avail. User:Draeco noticed the incivility, as did User:Kiac here, User:HWV258 here, User:Tony1 here, User:Greg_L on several occasions such as here and here, and User:DGG here.

In addition, another editor (Tony 1; who did not vote to keep the article) wrote to Rjanag that he was “disappointed that you're not setting an example—as WP:ADMIN requires of you.... If you're upsetting a lot of other users in the same place, it's time to self-reflect.”

Draeco brought this matter to AN/I, recommending that Rjanag be disciplined for grossly uncivil and shocking behavior. As I pointed out there, Rjanag's behavior in fact went far beyond incivility. At AN/I, Wehwalt suggested that another forum perhaps be tried because this issue is too complicated and fact-based for AN/I. I elected under WP:ADMIN to bring it to this Arbitration.

Communications with Rjanag re his behavior. I repeatedly sought to discuss Rjanag’s behavior with him. I wrote to him numerous times in this regard, both on my talk page and in the AfD (as did others, including a non-voting editor):

Statement by Epeefleche

• I urge Rjanag's summary removal, or a restriction or formal warning related to Rjanag's adminship, per WP:ADMIN.

Rjanag (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)—an admin—has over the past few weeks been seriously and repeatedly disrespectful and uncivil, and engaged in persistent misstatements (always one-way), edit warring, and wikihounding in an apparent effort to game the system and/or make editing by me and others unpleasant. Despite repeated requests by me and others that he stop. His disruptive behavior is especially troubling, as his statements are presumably given greater weight by many due to his admin status. His especially close relationship with the closing admin at the second AfD raises highly disturbing questions. I personally find all of this demoralizing.

The background is set forth at the previous AN/I.

I’ve edited at Misplaced Pages over 3 years, have 22,000 edits, and created 180 pages. I’ve never seen an admin engage in such consistently abhorrent behavior in the face of repeated entreaties to stop. It disgraces the position of admin, and poisons Misplaced Pages.

WP:ADMIN/Request for Arbitration. The applicable portion of WP:ADMIN states:

"Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.... sustained or serious disruption of Misplaced Pages is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators ... should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors.... Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: ... Repeated/consistent poor judgment ... Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring ...) ... "Bad faith" adminship (... gross breach of trust) ... Conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship.... If the dispute reflects seriously on a user's administrative capacity (... gross or persistent misjudgement or conduct issues), then ... other steps are also available: ... A Request for Arbitration if the matter may be serious enough to lead to summary removal, or a restriction or formal warning related to adminship."

Untruths. Rjanag’s comments are replete with one-sided untruths; detailed at the prior AN/I and by Contains Mild Peril here and here.

Incivility. His uncivil speech/personal attacks are largely detailed at the AN/I.

Wikihounding & Bullying. Wikihounding me, he even followed me to other editors’ talk pages and my RfA post; largely detailed at the AN/I.

Bad faith & Bullying. An example of Rjanag's bad faith and bullying is his treatment of the Seventeen article; detailed at the AN/I.

Edit warring/gaming the system. Rjanag’s tactics were inappropriately disruptive in related articles, as he edit warred and gamed the system; detailed at the AN/I.

Highly disconcerting: particularly close relationship between Rjanag and closing admin. This clear COI (which neither brought to anyone's attention) is highly disturbing, and detailed at the AN/I.

Rjanag reaction to complaints re his behavior. His absolute lack of contrition for his misbehavior is detailed at the AN/I.

Response to statement by User:Rjanag

<•My proceeding to arbitration after: a) multiple efforts by me and others to discuss this with Rjanag both on talk pages and at AfDs; and b) Draeco raising these issues in an AN/I that has now closed, is permitted by WP:ADMIN, as reflected above. •Rjanag’s unrepentant pooh-poohing of the length of time and level of his misbehavior is part of the problem. •As to why nobody brought the AN/I or this arb during the pendency of the AfD, as Rjanag well knows, during the AfD I was hoping to address this issue without a long, involved process. Furthermore, arguably it is less disruptive to address these matters seriatum. •As far as post-AfD communications are concerned, Rjanag even left a message on my talk page after the AfD ended, butting into a conversation between me and Greg L with the uncivil edit summary: “Learn what you’re talking about”. But that’s beside the point. What is at issue is his persistent weeks-long misbehavior which IMHO reflects his unsuitability for his admin position. •While Rjanag protests that this as a problem specific to his interactions with me (and presumably the half dozen other editors mentioned here), that's not the case. For example, earlier this very month, he was admonished by admin Seresin with regard to an unrelated matter as follows: "I'm rather surprised you thought making this edit was appropriate, especially as an administrator. I think it was very poor form and reflects poorly on you, and I think you would do well to remove it." (emphasis added). That was followed by this response by Seresin to a non-repentant Rjanag: "Misbehavior by another is not license to do the same. As for the conflict itself, I note that you just used administrative rollback to revert his reverts, and then you blocked him—you used your administrative tools in a conflict dispute. That is, generously, wildly inappropriate." •I believe I’ve properly invited all “involved parties”, inasmuch as I’ve invited all parties mentioned here and all parties who communicated with regard to Rjanag’s behavior–-the issue of this arb request. I’ve also apparently invited too many people, as I invited the admin who closed the AN/I (Wehwalt, who asked to be deleted). I’ve also asked here if others should be invited even if they were not involved in the behavior or commenting on it during the AfD.> Epeefleche (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to statement by User:Backslash Forwardslash

<•No one has appealed the AfD during the pendency of the AN/I, and during the pendency now of this arbitration. That may well be an effort to limit confusion and disruption, by addressing the two issues seriatum rather than concurrently. In any event, what is at issue here is Rjanag’s persistent weeks-long misbehavior. •As far as your relationship with Rjanag, what was presented at the prior AN/I reflects decidedly more than "Me and Rjanag are friends". In addition, the editor to whom you have written (on his talk page) twice as much as any other is Rjanag. And the editor to whom Rjanag has written more than all but one other editor? Turns out it is you. And who nominated Rjanag to be an admin? You -- in your first RfA support vote (let alone nomination). Add the information shared at the prior AN/I, and your coming in before the 7 days had run and closing the hotly contested AfD where Rjanag was the nom (as he wanted it closed) reeks of innappropriate COI.> Epeefleche (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Wehwalt

Can't imagine why I am listed as a party. I simply stated that the matter was so complicated that AN/I could not easily handle it and marked it resolved, with the notation that another forum might be more suitable. I take no position as to whether arbs should take this case or not, or if they do, what they should do. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'll watchlist this and keep an eye on it just in case, but don't plan to comment further unless something unexpected happens. Best to all involved.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping me from the parties list. If anyone thinks I am involved, could you drop a note on my talk page in addition to addressing it here? I'm going to give this a few hours, then unwatch this.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, same for me. I was passing by the deletion page and advised cool-headedness for all; I suggested to Rjanag that an uninvolved admin be asked to review. I don't think I can be of further assistance. Tony (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Rjanag

A lot of the same back-and-forth (about who's right, who's wrong, who's been mean to whom, etc.) has been gone over and over again by now so I'm not going to fill up space by copy-pasting it here. I'll just say, for now, that I see no point in coming to RfAr here, as Epeefleche has skipped WP:WQA (for which I provided links to several of the editors who had aired grievances), WP:RFC/U, and all the other less formal means of dispute resolution. (Epeefleche gives a laundry list above of times he's "contacted Rjanag about behavior", but none amount to formal attempts at dispute resolution; a bunch are "leave me alone" messages—eg, 1-5—and a bunch are "you're so wrong/you're such a liar" messages—eg, 14-16. The ANI thread was just a "hey, desysop this jerk!" rant, not an attempt at dispute resolution.) I've seen arbitration cases before, and all the ones I've seen are for cases much bigger than this—disputes that have gone on longer, span a larger part of the project, have happened over more than just one isolated topic, involve more editors, etc. I have no prejudice against any of these editors taking me to WQA (although, as I have already said many times, I don't think I have anything to apologize for), but there's no need to waste ArbCom's time with this minor vendetta. (And yes, it is a vendetta: Epeefleche et al. made no attempt to file an ANI thread, WQA, or any other form of dispute resolution while the AfD was ongoing, presumably because they hoped the AfD's closure as "keep" would be my comeuppance; only after they failed to get that comeuppance did they start looking for new forums to complain about my activities.) I see no need for arbitration as there is no ongoing dispute—I've lost interest in the whole topic and have not communicated directly with Epeefleche since before the AfD ended, and this whole thing will be over once he does the same. I will also make a minor note, on the side, that once again Epeefleche has notified only me, Backslash (the other editor he's complaining about here), and all the editors he thinks will be on his side; no attempt was made to notify the other half of the AfD participants, even though they are just as "involved" as all others. A clear attempt at votestacking (in something that isn't even a vote). rʨanaɢ /_contribs 22:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Backslash Forwardslash

How nice that rather than contest an AfD result to the closer, an editor goes to ANI then arbitration. I'll keep my comments short. Me and Rjanag are friends, we've been editing for roughly the same time at DYK and the like. I don't, however, go around fighting his battles. I regularly close AfDs. This AfD was one of the few open at the time, so I closed it. Most of the comments were long winded and irrelevant, and I must confess I skimmed over a lot of the interaction between Rjanag and Epeefleche, because it wasn't contributing to consensus. Yes Rjanag was borderline civil, but I can't blame him for getting frustrated at an editor who was indeed equally unhelpful. Just because he's an admin doesn't mean he can't be human. Even if I were to ignore Rjanag's contribution to the AfD completely, there would still be a consensus to delete the articles. "No consensus" closures are not the equivalent of keeps, and it is very standard practice to nominate something again after it has closed as no consensus at AfD. If you are really that concerned about the closure, WP:DRV is the way to go, not Arbitration. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Greg L

I had, and have, no particular interest in the article that was the subject of the dispute (The Shells). Nor do I recall having previously crossed paths with Epeefleche. Somewhere, however, we must have crossed paths since he left a note on my talk page about the AfD on the article. On the first AfD, I was struck by the exceedingly confrontational style of Rjanag’s. I would say that style amounts to “the best defense is a strong offense” and he seems to embrace that principle with total abandon. In the second AfD (after Rjanag didn’t get his way in the first), Rjanag was even more confrontational. His style was to inflame things at every step of the way.

I am highly doubtful that anything will come of this arbitration because the remedy Epeefleche is asking for (de-sysoping Rjanag) just doesn’t ever seem to come about on Misplaced Pages. In particular, Rjanag didn’t overtly use any of his “formal” admin powers to accomplish his end. However, I see no legitimate basis for him to hide behind the apron strings of that wikilawyering defense. For one thing, any ordinary editor is working uphill when dealing with someone they know to be an admin. And one doesn’t have to have fallen off a turnip truck to realize that Misplaced Pages is as much a social venue as it is an editing one; admins “hang” together, e-mail one another, and scratch each others’ backs. I utterly reject the closing action and rationale of Backslash Forwardslash when he closed the second AfD. By my count, the vote was 13 to 11 in favor of deleting the article. Had one single editor changed his vote, it would have been evenly divided at 12/12. And, just pardon me all over the place for stating the obvious about common sense, but any band that has been been written up in Seventeen magazine (a major periodical in the U.S.) pretty much defines what constitutes notability. The rationale that Backslash Forwardslash cited for siding with his admin friend simply exhibited a total cluelessness of what constitutes a Misplaced Pages-style consensus and speaks straight to the heart of what happens when admins start running rogue.

The simple fact is that even though an admin does not “overtly” employ any magical admin powers does not insulate the community from the chilling effect admins have when they run rogue upon other regular editors; is not a “fair fight” by its very nature. No more so than some cop who once pulled me over for a speeding ticket:

Cop: “Do you know what the speed limit is back there?”

Me: (venturing a guess with eyebrows raised): Thirty-five miles per hour??”

Cop: (He had his arms folded across his chest. Now he reaches up to his lips, flips a toothpick from one side to the other, hoists his gun belt up a couple of inches with both hands, re-folds them across his chest, and asks…): “Now where is it posted that the speed is thirty-five?”

• A cop using his amazing and profound ‘Lt. Callahan’ street-smart powers®™© and Jedi mind games to catch a criminal doing 12 over the speed limit: $123
  
• Acting like a stereotypical, movie cliché cop on a total power trip who watched Cool Hand Luke and got carried away: Priceless.

I would like to have said “Wow! Just look at you as you go wild with your power trip, hoist your gun belt up, re-cross your arms and put on that ‘I’m just too damn tough act’ for me.” That I grew old enough to have now have a grandchild speaks to the point that I know when to keep my trap shut.

Admins on Misplaced Pages have this same relationship with regular editors. Yes, I know that the “official” line is that they don’t “punish” and, as stated by someone at the previous AN/I, Rjanag is “just an editor who has some extra tools.” It’s certainly ‘pretty to think so’ that all admins can do is spread peace, love, and understanding; but I’m talking about the reality here. Admins have virtual carte blanch to be rude and overbearing and we regular editors must pretty much take it on the chin. It takes someone with no fear of authority whatsoever to stand up to what I feel is pure, unadulterated bullying.

I don’t care to engage in endless wikilawyering here over whether Rjanag employed special admin powers when he misbehaved and whether that merits de-sysoping. His behavior, rather than upholding the best examples of an admin, were the complete opposite and he has no business being an admin. I have been around the block long enough to completely “have Rjanag’s number.” Power has completely gone to his head and when he doesn’t get his way, he can’t let go. “Assuming good faith” with Rjanag does not require that we “abandon common sense” in the face of an editor who consistently exhibits bad faith. Rjanag got his powers and special privileges from the community with the consent of the community. He retains his powers with the consent of the community; it is not a life-time entitlement with impunity (though he behaves as if it is). Greg L (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Draeco

My case remains as I stated at ANI. Rjanag's behavior (and continued denial) is absolutely unacceptable, as I think anyone could see. Let's not let bureaucracy interfere with justice. Misplaced Pages suffers when misconduct like this is permitted. He must be corrected, whatever the venue. I recommend reprimand and/or temporary blocking, but not de-sysopping as he didn't abuse admin privileges. - Draeco (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by seresin

My interaction with rjanag consists of two comments I made on his talk page, as noted above. I am not involved in the dispute which provoked this request, so listing me as an involved party is over-zealous. I am, though, of the opinion that rjanag's behavior in this and one unrelated dispute is unbecoming of an administrator. While I do not believe the evidence and statements as presented merit a full case, I am uneasy with the committee's declining to review rjanag's behavior only because a full case is inappropriate at this time. I stand by my statement that edits like these—as well as an overturned block of the editor, with whom he was in a content dispute—are wholly unbecoming of an administrator, and I think the committee would do well to review these issues. A full case is not needed to review and comment on behavior.÷seresin 05:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

This obviously involves allegations of editor/admin misconduct. However, several users at the recent ANI on this, myself included (and I specifically referred to the user who filed this), indicated that it needs to be taken to DRV and RfC/U as there was nothing really actionable - nobody in the community wanted to impose binding measures, but wanted to see attempts to voluntarily resolve the dispute in early stages of dispute resolution. No attempt was made to voluntarily resolve the dispute in line with the given feedback - this indicates that the filing party is solely interested in binding measures. Accordingly, if a case is accepted, and it is found that this could have been resolved short of arbitration (and any accompanying drama), it would not be unreasonable to expect binding measures on the filing party for being unreceptive to community feedback (and any other issues that are brought up with respect to his conduct and/or judgement). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by peripherally involved Black Kite

Arbs may wish to consider the background to the initial issue, which appears to have been conveniently ignored by the filing party.

• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Epeefleche/Archive
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Best Breakout New York City Artist Award
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Shells

Black Kite 11:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

@ Wehwalt: I've removed you from the parties list based on your statement above; if you don't feel as though you're involved, there's no reason to have you listed as a party unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. Hersfold 22:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

@ Epeefleche: Could you provide diffs showing that all parties are aware of this request, please? Hersfold 22:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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

• Comment - my initial opinion here is that either a case is needed, or this can be declined in favour of a request for comment on the conduct of the user in question. Carcharoth (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Accept - there are several serious issues here. @Greg L - several admins have been desyssop or resigned due to cause this year. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Accept I don't see this conflict ending without ArbCom's assistance. Hopefully early intervention can help the involved parties refocus their energy into more collaborative contributions. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Niteshift36

Initiated by Stargnoc (talk) at 04:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Stargnoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Niteshift36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Blaxthos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• FuriousJorge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Soxwon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Daedalus969 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Douggmc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Revrant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Niteshift36&oldid=321331320
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Blaxthos&oldid=321331419
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:FuriousJorge&oldid=321331448
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Soxwon&oldid=321331474
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Daedalus969&oldid=321331494
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Douggmc&oldid=321331523
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Revrant&oldid=321333861

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I previously submitted a wikiquette alert here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive73#Niteshift36_continued_personal_attacks_.26_accusations_of_sockpuppetry_.2F_also_edit_warring which only resulted in Niteshift36 attacking me further and resolved nothing.

Before that, Niteshift36 had been the subject of a wikiquette alert here due to incivility in the Sean Hannity article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive68#User:_Niteshift36_..._personal_attacks

And before that for incivility in other articles, where he was officially warned against WP:NPA: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive68#User_Niteshift36.2C_personal_attacks

A request for comment on Hannity page being reverted: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_58#Criticism_Section_on_Sean_Hannity_page_being_reverted_constantly

Statement by Stargnoc

User Niteshift36 has been increasingly hostile to me and other editors working on the Sean Hannity article (and at least one other, see wikiquette alert links). Please see any comment at the Sean Hannity article discussion page for examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sean_Hannity and any of the archives: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sean_Hannity/Archive_5 http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sean_Hannity/Archive_4 http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sean_Hannity/Archive_3 http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sean_Hannity/Archive_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sean_Hannity/Archive_1

You can also see further history of the dispute specifically between Niteshift36 and me at our user talk pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Stargnoc http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Niteshift36 When I was a new editor I responded with hostility (and profane language) toward Niteshift36's uncivil comments and as a result I was warned.

I'd like to stress again that I'm not the only editor Niteshift36 has been uncivil to. Nearly every one of Niteshift36's posts in the Sean Hannity is tinged with hostility and accusations of wrongdoing and ill intent.

I have given up on trying to resolve the edit war going on with the Sean Hannity article and I no longer have the energy to fight reverts to improve the Sean Hannity article. I had initiated a Request for Comment on the article which had no effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Sean_Hannity/Archive_4#Requests_for_comment_on_inclusion_of_Sean_Hannity.27s_political_views_on_waterboarding

I believe Niteshift36 has taken ownership of the article and is against adding any information that could be seen as reflecting in a negative manner on Sean Hannity. Please note that Niteshift36 still has not provided the additional content he proposed in Archive 5 regarding abortion, which would demonstrate some measure of good faith in regard to the article (although I don't think it would be enough to demonstrate it clearly).

I honestly didn't want to spend the time to write all this out but I would like to see justice in whatever form that may take. I believe Niteshift36 has demonstrated a pattern of hostility toward other editors in the Sean Hannity article and others as demonstrated by the previous wikiquette alerts. I will admit that I have not always taken the right path in dealing with confrontations by editors in the Sean Hannity article but since my original warning I have tried to remain civil.

I'll also add that Niteshift36 has accused me numerous times of sockpuppetry. My only other account is Jayhammers, which I have never used in the Sean Hannity article. Stargnoc and Jayhammers are my only 2 accounts.

Statement by Niteshift36

Almost all of this is a case of being thin-skinned. I have actively defended my opinions in this article, however much of the "incivility" and "attacks" are simply not. An example of an alleged "attack" is simply saying "You're incredible" or asking direct questions. The complaining party lists 3 WQA. One he filed (and he hasn't gotten support on), the other was filed by someone else and again, he found little support. In fact, the same editor (BWilkins) who gave me my "official warning" from the third WQA expressed that he didn't really see an issue. Last of the three was the aforementioned one where I made a sarcastic comment to an editor in a totally unrelated article. It should be pointed out that he lists one of these as part of the dispute resolution, despite the fact that it has nothing to do with Hannity in anyway, shape or form. And that of the 3, the complaining party didn't participate in 2 of them.

The complaining party also makes an issue over my "allegations of sockpuppetry". I did point out a very unlikely coincidence in posting patterns between him and another account. After a while, he finally admitted having a second account. I simply asked for him to disclose it and he refuse. I have made observations and I have asked questions. But I never actually made an accusation that I remember. Another editor, the one he had a very interesting similarity in patterns with was blocked for sockpuppetry as was another account that made edits.

He also makes an issue of pointing out that I haven't yet provided a passage I said I'd submit for consideration. He's made this issue in several locations and I've addressed it in all of them. There are simply a LOT (literally hundreds upon hundreds) of sources to sift through and recent events in my life have cut down the amount of time I have been able to devote to it.

This is overblown and shouldn't be at this level, particularly when this editor has declared that he will no longer be editing the article, as did the one who had a similar posting pattern. It is also worth noting that the complaining party totally skipped either informal or formal mediation attempts and jumped straight to this. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Blaxthos

As a veteran editor of Misplaced Pages, I can't say I found the ArbCom notice about Niteshift all that surprising. I've only recently (a few months) become involved with the Sean Hannity article, and I have to admit that the level of article ownership displayed by Niteshift36 at that article (both from a current and historical perspective) is the worst I've ever seen. He rabidly defends his viewpoint, and in many cases attacks editors who try to bring balance and neutrality to the article, and over the last year I've noted many editors who have made similar observations with regards to WP:OWN and WP:NPOV violations. While I hesitate to give examples here for fear that it will be misinterpreted as a content dispute, I would encourage the reviewing members to review the talk page and archives of Talk:Sean Hannity for examples of his less-than-acceptable behavior. I am willing to research and cite specific examples if so requested by a clerk or ArbCom member if it would be helpful.

On the other hand, Niteshift36 has contacted me in a sidebar conversation and tried to resolve issues (though it seems he didn't really grasp why other editor have a problem with his confrontational style and improper ownership behavior). I am not convinced ArbCom was the logical "next step", but then again I don't know what other process can effectively deal with a situation in which the editor refuses to acknowledge that there is a problem -- the pattern is demonstrated over such a long period of time and with so many other editors that I've found WP:ANI generally doesn't have the patience or take the time to completely understand the history or the issue, and would only be marginally effective at dealing with this sort of situation. I don't know what the ultimate desired resolution from an ArbCom action is (from the requestor's perspective), though I believe a temporary topic ban along with a clear explanation of the unacceptable behavior would probably do the trick.

Niteshift's heart is in the right place (in that he is an active and passionate contributor who I'm sure has lots to add to the project), but something needs to happen (something official) that may help him reconsider the attitude with which he edits and the ways in which he interacts with his fellow Wikipedians. It is my personal hope that this issue may be addressed, but that we're also careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I personally have no desire to participate in an ArbCom action, but I believe this may be the only opportunity to have this issue addressed, so I stand ready to assist if asked.

Thank you for reading my opinion in this matter. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Soxwon

For the most part I have to agree with Blaxthos. I have witnessed some instances of ownership and the area does need help. However, I don't think the situation has been helped by some of the invective on BOTH sides (myself included). I think the article really does need more criticism from reliable sources. Yet a lot of the content I've been involved with originated from poor sources. You can clearly see attempts for some sort of compromise. Yet this progress, however small, was then dashed by a return to incendiary confrontation. The situation could probably most be helped by a level-headed admin, a 1RR, and an emphasis on civility for ALL parties. I realize these measures were tried in November of last year, but I still think that enough civil editors have congregated there that something can really be done. In summary, I think this situation is far more complex than simply "Niteshift's bad behaviour" and that to push it as such is a mistake. The situation needs to be dealt with in the context of a hostile environment created by several editors, rather than the hostile behaviour of a single editor. Soxwon (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

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

• Decline. Premature request. Please seek further dispute resolution assistance. Vassyana (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Further comment. Niteshift36, you remark that people are being "thin skinned". Whether or not this is true, you seem to accept that your mode of discussion at least rankles people. Could you agree to tone it down a notch and refocus on your comments on the article content? I think that would alleviate many concerns. I also note that you are willing to pursue other avenues of dispute resolution. I strongly recommend taking advantage of those options. A mediator can be helpful in working through communication difficulties and getting people onto the same page with discussion standards. Vassyana (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Decline - suggest a request for mediation or asking for outside input from one of the content noticeboards. As this is a BLP, I would urge any uninvolved admin reading this to help out if they can. Also endorse Vassyana's comments. Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Decline - per above and reiterating that Niteshift36 very much needs to realize his behavior is causing disruption. Hopefully this issue will not resurface here at RFAR. Admins can deal with this for now. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Gaza "Misplaced Pages Edit War"

Initiated by Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) at 21:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Tyw7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Jiujitsuguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mr Unsigned Anon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AMr_Unsigned_Anon&action=historysubmit&diff=320881524&oldid=320878942

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=320875876#Jiujitsuguy.2C_editwarring.2C_disruptive_editing_and_personal_attacks._Possibly_3RR_and_GAMING_the_system--Current case
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Jiujitsuguy&oldid=318711814#Disengaging_from_disputes (dito for the other editor)--Notice to disengage
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive73#Jiujitsuguy_.28talk.29-Archieved Wikiquette alerts
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive73#MR_Unsigned_Anon_2-Archieved Wikiquette alerts

Both Wikiquette alerts ended in stalemate with both side agreeing to end the "war". --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 21:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tyw7

• This "War" always ended in stalemate. Both users broke their the agreement to disengage. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 21:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

response Julian's question

This "conflict" has been going on for a long time, with both users shooting off at each other. Based on the edit difs, it seems Mr. Unsigned Anon trying to start the war. He provokes with name calling and repeatedly opening up the case. Even though, there are multiple attempts by me and other users telling them to "disengage" from the conflict. They initially agreed but after some time, the conflict resurface (mostly dragged up by Mr. Unsigned Anon). --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 22:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

comment here are the edit difs

• - Name calling

If you are a Israeli or American jew I like to discuss some tings with you. Because there is some things i dont understand and you could help me with it. But first I think you should stop edit articles about the conflict between Israel and Palestinians. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, hope the weather is good in Brooklyn. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to grind up a solution, no accusation involved. But BashBrannigan suggestion is a middleway. No bold text and no Cast Lead. And thats just the first part of lead. Damnit, there is more diputed. But without you and Nableezy agrea this will take long time. I understand he will drop the bold text if Im right. Cant you accept BashBrannigan:s? Its attractive to me as 'Cast Lead' is, even kind of abstract as I never been in Gaza, a name splattered by up to 926 civilians blood. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• ]

Nothing good come out of it but I think there is a serious problem with tis guy. And he seems to be allowed to behave like shit and just ignore whatever he like. I like to bring him up to the banhammers but with the try at Wikiquette in mind, that gave me warnings etc, I going to need help. And Im not the only one getting tired on him if I may do a qualified guess. So, any suggestions? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

--Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 22:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

WP:ARBPIA covers these issues, WP:AE would be the proper venue. nableezy - 21:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved JC

Could you please provide a more detailed statement, Tyw7? Currently it's a bit difficult to tell if there is a dispute, let alone one that requires ArbCom intervention. –Juliancolton |  21:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by {Party}

Clerk notes

• Case declined - This case has now been declined (4 decline votes and 1 recusal from 8 active arbitrators). It will be archived in 72 hours. Manning (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/1/0)

• Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - awaiting more statements, but at first glance this looks like something that can be dealt with using the conclusions from previous cases. Please review previous cases (as suggested above) and if arbitration enforcement is needed and applies, then file a request at the arbitration enforcement page. Carcharoth (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline per Vassyana. Agree that admin action alone is more appropriate than WP:AE. Hopefully an admin watching this page will step forward and take whatever action is needed, and explain to the parties why such action is being taken. Carcharoth (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. There's no reason that an administrator cannot step in to resolve this matter. This is so straight forward that WP:ARBPIA and WP:AE should not be necessary, but they are there if it is really needed to disentangle the facts and implement appropriate actions. Vassyana (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Decline Wizardman 13:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Decline An Arbitration Committee case will not led to a quicker or better resolution of the dispute than more administrators looking into the matter. The Community has the tools to deal with this issue. The involved parties need to seek out assistance and wait until more help arrives. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over the neutrality of the leading European map

Initiated by Satt 2 (talk) at 18:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Satt 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bosonic dressing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• - although a substantial amount of time has passed since this notice, nothing was done by anyone to address the matter.
• - in this case, my requests were completely ignored even though I clearly stated what was wrong with the map and provided appropriate references to emphasize that there is not one Single definition of the European borders.

Statement by Satt 2

There is a longstanding consensus on the Europe article that there is not a single definition of the continent's borders. As this is the case, it would be reasonable for one to think that the leading map - which takes into consideration only one version of boundaries and excludes most of Turkey, Georgia, and Armenia - would not be where it is. The very first paragraph of the article states that the European borders are "somewhat arbitrary", thus I removed the map because it is self-evident that if there is not a single definition of the continent's extent, there can not be a single main map which defines the continent. I also do not think that there is a need for a prolonged and potentially endless philosophical discussion on why the map is illegitimate. My removal of the map is based on the previously accepted consensus on pluralism of the border definitions. A leading map that is based on only one definition of the borders can not be in place unless the previous consensus on the pluralistic definition of the borders is reversed completely.--Satt 2 (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: Considering the level of differences, I think the continuation of discussions endlessly is not helpful. Even the simple fact that the opposing side tries to belittle my efforts by stating that I am only "one editor" gives a clear idea of how enthusiastic they are to engage in discussions that they themselves are calling for so eagerly. It does not matter whether I am one, two or three, the fact is that the European border definitions are arbitrary and that the arbitrary border definitions can not be embodied in a single map - at least not in the form of the present leading map.

In regards to the alleged lack of "support forum" on my part: I think I have enough support and that support stems from elementary human reason - if there is No single definition of borders, no single truthful map can exist. --Satt 2 (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Snowded

The editor bringing this case has not even engaged in discussion on the talk page concerned but is edit warring on the page itself. Its not even a storm in a teacup, maybe a minor eddy in the spillage in the saucer. It's one editor without support forum shopping at the highest level. --Snowded 19:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Bosonic dressing

I concur with Snowded. As someone who has significantly contributed to creating these locator maps, this arbitration case -- launched by an editor who edits now and then and who has just started discussing the issue -- is fallacious, hyperreactive, and without merit. Other means of dispute resolution have not been attempted, and the editor has been more disruptive than not in removing long-standing maps without discussion or consensus to begin with. He has not provided substantial reliable sources, and I am well aware of what these are -- q.v., Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia, the leads for which I helped construct. Nor has the proponent suggested a reasonable alternative, and having no map is unreasonable. In fact, the locator maps for Asia and Europe are eminently equitable, precisely because Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Georgia straddle both continents (or are all in just one, Eurasia), with a well-established border as depicted (Urals, Caucasus, Black Sea etc.); any number of English compendiums also reflect this. Given this editor's Georgian heritage (per user page), I suspect another motive at work. Per above, this is pointless and a waste of time. Bosonic dressing (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Rodhullandemu

The conditions precedent for hearing this seem to fall way short of adequacy; no third opinion sought, nor broader input. This seems to be primarily a content dispute which is generally outwith the terms of reference of the Arbcom, and I suggest time here could be better spent counselling the parties as to proper process. Rodhullandemu 00:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Mathsci

This case should be dismissed as a minor content dispute that recurs every few months on Europe. The definition and accompanying large map, which I helped produce, explain issues with the borders of Europe, their historical evolution and the status of transcontinental countries, with detailed academic references. The template contains a tiny symbolic thumbnail map (it was briefly discussed on the talk page in late July here). This dispute seems to have very little to do with ArbCom (or the article for that matter). Mathsci (talk) 05:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Case declined - This case has now been declined (5 decline votes from 8 active arbitrators). It will be archived in 72 hours. Manning (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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

• Awaiting further statements, but appears premature for arbitration, based on the failure to use other dispute resolution methods that might be productive. Please also note that the Arbitration Committee primarily addresses user-conduct issues, not content disputes, and this appears to be the latter. Finally, a question to the filing party: Is it really your contention that no map of Europe can be used on the Europe article because there is a dispute over the boundaries? That would seem to deprive readers of a useful reference point as they read through the article; a better answer must be available. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. This situation most likely can be resolved by involvement from other users, so decline as premature. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. Simple content dispute. Speaking as an editor, if anyone wants to try for more here, I would suggest options such as a gallery of images showing different maps and any different reliably sourced definitions. A composite image of those different definitions. An animated gif showing changes in those definitions over time. But that has little to do with the current dispute. I also found Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Maps, and the request page for new or improved maps (Misplaced Pages:Graphic Lab/Map workshop). Such maps may already exist as well. Search here and on Commons as well. e.g. commons:Commons:Map resources, and commons:Category:Maps of Europe. But again, this all has little to nothing do with the dispute. It's just me reminding myself of what resources are out there for maps. I was looking for an animated gif that shows the changes in borders of Europe and within Europe over time, but couldn't find anything. That would be quite a nice long-term challenge, though very difficult to reliably source. Just to make clear - the current dispute is, as Mathsci says, a minor one that recurs every few months. Nothing for ArbCom to do here. Carcharoth (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC) A few more articles to fill out the background: the lead of Geography of Europe covers this, as does this section of List of countries spanning more than one continent, and this section of Borders of the continents. And the relevant maps are 1 and 2. Carcharoth (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. Per FloNight and Carcharoth. Vassyana (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Decline Wizardman 13:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)