Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:33, 12 February 2006

• ]

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

• 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 Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

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

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or clerks 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

How to list cases

Under the below Current requests section:

• Click "";
• Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
• Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
• Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
• Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

Tony Sidaway

Involved parties

• User:Tony Sidaway
• User:Crotalus horridus (see also User:Userboxes)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Tony stated on User:Aaron_Brenneman/RfC draft that he would "Lay off DRV for a bit", and "Stop deleting templates". He has not done so.

Statement by party 1

User:Tony Sidaway repeatedly shows his contempt for Misplaced Pages policy, especially deletion and undeletion policy. He has a strong belief that userboxes are harmful to the project, but rather than seek consensus for this, he has repeatedly engaged in unilateral deletions of userboxes. Ever since a new CSD criteria, CSD T1, was added, he has deleted many userboxes that are not "divisive and inflammatory" by most reasonable definitions. In some cases, these boxes were listed on WP:TFD and the consensus was to keep. Although Jimbo indirectly endorsed CSD T1 (though he did not create it), he also cautioned : "don't go on any sprees deleting ones that already exist." Tony has disregarded that caveat. Tony has also breached a previous promise to change his problematic behavior . A post that he made to the mailing list seems to indicate that this promise was made in bad faith, simply to stave off dispute resolution.

The response to this RFAr will, in large part, determine whether I choose to remain a part of the Misplaced Pages community. Are rules to be applied fairly to all, or are certain individuals to be allowed to do whatever they please with no fear of repercussion?

• It clearly has not accomplished Jimbo's original intent. The CSD criterion itself is far more divisive and inflammatory than anything it has been used to delete. Furthermore, Jimbo's caveat (not to go on deletion sprees) has been blatantly ignored. This edit was made more out of frustration than anything else. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 11:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• I've made a more extensive statement here. I also apologize for the intemperate nature of my remarks last night, which, when looking back over them, probably was too far near the boundaries of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I would still like to see these issues considered, and I stand by my statement that I am seriously reconsidering my committment to Misplaced Pages in light of the severe strain to the community that we have seen in these past months. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm being a "wikidetective" again?

User:Crotalus horridus here removes a Jimbo endorsed guideline. Kim Bruning 11:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• It clearly has not accomplished Jimbo's original intent. The CSD criterion itself is far more divisive and inflammatory than anything it has been used to delete. Furthermore, Jimbo's caveat (not to go on deletion sprees) has been blatantly ignored. This edit was made more out of frustration than anything else. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 11:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark is involved here? I'm not sure he should be refactoring things he's involved with in that way. :-/ Oh dear. Kim Bruning 14:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Crotalus and (in one single, separate, instance) another editor, Blu Aardvark (talk · contribs) both recreated templates that had been speedy deleted by various administrators, including myself. They did so in user space, with the avowed intention that they should be used in the same manner as before. The reason for deletion of these specific templates was that they were unsuitable for dissemination throughout Misplaced Pages by transclusion, comprising as they did contentious, divisive and inflammatory statements. Crotalus created a user account, User:Userboxes, six days ago and under the userpage he and Silence (talk · contribs) have created over half a dozen of these cloned templates.

After I deleted Blue Aardvark's recreation, which was announced on a subpage WP:DRV, Netoholic (talk · contribs) put a notice on WP:AN about the activity on Userboxes (talk · contribs). I have deleted the reproduced templates as well as some clones of existing templates from both userspaces. I also clarified the T1 speedy criterion for divisive and inflammatory templates, to say "pages created in any namespace for the purpose of transclusion," This was disputed by Crotalus and the other editor, and supported by two others. Crotalus eventually removed the T1 criterion for deletion in its entirety, claiming that it "causes far more strife than it could ever solve". --Tony Sidaway 11:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidence from David Gerard

Apart from the usernames mentioned (Userboxes (talk · contribs) as a publicised second account of Crotalus horridus (talk · contribs) ), I can't see multiple accounts being used by any listed participants.

There are no checkuser results on Firebug , as the edits have fallen out of the recentchanges database by now. - David Gerard 19:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

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

• Accept to look at all parties' behaviour. Sam Korn 12:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Accept to look at Crotalus's behaviour in particular. James F. (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Accept to clarify policy Fred Bauder 15:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Charles Matthews 16:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Mackensen (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich

Involved parties

• Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and numerous apparent sock puppets
• JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Cyde (talk · contribs)
• Jim62sch (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Jason Gastrich has been informed on his talk page . JzG initiated the RfAR. Cyde and Jim62sch have already made statements. Notice of the RfAR has also been given on the RfC .

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich

Statement by JzG

Jason Gastrich is an evangelical minister who runs "Jesus Christ Saves Ministries". From the outset, his creation of an autobiography - see AfD debate - he has exhibited a consistent pattern of use of sockpuppets (e.g. BigDaddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and meatpuppets ("Uncle Davey" in the AfD). He was initially open about this and appeared eventually to accept it was wrong. More recently he made a series of articles and edits involving Louisiana Baptist University (LBU), an unaccredited university with which he is associated, and its alumni. A number of editors have contributed to providing neutrality and balance in these articles often against opposition from Gastrich. Importantly, this group includes Christians, agnostics and atheists.

A number of articles were nominated for deletion, and this appears to have acted as a catalyst for considerable astroturfing. This included emailing of known inclusionists and self-identified Christian Wikipedians about AfD debates, emailing users, contacting the pastor and the father of one editor, and the setting up by Gastrich of an organisation - wiki4christ.com - purportedly to encourage the expansion of Christian articles on Misplaced Pages. Many newly registered accounts made their first edits in unexpected places such as deletion review, these exhibited consistent use of language and many were rapidly identified as puppets. Gastrich appears to have violated WP:CIVIL, WP:HAR, WP:NPA, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:SOCK, WP:AGF, WP:AUTO, WP:CON, WP:POINT.

To be fair, some others (me included) also undoubtedly strayed over the WP:CIVIL line.

An RfC was raised, certified by over 50 and opposed by only one despite the RfC being notified widely to solicit input from both sides of the debate. Efforts were made to bring both sides to this RfC. After a while I brought a motion to close with a strongly worded notice to Gastrich that he should abide by policy; this may exceed the "powers" of RfC although it was within my reading of action based on community consensus. I take full responsibility for this although this was also supported by strong consensus.

It is impossible to say with certainty absent the requested checkuser reports (fact, not criticism) precisely whether these are sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but only one recently identified sock has denied it, and that from an email address at wiki4christ.com, which is owned by Jason Gastrich, is otherwise currently inactive, and is not known to have been publicly offered as an email address facility.

I have come to the view from recent evidence re hooba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that Gastrich is unlikely to abide by consensus, and am therefore escalating to arbcom. I have come to suspect that an initial comment that Gastrich be given the bum's rush from the project may have been smarter than trying to get him to "play nice." Just zis  Guy, you know? / 22:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Jim62sch

Jason Gastrich has been nothing but a sower of discord since he first joined Misplaced Pages. He is a man on a mission – a mission to create Misplaced Pages in his own likeness, that of a very POV evangelical Christianity. In the process, he once commented that Misplaced Pages’s editors are trying to “silence someone who is preaching a gospel that condemns them to Hell if they don't repent and trust Christ for salvation” . Misplaced Pages is here to neither praise nor disparage Christian theology – it is here to present a neutral viewpoint on all subjects. That is the interest that those Misplaced Pages editors maligned by Gastrich have at heart. Additionally, the condemnation to Hell is a very clear indication of his uncontrollable bias.

In addition, Gastrich made the comment that he “could also notify numerous Misplaced Pages users about this RfC and have them post their thoughts and feelings”. This statement was quite troubling and at odds with his claims that “some of the hoopla about my "vote stacking" and "meatpuppetry" is false” (this, I assume means that more than some of it is true); and that he has not told them how to vote, but”… “simply notified them that there is a vote in progress”. In fact, his statement does appear to be a veiled threat to unleash a flood of like-minded people upon this page.

His comments regarding sockpuppetry may strike some as a “mea culpa” of contrition, but the more troubling implication is that a man who in essence states that he represents Jesus is dishonest in his methods, and sees no problem with this dishonesty.

His comments regarding Warrior scribe who he accuses of having come “to Misplaced Pages with the admitted, expressed intent to follow me around and revert my contributions” and his statement that “many of the names on these lists are people who have a history of hating me (and/or following Horn) before and/or after coming to Misplaced Pages and trolling me” are unsourced, and therefore of little real value in determining a cause for Mr. Gastrich’s behaviour (other than, perhaps, paranoia).

Mr. Gastrich then states that he is “an honest and valuable contributor to Misplaced Pages”. Value is not an issue here, but honesty most certainly is. The admission and justification of sockpuppetry casts a dim light on his claim of honesty.

The bottom line is that Gastrich does not even seem to realize that he is in violation of more policies than we could probably enumerate. He portrays himself as an innocent victim of the evil designs of other. He brings nothing of value to Misplaced Pages, but rather he causes dissention at every article he touches, and causes Misplaced Pages’s editors to waste time that could be better spent on improving the overall project. Simply put, Gastrich needs to be shown the door. Jim62sch 01:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Cyde Weys

I became involved in this matter when I stumbled across some of the AfDs of Jason Gastrich's biographies. I voted keep on some and delete on others, depending on whether or not I thought they met WP:BIO. I proposed a resolution to the AfD on List of LBU people such that the notable ones be merged into the main LBU article, as is standard for these situations. Gastrich refused to accept it, saying Harvard had a "List of Harvard people", so why not LBU? (The analogy in this case is absurd, by the way, comparing an unacreditted school to Harvard?! C'mon!) Then I became aware that Gastrich was attempting to astroturf the various AfDs by sending users messages on their talk pages. This really did not sit well with me and I told Gastrich that he should stop this at it clearly goes against Misplaced Pages policy. My opinion of Gastrich's intentions only turned more negative once I saw that he had a sockpuppet sending out the notices as well as setting up a website with the sole intention of disrupting Misplaced Pages. The low point was when I received a Misplaced Pages email from Gastrich because apparently I had a link to the Christian infobox on my userpage. It had links to all of his articles up for deletion and encouraged voting to keep. I reproduced this email on one of the AfD pages and someone else copied it to the rest of them to be used as evidence. This whole experience has really soured me with Jason Gastrich to the point that I no longer believe keeping him around would be in the best interests of Misplaced Pages. He has demonstrated that he is willing to ignore all rules and all due process in order to further his agenda. He repeatedly violates WP:CIVIL and seems to be trying to frame any Christian-personality-related AfDs as a war between Christians and non-Christians, which is extremely damaging and unproductive to Misplaced Pages as a whole. --Cyde Weys 23:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

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

• Accept. James F. (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. - SimonP 15:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 15:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Charles Matthews 16:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Armenian Genocide

A dispute involving whether the topic of Armenian Genocide is inherently POV, and the behavior of editors relating to that dispute.

Involved parties

User:ramil User:John Smith's User:Snowspinner

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

(Other initiatives were considered to be unproductive. This is because armenian editors and their supporters silence and manipulate Misplaced Pages to delay the time for resolution, to direct it to other direction) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ramil (talk • contribs)

• Comment. No other dispute resolution steps have been tried, claimant has just whined on the talk page and threatened to "tell on us" to rfa. Silliness. pschemp | talk 15:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a messy knot of disposable accounts, IPs, and POV pushing - it's the sort of thing we do need the arbcom for. Phil Sandifer 16:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement by ramil

(The armenian genocide is one the less known events of the last century. Some 1 million armenians and 500,000 Turks, Kurds and Azerbaijanis killed each other. Now armenians try to claim this to be genocide without paying attention to the killing of 500,000 Turks. Now the web page on alleged armenian web page is manipulated by Armenians and couple of days ago they removed the tag indicating that the armenian genocide is disputed issue. The disputed nature of the web page can be easily seen from the discussion web page.

I informed other parts about the incorrectness of this and if the issue is not redressed my desire to take it to the arbitration. Below is my statement to them.

This is unfair and can not be the solution to the disputed and questionable genocide allegations. I am taking this issue to the arbitration. There is voting, nobody is informed, couple of armenians and you remove the tag giving the illusion to people that the issue is not disputed. The tag should stay there and should remain there. Otherwise, I am taking this to the arbitration. Let me know your response in couple of days. --ramil 21:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC))

There are other users who cry from the domination and unethical behaviour or armenian oriented editors. The removal of the tag is decried below by another user.

It appears to me this page is completely dominated by those who have a stake in this matter, and naturally this sort of vote will garner such a result. In order to have dissenting voices, dissenting parties would need to dedicate themselves as eagerly as those for whom this matter means so much. The fact that this page is stable points not to the truthfulness of many of the claims, but to the commitment of those who have made this page their calling; this article is not, in any shape or form, "objective," and does not at all "present both sides of the story." Blissmiss 07:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

And here is John Smith laughing at my effort to take the issue to the arbitration as he is sure it will be fruitless and they are enough strong to dominate the web page.

" A disputed article does not need a tag. Otherwise 100% of political wiki articles would have tags.

   HAHAHAHA, yeah go to admins and ask for a 3 month vote. I'm sure they'll back you up ^____^ John Smith's 21:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)" 

And questionable what does this mean ^____^. Most probably a curse. Showing the level of editors who dominate the alleged and so called armenian genocide web page. Ramil --71.195.182.195 09:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement by John Smith's

We have all been trying to work hard on resolving the Armenian Genocide page, Fadix more than anyone. We had the POV tag on for a long time. Eventually people that had contributed to the page finally decided it was perhaps more NPOV than was actually necessary, so I started a vote to remove the tag. There is no way to notify wikipedians of a vote. Plenty of time was allowed for voting, but I decided to cut-to-the chase when it was clear there was little or no support against the tag being removed.

I take offence at the idea that I am unfairly biased in favour of the Armenians. The page gives much more authority to the arguments of deniers of this event than those of the Holocaust. This guy is only trying to sabotage the page by pretending it is disputed by reasonable commentators, when in reality it is only disputed by people that have an agenda to silence discussion of it. John Smith's 17:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

John, please avoid presenting two different issues as the same. Holocaust and the alleged 'armenian genocide issues' are completely different matters. There are not any comparison between these different events in whatsoever way. In the Holocaust Jewsih were killed by Germans jkust becuase they were Jewish, the in the second case Armenins killed 500,000 Kurds and Turks and the latters then killed armenians. This is massacre and there is no question, but not genocide.

You are not a judge to decide on an issue. You are not a judge and nobody gave you the right to be judge to impose me that the armenian issue can not be disputed. The extent you are intolerant to the opposing view shows how much you have been and are receptive to the opposing view. Ramil--71.195.182.195 07:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Snowspinner

On a glance, here's what it looks like is happening - there's an edit war on Armenian Genocide on whether to include a dispute tag, or whether the entire topic is POV. Ramil is looking for content arbitration to fix it to his preferred version. Notably, he has never edited the page, and has made only one comment on the talk page. Ramil's userpage admits to using two other accounts.

There's also several redname accounts edit warring at Armenian Genocide, and all of Ramil's accounts edit a lot on Nagorno-Karabakh, where they've gotten blocked a few times.

To me, it looks like POV-pushing sockpuppetry, and I'd like to request that the arbcom look into a case against Ramil on those grounds, along with harassment, spurious RFAr filing, and general disruptiveness.

A bit more looking suggests that there's more than met the eye here - there's a lot of POV pushing on this page at the moment, all from one side, and it kind of smells of a coordinated effort. I think looking into this would be beneficial. Phil Sandifer 16:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion by TenOfAllTrades

Regarding Sam's rejection vote below—Phil has requested a CheckUser on 71.195.182.195, Ramil, Erdalfirinci, and User:Blissmiss. It might be helpful for the ArbCom to have that information in hand before deciding whether or not to accept this case. (It would also be useful to do the CheckUser now, while the logs are still available.) If it turns out that the editor is operating multiple socks to engage in edit wars across multiple pages, it's probably something the ArbCom should handle.

Aside from this comment, I haven't been involved in or observed any aspect of the dispute; if the case goes forward, the ArbCom can include me or not as they see fit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the users Enver_pasha and Eagle of the Caucasus using my IP brings bad points for this particular point that I am raising here. The question is whether the wikipedia wants to be the source of the neutral and objective information or not. if yes, then the disputed issues should be indicated as disputed and not manipulated to give the impression of the trutha and the only truth. As I said before, I was active in Nagorno Karabakh page, and I am involving in this issue only to bring the truth to the light. Ramil --71.195.182.195 04:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Please consider involving in this issue to bring a NPOV perspective to the issue. Bringing "truth to the light" is a worthy project, but not what we do on Misplaced Pages. Bring the truth to light elsewhere, and once it is widely regarded as truth, we will reflect it here. Phil Sandifer 04:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Phil, you have misunderstood me. I am not trieng to impose a solution or a good answer on the so called 'armenian genocide' on anybody. I not saying what is truth or what is not truth. Apprarently, there is an issue and its disuputed. There is no consensus on it. If there no consensus and the factual accuracy of the argument is disputed, what is the meaning of removing the "innocent tag" which merely states the fact that this issue is disputed letting readers know that there might be other perspectives to the issue presented in this web page. I am not saying that we should change the entire page. It is anyway heavily pro-armenian and dominated by armenians. My question and request about the tag which has been removed. The tag that warns readers about the disputed matter of the issue on the given web page. Please, let me know if you still haven't got what I am presenting here? Ramil --71.195.182.195 07:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser evidence

As requested by Snowspinner (above, and at WP:RFCU):

User:71.195.182.195 is User:Ramil and also appears to be User:Eagle of the Caucasus, User:Enver Pasha, User:Enver--Pasha and User:Enver----Pasha.

He does not appear to be User:Blissmiss (New York IPs, Ramil traces to Boston) nor User:Erdalfirinci (AOL user). —Matthew Brown (T:C) 02:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

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

• Reject. No coherent case presented. Sam Korn 16:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC) In reply to Phil, I recommend an RfC in the first instance to set out some evidence and see whether there are behavioural issues to look at 17:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • A long statement was placed here by 71.195.182.195 . This is not the place to make statements. That exists above. Sam Korn 20:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reject, there doesn't seem to be a case with regards to this particular page. - SimonP 22:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. Content issue. James F. (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Accept, but /Evidence must include specific instances of violations of Misplaced Pages policies by specific editors Fred Bauder 15:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Accept per Fred. Charles Matthews 16:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for Clarification

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

Pedophilia userbox wheel war

In the Pedophilia userbox wheel war decision, the remedy applying to me ("Carnildo is to be desysopped. Two weeks after this case is closed, he may reapply for administrative privileges") is written as if it were possible for me to regain admin rights sometime in the future. However, there is a factor that the Arbitration Committee does not appear to have taken into account when deciding on this:

I run OrphanBot. It's a bot that does the very useful tasks of removing no-source and no-license images from articles, and of notifying uploaders in the hopes that they will correct the problems with images they've uploaded. However, it also generates enemies: those who disagree with the deletion of no-source and no-license images, those who believe that images should only be removed by a human, those who believe that images should only be removed from articles after they've been deleted, those who simply don't understand copyright law, and those who resent having been notified. Further, I usually get the blame when images are deleted, as my signature is the one on the uploader's talk page.

Due to this continued generation of ill-will, I find it extremely unlikely that I'll be able to regain admin rights at any time in the future. I'd like confirmation from the Arbitration Committee that this is what they intended when they passed the remedy. --Carnildo 02:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't speak for the arbitration commitee in any capacity whatsoever. Having said that, I would expect that if the arbitration committee had intended that you should be left desysopped, they would have said that you could not re-apply. If the community decides that you should not be an admin, that would be the decision of the community, which is what the arbitration committee is invoking. --Ryan Delaney 03:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also add that the closing bureaucrat has leeway in interpreting RFA results, which could include placing a lesser weight on opinions connected with correct but unpopular behavior, such as image warnings. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That never actually happens. --Phroziac _. o º 14:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Phroziac is right; 'crats have the leeway to do this, but I've rarely seen them do it. Usually if a candidate has <70% support, (s)he fails, regardless of the rationale behind the support or oppose votes. (On the flip side, I can't think of occasions where a >80% support candidate has failed, regardless of the rationales given to support or oppose.) Johnleemk | Talk 16:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I will confirm that this was not my intent. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I am unable to comment, as I voted against the remedy in question. Raul654 18:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Descriptions of edits

The decision of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine was that he, I, and Robert West (who is still having technical difficulties with WP) should collaborate on a consensus version.

Since my return to Misplaced Pages, Ultramarine is continuing his habit of referring to edits he has made as the "good", "superior", "correct abd complete" version. I find this uncollegial, and ask if it is consistent with the spirit of the arbitration decision. Several diffs of such claims be found in the evidence in the case, and the usage has continued on Talk:Democratic peace theory, and I believe elsewhere. Septentrionalis 21:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Archives

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

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution