Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:23, 11 June 2006 view sourceTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 editsm →Statement by Tony Sidaway: sign properly← Previous edit Revision as of 19:05, 11 June 2006 view source Chcknwnm (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,757 edits →Tony Sidaway 2: remove request...under prepared and ill-warranted...at this timeNext edit →
Line 64: Line 64:
// END TEMPLATE - copy text above (not this line) // --> // END TEMPLATE - copy text above (not this line) // -->
<!-- ADD CASE BELOW --> <!-- ADD CASE BELOW -->
=== Tony Sidaway 2 ===
==== Involved parties ====
:{{user2|Chcknwnm}}
:{{user2|RadioKirk}}
:{{user2|Aaron_Brenneman}}
:{{user5|Tony_Sidaway}}


; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
:
:
:

; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
: at Tony's Talk page (URL'ed in case of archiving)
: at Tony's Talk page
:]
: at Tony's Talk page after the filing of the RfC
: at ] that resulted from a block on Tony, which was subsequently reverted.

==== Statement by Chcknwnm ====
:Tony was requested to stop changing signatures that followed the ] guidlines. He did not. An RfC was filed, however, Tony continued his "refactoring" on the RfC talk page and even altered signatures as endorsements on the RfC page itself. Requests to stop "refactoring", at least while the RfC was ongoing to receive community opinions, were made, but ignored. Tony referred to the RfC countless times as "utterly frivolous", despite the number of users who told him otherwise. Tony claims a majority support and thus ignores the opinions of opposing views. More than 20 people disagree with Tony, but he pays them no heed. Tony is uncivil when discussing the matter, and frequently refers to people as "silly sausages". This is a case of implying a need to change policy, and changing user's compliant signatures to ]. At this point in time, customized signatures are allowed and are not recommended. Most of the support for Tony's position states that customized signatures are "gorously ugly" or "grotesquely imposing" or "stupidly long", in reference to signatures like mine, that are well within all of the guidelines at ]. These critiques seem mainly aimed at the need to change the policy, rather than individual signatures. After repeated requests for what he thought could be changed to make the signature "more compliant", Tony replied without answering, but by stating that he is merely refactoring talk pages to increase readability. This seems like a petty item for Arbitration, but Tony's continued unwillingness to consider the other side forces the issue. Tony believes he is always in the right and will not waiver from his opinion unless forced. If asked what I expect to accomplish from this request for arbitration, my answer follows: I expect Tony to stop changing signatures that are not on his userpage or talk page, unless they violate the current guidelines. I expect Tony to begin to respect the "other side" when he makes decisions, and not consider his non-consensus actions to be simply for the good of WP, and thus allowed, without acquiring input first. I expect Tony to communicate with users when he has a problem with them. I expect Tony to lose his sense of always being right no matter what. ]]]<sup>]</sup> 05:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

==== Statement by Tony Sidaway ====
On one issue, there is a serious case, which I acknowledge. I have been uncivil in my responses. There is never an excuse for this. I apologise for that and renew my resolve to maintain an even tempered approach at all times. Even something as innocuous as calling someone a silly sausage can be aggravating.

For the rest, it's a storm in a teacup. All parties can resolve this by getting back to editing. I think that when more than 30 editors endorse a statement that your RfC is without foundation, the last thing to do is to escalate. Rather, one should perhaps sit down and have a rethink.

It's nice to be able to hold discussions in an environment uncluttered by frivolous embellishments that drown out the actual text of the discussion, and of course any editing that fulfils that aim is to be welcomed. I hope that my practice becomes more common; I estimate that it would only take half a dozen editors across the wiki, each taking a few seconds extra on each edit, to significantly improve the editing environment in the most popular discussion pages.

Splash's evidence is faulty. For instance he states incorrectly that I blocked Nathanrdotcom while in dispute with him; there was at the time of the block absolutely no personal involvement between Nathanrdotcom and myself. I can demonstrate that Splash has failed to do his homework on this and on a number of other points, and thus has acquired a somewhat distorted view of my actions. --] 18:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

==== Comment by ]====
*I would like to recommend this case be dropped. While Chcknwnm (the '''Chuck''' user above) is correct that there exist people who disagree with what Tony does, there are also people who agree with him, including, I believe, the majority of long-time active users. On the topic of signatures, I believe that there's a very strong argument to be made for what Tony has done and in fact to suggest that Chcknwnm is (not with ill will) abusing the signature system. With him and a number of other users (like Codex Sinacticus), it's very difficult to tell their actual username by sight, leading to confusion about identities and stopping people from effectively having identities. I don't think it's unfair to change signatures like that to facilitate discussion, and while I'm not quite bold enough to do it myself, I applaud Tony for doing it because it keeps conversation working the way it should. I don't think Chcknwnm has fully considered the effects of his name-hiding signature on conversations, and changing signatures like that is much akin to the "this unsigned comment left by USERNAME/IP" that we use for others who don't use signatures correctly. --] 06:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

==== Statement by Splash ====
:''(489 words)''
I should like to comment on some problems I see as more directly within the Committee's purview. My diffs are taken solely from the signatures ugliness, but that's only for context.

The incivility issue is a pertinent one, for sure. It is a disrespectful pollutant to the community, can only ever exacerbate whatever the situation is, and is essentially a smoke screen to dealing with the substance of a comment.

It also extends some distance beyond silly sausages and buggers. Some recent selections include:
*
*
*
*
*
* (note interleaved diff) — so rude it had to be redacted within minutes

In considering this, note it is a recurrent problem. There is ] in which Tony agrees he has been uncivil, says he'll stop and apologises. But this episode has brought about a 100% relapse into spite and character judgements. Editors who have long-term, recurrent civility problems, even when they say they'll fix them, generally need some kind of civility parole to help them clean up.

Then there is the whole of Tony's approach to dispute 'resolution', which makes a mockery of the word. I don't need to remind the Committee of Tony's ]. This time, rather than even acknowledge that, rightly or wrongly, people may be upset with him, he prefers how many people agree with him, and express his for those that disagree. Issues can operate in shades of grey, and there seems to be basically no appreciation of that fact.

is not on the usual list of friendly interaction techniques, neither is and when things get hot strongly suggests an unwillingness to even hear of any criticism, even if it is unprotected later. If one cannot take the heat, one should not stoke the flames.

Even when offered a scripted solution to the sigs question , Tony it, largely by misunderstanding it. At some point, one concludes that it is the fight that is relished for its own sake. And fights, especially those conducted uncivilly, merely damage the spirit of collaboration; whether the 'good' done by e.g. refactoring a signature outweighs that is, to me, questionable at best.

If we expect editors and admins to resolve disputes they choose to partake of, we expect a considerably better effort than this. If an editor does not intend to resolve disputes they whip up, or indeed does not have the interactional skills to do so peaceably, then remedies restricting their ability to thusly whip are usually employed. -] - ] 06:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

====Comment by ]====

I fall somewhere in the middle. On one hand:

* the most active admins are often the most hated, so the fact that Tony has had complaints made about him is not in and of itself surprising, nor does it necessarily reflect badly on him;
* I agree that the RFC was probably frivolous. No one has ever been able to demonstrate that anything Tony did with regard to refactoring signatures violated any Misplaced Pages guideline or policy;
* Tony did not change anyone's comments or actually remove any signature; rather, he refactored certain signatures to make them display more simply, to comply with the ], and to declutter the edit window. The relevant information (the user name and date stamp) were left intact. I don't think this is particularly objectionable, and nor do I think anyone has a case for claiming a policy violation on this basis: at the bottom of every edit window we specifically remind users that by submitting their contributions they agree to them being "edited mercilessly";
* Tony's ] has had some good effects: there has been much discussion regarding signatures, and several users have altered their previously obtrusive and/or distracting sigs;
* Certain users need to reacquaint themselves with ]: Wikiepedia is about ''content'', not ''contributors'';
* While ] is an important policy, some users can be a tad over-sensitive. Not every straightforward or even heated remark is a personal attack.

On the other hand, there have been a few instances during this issue when I've thought Tony was a little abrasive, though it must be said he's not the only one who's crossed the line into incivility. Certainly, refactoring certain users' signatures on the RFC talk page seemed at times needlessly provocative.

Ultimately, I have to wonder what it is that the users hope to acheive by entering into arbitration with Tony. Judging by some of the related discussion, my impression is that the intent is to punish him for offending certain users, which, if it is the case, would not be appropriate. ] 07:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

==== Comment by ] ====
I'm pretty sure that the execution of an rfar is of no good cause to the stability of the encyclopedia, while being equally sure this request was filed in haste. Maybe the participants involved honestly cannot come to an agreement after weeks of a ridiculous RfC, but this is no reason to initiate the investigation of the arbitration committee.

We don't do things in wikipedia by the views of subjective thinking and personal whims. This is a wiki. If the process of refactoring to ensure the accessibility of contributing to a talk page is needed (and in most cases with long signatures this is the case) then there should be no problem. Signatures are a note or a indicator of who is making a comment and where and how a discussion is proceeding, not a personalized mini-userpage. This isn't their purpose and I'm lost as to how this is disruptive when no important data is lost in the removal of clutter to make the editing process easier.

is a travesty of the blocking and disruption policies and both are clear on the definition of these two terms but content is always far more important in an encyclopedia than process on a case by case basis.

Having said that I haven't participated in this rfc because my recent observations has convinced me that this rfa amounts to dubious claims, overreactions and false interpretations of wikipedia policy in favor of greed and selfish motives. This is an encyclopedia with a community to further its construction and the ability for all to edit to assist in this goal. Refactoring is a painless and minor process to clear the editing space for good, productive discussion and is unlikely to be a problem in the long scheme of things.

I humbly suggest this case be rejected and the time spent in fruitless discussion be directed towards the construction of the encyclopedia. -]<sup>]</sup> 17:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

:::Zero makes some very good points here. Signatures exist for a very specific purpose, namely to identify users and their contributions to talk pages. They were never intended to be an outlet for creative self-expression, or for the formation of some kind of online identity (beyond the need to identify individual users by their user name). User pages ''can'' be used in this way to some extent, but note that our guidelines specifically state that it is only by ''convention'' that we do not generally edit other users' user pages; in practice, even editing user pages is acceptable. People are getting far too upset about something that is of no real importance on Misplaced Pages: their signatures. Again, what matters here is content, not contributors. ] 18:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

==== Clerk notes ====
As a party to this case, Tony Sidaway is recused as a clerk.

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

----


=== ] === === ] ===

Revision as of 19:05, 11 June 2006

Shortcut
  • ]

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 (ArbCom).

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

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

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. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. 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. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or clerk may do so.

See also


Purge the server cache


How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

  • Click the "" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;
  • 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

User:8bitJake

8bitJake's continued edit warring, misuse of various mediation tools, lack of civility, and neglection of community consensus has caused disruption in WP's article space, and the situation as such has caused at least one editor to consider leaving the project entirely.

Involved parties

(Provide links to the user page of each party and to all accounts they have edited with. Briefly summarize case. No details.)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

In my statement, I link to the results of a mediation request w/User:Dan100 from December of 2005. I am unable to find the diff for the actual request at this moment, but I will add it as soon as I'm able to. Mediation request. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by badlydrawnjeff

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Essentially, 8BJ has been disruptive to the point of driving an editor to leave the project . . 8BJ was first involved in a mediation dispute about content in December 2005, where thoughts about notability, verifiability, and published sources were given to him. They didn't matter, as he began warring recently at Henry M. Jackson , eventually being blocked for 3RR twice in a three day span, and three times in less than 10 days, and at Christine Gregoire . 8BJ has also shown incivility in his edit summaries ("Biased gang-bang editing", "Someone has an axe to grind", "Sour grapes editing") misleading edit summaries (Citing nonexistent talk consensus here as well), and various false and often incivil arguments on article talk pages ( ). He has consistently ignored consensus at both Jackson and Gregoire, and has also been known to blank warnings on his talk page, making it difficult for passing admins to deal properly.

Statement by Bazzajf

I find this RFA a futile ego-driven exercise. It is evident that 8BitJake has a useful contribution to make if you look at his list of contributions. It is churlish of you to take a dispute to this arena. Disputes over content of an article should take place in the discussion page of the relevant article, you are as guilty of as many reversions as himself on disputed articles. I find your recourse to this action pathethic and not worthy of further investigation as it reflects a personal witch-hunt on your part without any substance of note. I move that you apologise to 8bitjake for taking this action and desist from your ill-conceived and foolhardy finger-pointing forthwith.

Bazzajf 12:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

Irishpunktom

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
(Provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration.)
  • Here notification of Irishpunktom. A one week block recently imposed has been lifted to enable him to respond.
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried (If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)
Chronic edit warrior who shows no sign of improvement over a long period (block log).

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Irishpunktom has been blocked about a dozen times for edit warring--around half of those blocks in the past five months. His chronic misbehavior is soaking up administrator resources and is probably having a severe net bad effect on the articles he edits. The only question in my mind is whether or not a probation or similar remedy would improve his behavior to an acceptable level. --Tony Sidaway 22:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Irishpunktom

Dispute resolution = Block log? - Each case must looked at on its own merits. Tony's assesment of what is "probably" happening appears in fact to be the opposite of what has happened. While I have "revert war"ed too much, each case must still be judged on the circumstances. Do you want me to go through them ?--Irishpunktom\ 10:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Raphael1

I know Irishpunktom from the Islamophobia article and therefore I can attest, that many of his reverts have been against subtile cases of vandalism. It seems pretty obvious to me, that an editor who puts this on his user page, has no genuine interest in improving the Islamophobia article. Another problem Irishpunktom has to face is Wikistalking from Netscott, who openly planned to attack Irishpunktom to get him censured as a Misplaced Pages editor. See also: Raphael1 10:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by David

I have found Irishpunktom to be an extremely difficult editor to work with, even when we happen to share broadly the same point of view. Specifically, when he dislikes an edit, he will often revert without explanation, and if reverted, he reverts again. While quick to castigate other editors for failing to use article talk pages, he rarely outlines his problems there, and when he does, it is in a combative way.

I appreciate that Irishpunktom has contributed useful articles and edits about Islam and I would not myself favour a lengthy block from editing, but his style of editing is aggressive and time-consuming. The ArbCom may wish to consult a draft RFC which I did not get round to filing due to pressure of work. I am considering adding myself to this RFAr as an involved party. David | Talk 13:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Tom Harrison

On 5 June I blocked Irishpunktom for disruptive edit warring on Peter Tatchell. He presented what seemed to me a good case that he wasn't the only one edit warring, so I unblocked him and protected the page instead. Discussion, cautions, and warnings on ANI followed., .

On 8 June, Karl Meier told me that Irishpunktom was edit warring on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I checked and found that to be the case. I blocked Irishpunktom for one week. On his talk page, he said he thought that was harsh but fair. At Tony Sidaway's suggestion, I unblocked him shortly after that so he could respond to the arbitration.

I think Irishpunktom has come to regard his frequent 3rr blocks as the cost of doing business. It's hard to imagine that any other form of dispute resolution would be useful. Tom Harrison 19:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Jersey Devil

I have not had direct participation in editing articles which Irishpunktom edits but I have had several encounters with him and have found him to be aggresive and sometimes uncivl. In one dispute in which I had with another user which he objected to I showed him diffs of the aforementioned user incorrectly claiming "vandalism" in edit summaries. To this Irishpunktom responded in my talk page with the header "Stop being a Vandal" stating that I was lying about those false "rv vandalism" edit summaries (you can look at them and judge for yourself). Until now I was really unaware of any other problems with this user aside from occasional hostility but after reviewing his blocking log and the revert wars in which he has participated despite being warned several times before not to I do think some action should be taken. The simplest solution would just be to give admins the right to give this user an extended block for any other revert wars in which he participates.--Jersey Devil 07:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

As a participant, Tony Sidaway is recused as a clerk.

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

Pudgenet's disruption

Involved parties

Pudgenet is unable to control his emotions on discussions related to Perl. In earlier month this took the form of very hostile personal attacks. Lately it has become more serious and converted into sustained personal attacks as part of a campaign of harassment against Barry and attempted intimidation against other editors who have attempted to intervene to prevent further harassment.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Attempts by Barry to engage in productive dialogue deleted:
    • Deleted requests for mediation
    • Attempts to join in discussion (see edit summary)
    • Other attempts at mediation turned down
    • Third attempt never responded to
  • During the RFC process for Barry, jbolden1517 and Simetrical attempted to instruct Pudgenet that his behavior was unacceptable and constituted sustained personal attacks against Barry
  • Attempted administrative intervention by Durin in which Pudgenet attacked administrator questioning his understanding and his ethics once he attempted to prevent Pudgenet's harassment of Barry
  • Failed mediation in which Pudgenet refused to engage (mediator was jbolden1517 very active member of Mediation Cabal)
  • Administrative guided mediation which Pudgenet has engaged in sustained personal attacks against the mediator and has been successfully disruptive preventing much progress (governed by jbolden1517 under Durin's supervision).

Statement by -Barry-

Pudgenet has been a problem for an administrator (User:Durin) regarding the Perl article, and for me regarding Wikipedians with articles, where he's continually reverted the links that I added to brian d foy's entry, which had been agreed to here. I managed to get Pudgenet to discuss this a bit here, before that discussion was considered off topic and reverted by a mediator for a different issue. Pudgenet has an unusual interpretation of what was agreed to on the talk page of Wikipedians with articles, and I believe he's not being honest. He's certainly not trying to work it out on the appropriate page.

Pudgenet has also been uncivil in this and this edit summary, in this post to my talk page, and has criticized me here, on his user page, without me being able to respond because he deletes everything I post to his talk page without responding . Probably worst was when he vandalized the Perl article with this paragraph (at bottom left) in which he insulted me.

Pudgenet claims that use.perl.org is his site and I believe he's biased in favor of Perl and in favor of notable Perl guru brian d foy, aka Scarpia, whose biased edits he keeps covering up by reverting my links to them. -Barry- 06:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by jbolden1517

I became involved in Perl mediation as part of a request made to the Mediation Cabal. I generally specialize in mediating religion cases (which needless to say are often very heated); but I took this programming related case because it is in a language that I am knowledgeable about and the subject matter was highly technical (issues like various compiler flags used to modify the runtime engine have come up). The culture on the discussion board related to Perl was entirely unacceptable and in my opinion crossed the line into abusive. My attempts at stopping this abuse and creating an environment designed to write a high quality encyclopedia article have met with limited success mainly as a result of Pudgenet attempting to intimidate me (and possibly other editors) into allowing his personal vendetta against Barry to continue. It should be mentioned that Barry and Pudgenet know each other from other discussion boards going back at least to early 2004, as do many of the other editors. Pudgenet has successfully driven Barry off other Perl related discussion sites and this campaign of harassment did not start on Misplaced Pages.

As part of my investigation I conducted a survey of Pudgenet's postings on Perl related discussions (Perl related includes biographies of leaders in the Perl community, and cross programming language discussions) . There were 50 which violated policy (out of approximately 75 posts) so his major contribution to Perl appears to be insults and harassment. None involved any substantial content, which is curious given Pudgenet's substantial expertise in this area. Conversely on other discussions about the Iraq war and political figures (Iraq war, Doug Roulstone, Stacey Tappan, Mike McGavick) there was not a single violation and he has conducted himself admirably. So Pudgenet knows how to be an effective wikipedian he is either unable or refuses to do so on Perl related topics.

It is likely that Pudgenet is going to respond to this filing by arguing that Barry in some ways deserved this campaign of harassment, and that I am incompetent. I can provide references from other cases if my judgement becomes a primary point of dispute. However addressing the issue of Barry, his actions have been examined by 3 senior wikipedians. All have agreed that while there are minor problems with his edits the much more serious problems were in Pudgenet's edits. Given the history that I was not aware of until recently I would say that Barry has conducted himself admirably. More importantly, Barry has graciously accepted guidance from more experienced wikipedians, has responded to critique in a positive manner and has acted to facilitate the dispute resolution process.

jbolden1517 11:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Durin

My role in this dispute has been relatively minor. I first came to it last month, where I had observed a revert war underway at Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians with articles regarding some content (added, reverted, added, reverted, etc). Being that there was a dispute over content, reverting the content was not simple anti-vandalism work thus WP:3RR#Vandalism did not apply. I issued what I would call "soft" warnings to User:-Barry- and User:Pudgenet to end the revert war (,).
Shortly thereafter, Pudgenet deleted my warning from his talk page , and then continued the revert war (,). My energies at that point became focused on Pudgenet, and I conducted no further evaluation of -Barry- or any others party to the dispute. I was concerned about this behavior, and some rather hostile edit summaries left by Pudgenet (,,). I engaged Pudgenet in a fairly lengthy discussion regarding his behavior which can be seen at User_talk:Pudgenet/PerlJunk#Ignoring_revert_warring_request. At the end of this discussion, I bowed out of overseeing the dispute and trying to end it. Frankly, I didn't have the time or energy to manage it at the time.
Two weeks later, User:Jbolden1517 contacted me to provide administrator assistance to help resolve the issue. Thus, I became re-involved in the dispute. Shortly thereafter, I observed a rather hostile edit (see edit summary especially) by Pudgenet. Based on that, I issued a civility warning to Pudgenet . Further discussion followed between he and I regarding civility (see User_talk:Pudgenet/PerlJunk#Civility warning).
Following this, I monitored the ongoing mediation attempt and made attempts to get Pudgenet involved in the mediation process. I was not able to do so (see User_talk:Pudgenet/PerlJunk#Regarding Perl mediation). Pudgenet refused mediation, and continued to castigate the mediator Jbolden1517.
At this point, the revert war continues, with no indication of stopping (Pudgenet: , , ) (Barry: , , ). I feel that both parties carry guilt in this process, and the failure of the mediation process (regardless of the source; Pudgenet claims incompetence of the mediator) has left us in this state.
I do not consider Pudgenet's behavior to be irredeemably bad. On civility, I have observed since my warnings to him that he has toned it down some, though as noted the revert war continues apace. Given that an RfC has failed to bring resolution to this dispute, and the attempted mediation has been rejected by Pudgenet, I feel that arbitration in some aspect of this dispute is warranted. Both parties have been deserving of blocks regarding the revert war, but even with blocks I doubt the dispute would end; it would simply continue once the blocks ended. In Pudgenet's case, my warnings have had little or no effect, he has refused mediation, and (it appears) he is ignoring this request for arbitration. I'm at a loss as to how to correct his behavior. -Barry-'s behavior may be just as problematic; as I noted I have not evaluated his or any other party's behavior in this dispute. --Durin 19:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Pudge

I disagree with some of what Durin said, much of what Barry said, and almost all of what Jbolden said. However, and most importantly, most of what was said here is entirely off-topic, according to Barry; worse, he has specifically misrepresented the case and the process.

To wit, he notes in the above link that this arbitration request is regarding Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians with articles (though he does not make that clear here, at all, which is troubling), which I agree is the only outstanding dispute between us (despite the implications by Jbolden, my last edit to the Perl article was almost a month ago, and more than a week before mediation even began, and even before then my edits were few and far between; clearly nothing I am doing on the Perl article can require a need for arbitration, since I am not doing anything on the Perl article).

So, we have Barry saying his RfA is only about Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians with articles, and we have the fact that no other article constitutes an active dispute between us. And yet, Barry says in this RfA that, as per Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes, that there has been "Failed mediation in which Pudgenet refused to engage." This is false. There has been not a single attempt at mediation regarding Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians with articles (indeed, Barry's attempt at discussing Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians with articles in Jbolden's Perl mediation process was properly deleted by Jbolden deleted as off-topic), and I therefore suggest you direct Barry to go back and attempt this route before wasting your time further.

It may be true that I have deleted requests for mediation regarding Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians with articles; I don't know, as I consider Barry's use of my talk page as vandalism (due to actual vandalism there by him), and I just delete what he posts there without reading it (including his notice of this arbitration request). That could possibly be assumed, though incorrectly, a tacit rejection of informal mediation. However, it could not be considered a rejection of formal mediation, which no one has even attempted, despite Barry's claim. I do preemptively reject any mediation in which Jbolden is the mediator, however, and do not consider it my job, as not being the one instigating mediation, to find a suitable replacement (side note: if you cared, and reviewed the record, I am confident you would find Jbolden's claim that 50 of my 75 edits violated policy to be wholly without merit, and indeed would find much that Jbolden himself has done wrong).

To the end of not wasting your time, I will not attempt at this time to further correct or clarify the offered record against me, where errors are many, except to note that despite Jbolden's claim, I, to my knowledge, have never had any interaction with Barry before this. I know of only two other sites he has ever been on, and I only discovered he was on those sites in the last few weeks. One is my site, use Perl;, where I noticed him for the first time last week. The other is PerlMonks, where I have only 15 posts to my name since 2002 (compared to his nearly 500), and none of those is within three weeks of any of his posts, except in May 2004, where we both commented on the same day in completely different and unrelated discussions. To my recollection, I'd never heard of Barry or Wassercrats until last month (though the name sounds vaguely familiar, and perhaps I'd heard other people mention it on IRC or somesuch in reference to PerlMonks discussions I was not privy to). Jbolden's assertion is simply false, and that he asserts it as a matter of fact further troubles me regarding his judgment.

Again, I see no actual case for arbitration here. Direct Barry to formally request mediation as the dispute resolution procedure requires before further wasting your time.

Regards,

Pudge 16:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Scarpia

Actually, Pudgenet did not know who Barry was until last month, when I pointed him to Barry's alternate life on Perlmonks. You really just don't know enough to be making these sorts of accustations, so you should really try to stay within what you know. It's pretty clear that you have an emotional reaction to this because you two don't get along, but don't confuse that with actual knowledge. Scarpia 17:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Barry caught everyone's attention by trying to defame O'Reilly Media, Randal Schwartz, and brian d foy, and arguing with Harmil over trivialities in the definition of PerlMonks, revert warring with Harmil over benchmarks

. Barry had already caused problems before Pudgenet showed up , after which he continued revert warring and attempting to embarrass Randal Schwartz and O'Reilyl Media . Unsucccessful the actions of several editors, Barry decided to declare the entire Perl article as biased , which several editors removed. Barry then removed Perl from the Good Article list. Pudgenet had very little to do with any of that, and most of the things of which you accuse him happened in over Talk places, which didn't really affect the editing of Perl. I think you may have skipped most of this history is deciding Barry is "reasonable" and "admirable". It was certainly happening before Pudgenet and I got involved. Scarpia 18:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Clerk notes

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

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

Moby Dick

Involved parties

In the opinion of several administrators, Moby Dick continues to stalk another editor despite warnings. He is believed to be the sock of an editor who was formally warned by the Committee not to engage in this behavior. He may also be in breach of a one-year ban on editing articles which concern politics.

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

See:

Statement by Tony Sidaway

In the opinion of myself, Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and MONGO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Moby Dick exhibits stalking behavior similar to that of Davenbelle (see Cool Cat arbitration) who was one of three editors warned against stalking Cool Cat. He has persisted despite warnings. Davenbelle's last edit is too old to permit technical means to be used to verify this user's identity.

Davenbelle is also enjoined from editing articles which relate to politics (Trey Stone and Davenbelle arbitration, August 2005) and Moby Dick's identity may have a bearing on that ban. --Tony Sidaway 18:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Moby

This is absurd. User:Cool Cat and his friends are defining stalking as making reasonable edits to articles that he happens to not like. I have made many reasonable edits to articles and talk pages, added cited facts, and have sought consensus. Unfortunately, User:Cool Cat does not like the facts and does not seek consensus. He seeks his way and harasses anyone who does not yield to his will. His allegations of sockpuppetry are merely an attempt to run me off from the very group of articles that he was found to have made many POV edits to.

User:Tony Sidaway has stated that User:Cool Cat repeatedly attempts to promote the removal of categories, templates and content related to an ethnicity that, while not having a single national entity of its own, is significant enough to be treated seriously by an encyclopedia. Editors who complain about his activities and his attitude thus have a solid basis upon which to do so. diff

In User:Cool Cat's current complaint about my editing on wp:an/i, he states that I opposed him on all of the vote options on Talk:Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict — Not True, he also opposed four of the moves that I opposed. And it is entirely reasonable that I'm involved in that article. I voted on the AFD that resulted in its being renamed and I edited the article proper before User:Cool Cat ever did.

Of course I participated in the CFD on Category:Kurdish inhabited regions, as I did the previous CFD. I have been attempting to categorise Kurdish homelands and User:Cool Cat hates the Kurds and has been highly disruptive of such efforts by myself and others.

User:Cool Cat has shown up on a number of pages right after I've edited them: Talk:Nationalist Movement Party diff, CFD of Category:Imposters of Moby Dick diff. And he has bee hyper-aggressive on pages such as Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 27#Category:Kurdish inhabited regions, badgering every user that does not agree with his POV.

It is User:Cool Cat who is stalking, harassing and seeking the deletion of encyclopaedic content related to Kurds and the users who edit in ways that he does not like.

See also: User:Cool Cat's disruption of Kurdish categorization efforts

--Moby 11:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Cool Cat

  1. I have a script that allows me to automaticaly watch articles I edit (primarily for vandalism), on occasions I manualy add articles to this watchlist such as various political parties and other potential vandalism targets. If Moby Dick edits articles on my list (weather it is an article talking about Oh My Goddess! or Nationalist Movement Party) I would have a way of knowing about it.
  2. Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict is an intresting article. Unlike what moby claims I actualy particiapted in that AFD. All of the faces on previous RfAr are present on the AFD. We have:
    • User:Karl Meier (my former stalker) who voted 4 minutes after nom. Karl is currently revert waring on the article
    • User:Moby Dick (a suspected Davenbelle sock) who voted 10 hours after my vote on same day.
    • User:Fadix (my former stalker) who voted after me on the same day (10 hours after Moby).
    I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences.
  3. Here is a complete list of the deletion votes I participated involving kurds. You'll see over a half are red links as the concensus was over half of the time: delete.
    • I'd also like to point out that some of these categories were created by User:Diyako and/or his other aliases, a user arbcom banned for a year.
    • As for Category:Kurdish inhabited regions, my views are still the same. It should be deleted for the same reasons as Category:Hispanic inhabited regions was deleted. I am not going to bring a content dispute here but I believe I have very good reasons from my stand point which I can discuss if arbcom requests.
  4. It is irrational for someone interested in the novel featuring Moby Dick (so much that he choses it to be his nick), to make minimal edits to that area (hardly any edits, in fact none to article Moby Dick) and make majority of his edits to issues regarding Turkey and Kurds.
    • I would not be suprised if a checkuser placed Moby into the same geographic region as Davenbelle who said he was in bali.
    • The more I look at Moby's contributions the more evidence I can come up with...

--Cat out 12:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

As a participant, Tony Sidaway is recused as a clerk.

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

Conspiracy theories in History of South Africa in the apartheid era

Involved parties

User:Phase4, User:Kuratowski's Ghost, edit war in History of South Africa in the apartheid era under "Destablization and Sabotage" subsection regarding the inclusion of the text:

Although South Africa agreed to cease supporting anti-government forces, their support of RENAMO continued. In 1986 President Machel himself was killed in an air crash in mountainous terrain near the South African border after returning from a meeting in Zambia. South Africa was suspected of sabotaging Machel's Soviet-built presidential aircraft.

On December 21 1988 UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, was en route to the signing ceremony in New York, whereby South Africa was to cede control of Namibia to the UN, after over a decade of defiance of Security Council Resolution 435. Carlsson was among 270 people killed when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie in Scotland. Because foreign minister Pik Botha and a 22-strong South African delegation were due to travel on the doomed flight — but cancelled their booking at short notice — some also suspect South African involvement in the PA 103 sabotage.

Statement by User:Kuratowski's Ghost

User:Phase4 insists on including the above conspiracy theory text at the end of the section. It includes original research claiming South Africa continued to aid RENAMO after the Nkomati Accords. It includes weaselly repetition of the conspiracy theory that SA somehow sabotaged Machel's plane, already receiving questionably large coverage in the Samora Machel article. It repeats the conspiracy theory that SA was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing already given ample coverage in the article Pan Am Flight 103. These fringe conspiracy theories do not belong in the section, at most there could be a sentence mentioning conspiracy theories of ongoing sabotage by SA linking to the articles dealing with them, but it makes no sense to give detailed repetitions of these bizarre claims as if these are substantiated cases uncovered by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and / or other Commissions.

Statement by party 2

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

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

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

Editor Abuse, Threats, and Uncivil Conduct

Involved parties

User:DV8_2XL
User:Ewrobbel

DV8 2XL has been abusive, threatening, and uncivil in mediation case and before.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
User_talk:DV8_2XL
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-28_Editor_abuse_and_threats

Statement by Ewrobbel (talk • contribs)

Review of DV8 2XL's remarks in the mediation case will show a pattern of abusive and threatening treatment of me, and intimidation of both myself and the mediator.--Ewrobbel 23:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by DV8 2XL (talk • contribs)

This editor has been attempting to insert a link to his website where he sells books he has written and self-published. A quick look at his contribs will show that he has only made edits on this one topic. Discussed with the editor who is complaining on his talk page here: ; Discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents here:; went to the Mediation Cabal the first time here: (mediator e-mailed a response explaining spamlinking, case closed); returned to Mediation_Cabal here: ; and finally in edit summaries here: , here: , and here: .
This Request for arbitration is just a transparent attempt to game the system and stop me from keeping his spam off Misplaced Pages. I do not think this issue is worth the committee's time and at any rate Ewrobbel has not exhausted all other dispute resolution options. --DV8 2XL 01:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Followup by Ewrobbel (talk • contribs)

I am not arguing the case. I lost. That's over. I am accusing DV8 2XL of being abusive, threatening, and uncivil in the mediation case and before. His behavior shows a pattern of abusive and threatening treatment of me, and intimidation of both myself and the mediator.--Ewrobbel 03:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party Christopher Thomas (talk • contribs)

I tend to agree with the AN/I statements that User:Ewrobbel is linkspamming and self-promoting. In particular, he's been adding references to his own books to Transistor radio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Crystal radio receiver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and links to his web site under Walkman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). As far as I can tell from both the links and the discussions linked above, the only work of utility to Misplaced Pages from these would be the photograph of various old Walkman models.

Skimming several of the discussions involved, I don't see any serious justification for User:Ewrobbel's statement that threats are being made. User:DV8 2XL stated his intentions to continue removing linkspam in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies. In my past interactions with User:DV8 2XL, I've only ever seen him act in good faith. While I think he could have phrased his statements more diplomatically, I get the strong impression that User:Ewrobbel is using this as a delaying tactic in order to continue self-promoting. The discussions on AN/I and elsewhere make it clear that classifying the edits as linkspam has substantial community support.

This has been through a mediation attempt and was discussed at length on AN/I. I don't think further attempts at dispute resolution would work. User:Ewrobbel brought this to ArbCom; let him reap the results. --Christopher Thomas 03:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: As far as I can tell from the mediation case and elsewhere, the claims of attacks and threats are baseless. The statements that User:Ewrobbel considers "threats" were along the lines of, "I will continue to remove edits that violate Misplaced Pages policy". --Christopher Thomas 04:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion... Ewrobbel (talk • contribs)

No one is claiming "attacks" as Christopher Thomas misstates. DV8 2XL is simply accused of abusive, threatening, and uncivil treatment of me, and intimidation of both myself and the mediator. I trust the arbitrators will be more careful in their reading of the accusation and their review of the mediation case than Christopher Thomas has been.--Ewrobbel 15:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A Culture of Rudeness? Ewrobbel (talk • contribs)

When DV8 2XL tells me "don't let the door hit you on the way out" on my talk page, and that (among many other things) is considered by admins SimonP and James F. as "at worst a bit curt," I can only suggest that there is a culture of rudeness in these back pages of Misplaced Pages which many seem so steeped in they don't even notice it anymore.--Ewrobbel 16:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/3/0/0)

Requests for Clarification

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

Election

The complainant has never even sought mediation (there has been no survey, no 'third opinion', etc.), nor a request for an advocate, before bringing this RfAr. How is it that the case has been accepted? Are cases brought by admins subject to lesser restrictions vis-a-vis process?

Here's Phil's comment about mediation (he never pursued it after Robert's comment) . He did not follow thru on the possibility of mediation. Here's Noosphere's next discussion regarding possible mediation of disputes And again here's Noosphere, not Phil, seeking mediation after a round of fierce warring: and the continuing thread, ending in the removal of the mediation request due to a lack of interest .-- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"excuse me, but please let me point out that you all asked for a mediator: perhaps this is a good topic for me to help with. if I don't get something to do here, I'll just go back and say you case is closed because no one is responding. :-) Ted 01:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, mediation was skipped on this article. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"Where a dispute has not gone through Mediation, or the earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, the Arbitrators may refer the dispute to the Mediation Committee if it believes Mediation is likely to help." - from WP:AP. I imagine this is the reason. Phil Sandifer 18:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
If that's the case, Fred Bauder (who said it was his view that mediation should work) or another admin should have referred the dispute to the Mediation committee. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
But they are in no way required to. See "may" not "will." Phil Sandifer 18:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Fred's comment read ""There is a suggestion by RyanFreisling that mediation might be productive, see his talk page. I think that may be a much more productive solution. Having the arbitration committee take the sheep shears to the articles is not going to make for a very nice haircut. "
For you to claim that the 'Misplaced Pages process has spectacularly failed', don't you think you should have followed the process as closely as possible? Wouldn't that have been necessary for you to make that claim? How can Misplaced Pages process have failed, if it hasn't been attempted in good faith? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Do the Arbitrators even read the proposed decisions talk page?

Fred Bauder is the only arbitrator who I've ever seen make a comment on the proposed decision talk page. from how they are blatently misrepresenting my beliefs, and even my statements... -- assuming good faith here, i can only assume that they simply 'do not read said talk page.

This logical conclusion is derived from the following (besides the stated assumption of good faith):

So in light of this, what I want clarified is: are the arbitrators who have already voted on what i believe (and i'm rather new to the idea of having a select committee decide what my beliefs are for me) going to read and consider the statements of the parties, or make judgements and put words in their mouths without giving the people involved a fair hearing (and that means actually listening)? I actually do want an answer to this question. It's not just rhetorical. I seriously don't know the answer and I want this issue clarified. Kevin Baas 22:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course we read them.
James F. (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It may help instill user confidence in the Arbitration process if a comment or two were provided when a decision is made. Thanks! Dr1819 12:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Merecat/Rex071404

As mentioned above in my request to reopen 'Rex071404_4', Merecat/Rex071404, who was banned by ArbCom from editing John Kerry and sockpuppeted as Merecat in order to circumvent the ban, has engaged in disruptive editing under the guise of Merecat, resulting in indefinite bans.

Rex' 6-month ban from Rex071404_4 has also apparently ended. Please extend the ban and widen it, in light of this willing violation of ArbCom policy and continuing disruptive conduct. If Rex can simply assume another sock, and violate a permanent ban, there appears to be no solution to his attacks on Misplaced Pages process. Please consider this, in order to minimize the impact of the next disruptive sock proven to be Rex. (update) Mr. Tibbs has above suggested limiting Rex to one account. Please advise on the correct course of action in light of Rex' willing circumvention of ArbCom. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Rex/Merecat has spawned more sockpuppets: . Arbcomm please advise what we are to do about this. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Ryan and Mr. Tibbs have not explained the status clearly, this message will: 1) User:Merecat did edit John Kerry. 2) If Merecat was a alternate acccount for User:Rex071404, then Merecat can be deemed a "sockpuppet" and blocked on that basis, because Rex was not supposed to edit JK. However, if you read the full dialog on this (here), you will see that the check user policy is being abused. The users which Tibbs refers to are Neutral arbiter and Wombdpsw, neither of whom have transgressed in any manner. For this reason, if they are indeed alternate accounts, (which is permissible - see here), the Tibbs's drive to "out" them is an egregious violation and misuse of check user. In fact, the original check user which was done that "outed" Merecat may not even have been valid on it's face as the request may not have been properly founded. Be that as it may, Merecat is blocked by User:Katefan0 who has quit the wiki. But Rex is also blocked - by User:Cyde. However, the block against Rex is invalid as it says that Rex is a "sockpuppet" of Merecat. But, even a cursory check of their contributions histories will clearly show that Rex long pre-dated Merecat and Rex himself is absolutely not a sockpuppet. As it stands now, it appears that Rex would like to be unblocked and possibly cede to being deemed to being Merecat so as to be able to quit using the Rex account and instead use the Merecat account. It would seem that the Rex071404 account should be closed in favor of the Merecat account. On top of this, there may be a few loose ends to attend to, but on the face, no editor has made a strong case that Merecat is bad and for that reason, if Rex is Merecat, Rex should be allowed to transition to Merecat and drop the Rex account. On the other hand, if the ArbCom doesn't want to move this forward, then at minimum, Mr. Tibbs should be instructed to stop the witch-hunting. These new users that Tibbs acccuses are not sockuppets. In fact, they are either individual editors or at most, non-transgressing alternate accounts. Rex071404 is not under any sanction or ban that either User:Neutral arbiter or User:Wombdpsw has transgressed. Nor have these editors transgressed wiki rules. They are not disruptive, they are not doing 3RR, etc. There is simply no valid reason to keep fanning the flames of Mr. Tibbs vendettas. Also, if I am not mistaken, Ryan recently accused User:Tbeatty of being "Rex/Merecat". How many times will these two be allowed to accuse non-transgressign editors? It's time to retire the Rex bogeyman. Good ole John Kerry is not being molested and this type of bossing against others by Tibbs and Ryan is bad news. 69.46.20.59 07:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the checkuser indicated that the users are socks of Merecat/Rex. So the above looks most likely to be yet more mendatious doublespeak from a Merecat sock. Not all of the Merecat edits are directly POV pushing, his latest tactic appears to be an attempt to create an alternative reality by posting pieces to his opponent's user pages accusing them of being biased. (For evidence take a look at this then look at the other edits by this IP, it is hard to see why a newbie editor would immediately acquire Merecat's fixations, the post is a transparent attempt at deception and self justification/pity). Other posts are made to complain about the unfair treatment of Merecat. If the above paragraph was indeed factually accurate and the sockpuppets have not been found to be engaged in 'transgressions' it is hard to see how they would be identified as sock puppets. Clearly their behavior was suspicious enough. Merecat is a revert warrior and POV pusher. Keep the ban. --Gorgonzilla 17:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

When will this witch hunt end, We have User:Neutral arbiter, User:Tbeatty, User:Wombdpsw all accused of being Merecat. I am waiting for my turn to pop up on the list considering there evidence ammounts to use of "lets keep it NPOV" summaries. Are any of these even proven sock puppets? I think an admin needs just do a checkuser then state how long rex is banned as he and merecat cant both be sockpuppets. --zero faults talk 17:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

To extend the witch hunt, you have people accusing everyone of being merecat, its becoming silly almost: User_talk:RyanFreisling#Another_merecat_sock.3F If you touch an article that this group defends you risk being accused. When does this become fishing or even worse an intimidation tactic. --zero faults talk 17:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny that so many people who all just happen to edit the same set of articles in the same particular direction all use the same language in their pleas here. Of course that does not mean that they are all sockpuppets of a single person but there is a remarkable similarity in their approach. --Gorgonzilla 21:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Dug up this old link about Katefan's original banning of Rex/Mercat and the original RFCU. and some interesting arguements. Some more recent disturbances. And just so everyone knows now theres more talk about this on the admin noticeboard: -- Mr. Tibbs 07:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Love the idea that this is a witchhunt. Um. We have CheckUser evidence. Hello! --Woohookitty 10:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I dont see any of the following banned for being sock puppets: Wombdpsw, Neutral Arbiter, TBeatty or Cal Burrattino. Provide these check user evidence you have please. --zero faults talk 12:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The tactics this individual or clique use to evade bans show through in their edits. This smacks of being a propaganda campaign. They argue black is white then call people fools and liars for saying it isnt. They make the most tendentious POV edits imaginable then accuse others of POV peddling for reverting their nonsense. If someone was running a for fee Misplaced Pages scrubbing service for GOP pols this is what it would look like. Oh and BTW one does not have to assume good faith after a user is banned for repeated bad faith. --Gorgonzilla 22:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Odd the RfC doesn't say that. But you know that already cause its already been brought up else where. --zero faults 23:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to keep everyone up-to-date Neutral arbiter, Cal Burrattino, and Wombdpsw were all found to be sockpuppets of Rex071404 and have been banned indefinitely.. Also it turned out I'm not a sockpuppet, fancy that. I have no doubt that in the future we will be seeing more sockpuppets of Rex, so everyone keep an eye out. -- Mr. Tibbs 05:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I misread, but is Rex naming more socks here? Does his admission that he only wanted to disrupt Misplaced Pages alter peoples perception of the RfC against his puppet Merecat, which stated as much? Nomen Nescio 09:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Let it go, will you? If he's really gone, he's gone. If not, it will become obvious sooner or later. Meantime, go edit an article or something. Thatcher131 11:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
User:Rex071404 has spent 2 years disrupting Misplaced Pages and has said on numerous previous occasions that he was quitting. You're right though, it will become obvious sooner or later when he comes back. After his sockpuppets have caused much conflict just like what happened with Merecat. This isn't something that can be "let go" anymore than Rex's indef bans will be "let go". Which is basically what he's asking for in his "goodbye-note" and even in that note he has the nerve to hold Misplaced Pages hostage: "If and/or when I ever return, it will be under a single new user account and I will not be a source of trouble. However, in order for this promise to be binding on me, I ask that my request (which I am making here now) to delete and protect my user page and user talk page (same as user:katefan0 did) be honored." I have posted another RFCU regarding Rex's self-admitted sockpuppets. Also see Thatcher's incident report here. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agapetos Angel

Is within the prohibited editing by 203.213.77.138, 220.*, 58/56.* AA et al.? 203 has stated on his talk page that he thinks it is not within the prohibited edit set (see his talk page for details) and so I have brought the matter here for clarification. JoshuaZ 03:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

RfAr Blu Aardvark

A question has been asked: "Does Raul, a potential litigant, get to define the parameters of the case so that they do not include him?" I will ask a different question: What are the suitable steps to have the case also include those involved parties who actually hold power, both on Misplaced Pages and the foundation-affiliated #wikipedia, and have potentially abused it. I urge for realistic means to pursue this. Otherwise, the appearence will be that the powerless (Blu) are fair game whereas the powerful (Linuxbeak, Raul) are absolved, shielded, and unaccountable. El_C 19:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This would be the case except that the topic is very specific; Should Blu Aardvark be permitted to return to Misplaced Pages? It's not about this whole situation with MSK, Linuxbeak, etc; While the facts leading to his blocks and unblocks are relevant, sanctions against those who took those actions are not. If someone wishes to make a motion to expand the scope of the arbitration case to MSK, Linuxbeak, Raul, and the others involved, and it gets support, fine. Hell, I'd support it. Until that time, there needs to be evidence and motions within the confines of the topic, which is singluar and specific. --Avillia 20:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm interested in clarification from the Committee about the scope of the case. El_C 22:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
My own feeling is that it is of utmost importance that we sort out the status of Blu Aardvark soon. His is the customary appeal of a community ban to arbcom (there is similar situation up on this page, soon to be opened as a case). That is a case that has already exhausted dispute resolution. While I have my own opinions about Linuxbeak's unblocking and Raul's reapplication of the unblock (twice), I don't think this case is for that. Rather, the current RFC is the appropriate place for that, and any other necessary dispute resolution, and only after those avenues are exhausted, a separate request should be made here. This has been an extraordinary circumstance to be sure, but I don't really think Blu Aardvark's appealing of his ban should be occasion to jumo the dispute resolution process for administrators that are tangentially involved, even if they have shown poor judgment. Dmcdevit·t 07:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This answer leaves me with a strong impression of cronyism for higher-ups, and I'll be withdrawing my participation in protest. I'm not asking for sanctions, but I strongly object to what I feel is a double-standard masquerading as narrow proceduralism. El_C 21:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we just want to keep the case reasonably simple. Fred Bauder 22:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Intentions aside, the impression this narrow-sidedness leaves —simplicity over comprehensibility at the expense of accountability— will not address the underlying problems effectively, I fear. But I won't press the point. Still, it leaves one wandering at the whim(?) of who or what are some cases pursued more narrowly or broadly than others. El_C 03:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
We take on bureaucrats when they become insufferable, not every time a controversy arises. Fred Bauder 12:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I take on the arbitrators when their standards become controversial, not wait till they become insufferable. El_C 22:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

Archives

Category: