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 17:06, 26 July 2006 view sourceFormerly known as Homey (talk | contribs)6 edits →Request for injunction← Previous edit Revision as of 17:11, 26 July 2006 view source Raul654 (talk | contribs)70,896 edits →EverykingNext edit →
Line 614: Line 614:
# Everyking is placed on standard probation for all pop music articles - any admin may ban him from any/all of them for any misbehavior on his part # Everyking is placed on standard probation for all pop music articles - any admin may ban him from any/all of them for any misbehavior on his part
# Should EK harass other admins over their non-editorial actions, any admin may block him for up to two weeks per incident, escalating to one year per incident after the fifth one. ] 22:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC) # Should EK harass other admins over their non-editorial actions, any admin may block him for up to two weeks per incident, escalating to one year per incident after the fifth one. ] 22:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

(Currently supporting: Raul654, Epopt, Fred Bauder, JamesF, Morven)


====Discussion==== ====Discussion====

Revision as of 17:11, 26 July 2006

Shortcut
  • ]

A 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. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four accept votes are cast. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details.

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

Harassment and Wiki-stalking

Involved parties

User:Ste4k vs User:Nscheffey
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
User:Ste4k (filed by this editor)
User:Nscheffey Template:Wp-diff

Other Editors Notified

A Man In Black
Coredesat
Fabartus
JChap2007
JzG
KickahaOta
Kim Bruning.
Why was I notified? Kim Bruning 14:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Martinp23
MichaelZimmer
Nae'blis
Pascal.Tesson
The Thadman
Will Beback
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Discussion
User talk:Nscheffey
User talk:Ste4k
Informal Mediation
User talk:A Man In Black
User talk:Ste4k
User talk:Martinp23
Formal Mediation
User:Will Beback/Sandbox
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ste4k
Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Ste4k
Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Ste4k

Statement by party 1

This editor stated his intent to stalk me and cause problems, then did so including gaming the system to have me appear as a trouble maker. During July, two thirds of his contributions were directly related to achieving his goal. His most common tactic is to twist what I say, or divert attention by describing what I say as something else. He has gone out of his way to inform other people of his opinion of me, or create a negative perception. He claims that he is unaware of this issue, denies it, or tries to use mention of it against me. I have tried to avoid him, forgive and forget, but am concerned that he will continue, perhaps with others in the future.
Statements of intent: Evidence of wiki-stalking: Evidence of bad faith, and incivility: Evidence of obsession: Disruption: Gaming the system/false portrayal: Evidence of incivility to others: My good faith he deleted from his talk page: Another attempt to be helpful:
Ste4k 08:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

This RfArb illustrates many of the behaviors that worry me about Ste4k's impact on Misplaced Pages. She has clearly spent a lot of time and effort on an RfArb that I am confident will not produce her intended result. I will let the diffs speak for themselves, but I note they range from the risible (my edits to the Steak page as "Evidence of obsession"?) to the truly bizarre (links to diffs on Big Gay Al that I had nothing to do with as "Evidence of incivility to others"?). I believe this case should be accepted as the current RfC on her behavior has gotten nowhere and her conduct has not improved. If it is not, I hope Ste4k filing this RfArb will at least bring her to the wider attention of the Misplaced Pages community. --Nscheffey 20:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement by KickahaOta

This arbitration request clearly seems to be a result of a broader dispute involving Ste4k and a number of other editors. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ste4k, in which those other editors laid out the case against Ste4k (in a way that may have been too aggressive for an RfC, but which will be helpful to the arbitrators now). It's a good thing that Ste4k has now laid out her own side of the story on this, and other editors have definitely been provocative towards Ste4k; but Ste4k has been very provocative and disruptive at times as well, as the RfC shows. I think that arbitration of all sides' behavior in the dispute (potentially including my own) is probably necessary to settle this. Kickaha Ota 09:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Will Beback

I recommend that the ArbCom take this case to review Ste4k's behavior. I wrote a thousand eloquent words, but I see that user:KickahaOta has already expressed it better in a hundred. I'll spare us the dissertation and agree with KO. Cheers, -Will Beback 11:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by A Man In Black

I urge acceptance of this case to review Ste4k's conduct, such as that described in her RFC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Who123

Very Strongly Do Not Support.

Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ste4k. I learned of this through that RfC. I believe that all of the editors involved in that RfC should be notified. I also believe that these are related. I further believe that the problem is not between 2 parties but between party 1 (Ste4k) and many other parties.

I have looked through the evidence and do not believe it supports the "Statement by party 1". I suspect that this is simply a revenge personal attack.

I have not had any problems in my interactions with party 2.

I find Ste4k to be very aggressive and appears to lack the skills to interact with other people in a cooperative fashion. What I find most notable is that despite the many comments in Ste4k's RfC, Ste4k still seems to be completely unaware that there is a problem. Instead, Ste4k blames everyone else.

--Who123 14:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by JChap

I am disappointed that Ste4k has brought this matter to RfArb. Nathan's behavior is clearly not stalking. The best outcome for the RfC is for it to end with Ste4k acknowledging she's made some errors, the other editors acknowledging her value to the project, and everybody getting on with their lives. Call me an optimist, but I still believe this can happen, if the RfArb is dropped. JChap (talk • contribs) 15:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:Bhouston

I ran into Ste4k on Dissident Voice. After that encounter I wrote this comment to Will Bebeck:

"Hey Will, I noticed you ran into User:Ste4k on Charles_Buell_Anderson. I ran into him on Dissident_Voice. The guy is passive aggressive and questioning basic facts even after I meet his demands to source to original sources. I find his demands to be out of the bounds of reasonableness. He has also added a ton of macros to the Dissident Voice page even though it is incredibly sparse -- and he didn't add the most appropriate ones such as "stub" or "expand". I think is going to be a long term issue on Misplaced Pages, but I don't know how to handle her/him. He also blanks his user talk page -- probably to avoid people figuring out he is being this way on a lot of articles at once. --Ben Houston 15:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)" (emphasis added)

Comment by Coredesat

I have not been much of an active player in this dispute, and I have not had any problems with either side of the issue, but I still recommend that the ArbCom review this case. The RfC doesn't seem to have accomplished anything, based on what I've seen. The accusation of wiki-stalking seems to be unfounded based on the evidence provided, but there have been cases of incivil and disruptive behavior on both sides (though quite a bit of the time, it doesn't appear to be Nscheffey's fault), which need to be looked at. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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


Tabriz Rugs

Involved parties

Rembranth vs Khosrow II
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Talk:Tabriz rug

Jump to: navigation, search To the administrator.

Please note that Tabriz is Azerbaijani city and its main inhabitants have been Azerbaijanis. Its culutre and carpets have been and are part of the Azerbaijani civilization, culture and history. Azerbaijanis have nothing to do with Persians and Persia, other than the fact that it has been divided into two parts: Iranian Azerbaijan and Rusian Azerbaijan. The Iranian Azerbaijan with its capital Tarbiz is still under the persian occupation. The Russian Azerbaijan has become independent in 1991. The iranian Azerbaijan will soon gain its independence as well. I just want to say that as Azerbaijani I have nothing to do with persian, no relation netiher by ethnicity, nor by religion. We are different civilizations, different people and different history. Please, don't call Tabriz rug as Persian rug. It hurts. --68.49.90.60 03:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Khosrov, be warned. YOu are vandalizing this web site. THere is not such a thing as iran. There is a Islamic Republic of Iran. Tabriz carpet is Azerbaijani carpet as most of the people in Tabriz are Azerbaijanis and they are the ones who make these carpets. Azerbaijanis are not Persians. See Misplaced Pages Azerbaijani section for more information. If you repeat your vandalism, I will call for arbitration and they will define who is right. --Rembranth 17:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Tabriz_rug"

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by party 1

I tried to develop and make the information more accurate on the Tabriz Rug section. It is written that Tabriz rug is a persian carpet. Whereas all people who live in Tabriz are Azerbaijanis, how then carpets they make can be persian. In addition Khosrow II always deletes my changes about where the Tabriz is in. Tabriz is in the Islamic Republic of Iran, where as Khosrow II change this to Iran, which is the name of the overall location where persions have lives and persians haven't lived in Southern Azerbaijan, with the capital of Tabriz. I warned Khosrow II about his vandalism, but it appears that he never reads the discussion part of the article. I am powerless and request your help.

Statement by party 2

He usually claims that I am vandalizing the page, while he hasn't said a single word in the discussion section of the article. And Khosrov never reponded to my messages in the discussion part.

(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.)

Statement by Party 2

First of, I was never informed of this, which is against the rules. You cannot put a confirmation line when you have not even contacted me!
Secondly, this user, who is anon by the way, has several different accounts which he uses to vandalize several different articles. Also, he is putting POV in the article. If you check the article, you will find out that I am not the only one reverting his vandalism. He is falsifying facts and changing a relatively sound and accurate article. He is also committing the same vandalism in several other Iranian related articles, which have also been reverted by other users including me. Khosrow II 16:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


See talk page on my responses to his history revisionism and falsification. I have also contacted another north Azeri in an attempt to calm him down, since he is not listening reason. I hope that this issue will be resolved once a fellow country mate of his talks to him.Khosrow II 16:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


This user also goes by many different names, all of which he uses to put his POV in several Iranian related articles: User:Diraf69, User:Rembranth, User:Roman123, and others, which I will post as soon as I recognize them. I know this because the way these users edit are all the same, all deal with the same type of articles, and all have the same POV. I am not the first user to accuse this user of having multiple accounts either.Khosrow II 16:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Gol

I hope this is the right palace to make comments, I apologize if it isn’t. I have been observing this discussion and I have to say that this user Rembranth has made some politically motivated and extremely POV comments such as Persians occupied Azerbaijan or that It will be separated soon! His comments about Iran are also completely wrong, Iran is not the area where Persians historically lived, that is Pars, Iran is the area where Iranian people/Iranic people historically lived and Iranian Azerbaijan was ALWAYS a part of it. His argument about Iran is also ridiculous it is like saying that China can not be called China because it is Peoples Republic of China!! He has also been rude and called us chauvinist!(see Tabriz rug talk page).

As for the rug, it is produced in an area that 100% BELONGS to Iran. He put the flag of the republic of Azerbaijan and removed the flag of Iran! Completely unacceptable; this rug has nothing to do with that flag.

As for Persian labeling, yes people of this city are mostly Azeri and so are those who make this rug but “Persians rug” was the term used for labeling rugs produced inside Iran (obviously because Iran was called Persian in the western world until 1935) .It had nothing to do with the ethnicity of the people who actually made those rugs. As I mentioned earlier, we can change it to Iranian now that the name of the country has changed but it might confuse many people since like it or not this rug was referred to as Persian throughout the history and it is still known chiefly by that name. We can go to any shop anywhere in the world and you will see Tabriz rug listed as a Persian rug (sometimes Oriental rug or Iranian rug but not Azerbaijani rug)Gol 09:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


I completly agree with Gol and Khosrow II's standing on this matter. Rembranth's edits are very biased and his comments are particularly anit-persian. A good example of this is that he insists on spelling Khosrow II's name with a "v" instead of "w", probably because "Khosrov" is the turkish pronounciation of this name. Arash the Bowman 15:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

NPR

Parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
MSTCrow - MSTCrow 02:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Wkerney - Wkerney 21:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Mediation, Talk:National Public Radio, User talk:MSTCrow, User talk:Wkerney.

Statement by party 1

User ideogram has repeatedly blanked a section of the NPR article without giving any reason, and has recieved vandalism warnings. He has also worked to destroy the mediation process in NPR's talk, to the point that the agreed upon stage suggested by the mediator had been reached, but ideogram dismissed it and continued an ongoing flame-war, despite he was not part of the mediation party. Ideogram has also been "stalking" me on Misplaced Pages, and making baseless reverts with no comment whatsoever on articles simply because I added something to them, as can be seen here . Calton has repeatedly blanked sections of the NPR article only calling it "propaganda." User calton was warned twice with the "be civil" tag, and once with the "vandalism" tag. He has found a sympathetic admin to ignore his acts of vandalism and incivility, where the admin then threatened me, despite the fact the admin was not at all familar with WP:Vandalism. Calton has also taunted users, telling them to have him banned, and he has vandalized their edits on his user page, as can be seen here , which also appears to be some sort of bizarre statement against Will Beback for telling Calton to follow WP. Other avenues of recourse have been tried, and failed. This is not a content dispute, so much as a dispute regarding proper behavior and cooperation on Misplaced Pages.

Statement by sympathetic admin not at all familiar with WP:VANDAL

That would be me. Bishonen | talk 02:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC).

Statement by User:Calton

Oh joy, my very first RfArb. Fortunately, it'll be a very short one, given that it's entirely frivolous, being a content dispute on National Public Radio -- and essentially a unilateral one, at that -- being escalated by the filer in an attempt to bully his way through. It's textbook wikilawyering.
The "civility warning", by the way, was for an edit summary, made in response to MSTCrow's transparently false Reverted, Ideogram is blanking information, refer to talk page. Do not revert edit again, as this constitutes vandalism., that read: "rv - noooo, he's removing propaganda thinly disguised as sources". There's a certain element of Pot Calling the Kettle Black involved, if nothing else, to complain about civility in the face of the original edit summary that prompted my comment.
Further note: the filer will not be responding anytime soon, as he's been blocked for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR on the article in question. I guess that makes ANOTHER admin "not at all familiar with WP:VANDAL". --Calton | Talk 02:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Supplementary statement

Although the nominal basis for this RfArb is a bog-standard content dispute and inevitably rejectable on those grounds, given the copiuosly documented misdeeds of the filer (MSTCrow) by User:Ideogram and MSTCrow's continued bad faith, false statements*, tendentious wikilawyering, abuse of process, admin shopping , edit-warring, and incivility -- and his every indication that he's going to continue his bad behavior -- I suggest ArbCom take on this case to examine and pass judgement on the behavior of MSTCrow himself.

--Calton | Talk 08:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

* Note especially his claim that he only reverted twice, when three out of the five are LABELLED as reverts in his edit summaries.

Statement by User:Ideogram

I note that User:MSTCrow has stated his intention to leave Misplaced Pages, so I will not comment unless he changes his mind. --Ideogram 03:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
MSTCrow has decided to stay.
MSTCrow is ignorant of basic Misplaced Pages policy and assumes authority he does not possess.
Accuses multiple users of vandalism (see edit summary) where no vandalism occurred. Insists he only reverted twice when he clearly reverted five times; when an admin lists the reverts, he attacks her and accuses her of lying. Accuses two users of personal attacks while making personal attacks of his own. Denies my right to participate in the discussion. Calls joining a mediation "disruptive". Claims that deleting a section is vandalism. Removes another user's comments on an article talk page. Changes the active status of the mediator without permission. Threatens to get a user blocked. Tells people they don't belong at Misplaced Pages. Removes warnings calling them vandalism. When asked to assume good faith removes the request.
MSTCrow seems to think he is some kind of hero here to save Misplaced Pages.

--Ideogram 16:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Wkerney misquotes his own citation, refuses to follow the mediator's suggestion to avoid political arguments, ridicules me, ridicules me again, fails to assume good faith, when asked to assume good faith, accuses me of attempting to derail the mediation and vandalizing the article (while snorting at me).

--Ideogram 16:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Fundamentally both MSTCrow and Wkerney fail to understand that anyone can join any mediation at any time. This is surprising, since Wkerney himself joined this mediation after it started. --Ideogram 21:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Misrepresenting me yet again. MSTCrow certainly feels that way, though. Wkerney 00:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Threaded conversation in the area reserved for other people's comments is frowned on. --Ideogram 01:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm just basing this on what I see elsewhere on the page. If it's wrong, I'll delete them. Wkerney 06:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Even after you are told you are wrong, you continue your wrong behaviour. This is the problem with you and MSTCrow "in a nutshell". --Ideogram 17:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Wkerney is claiming that "the mediation has gone on long enough" and that "the recommended time period is 2-10 days" showing a severe lack of understanding of how mediation operates. He continues to refuse to present evidence for his position, despite the fact that the evidence he has already presented was based on misrepresentation. He claims "the point of Misplaced Pages is to get at the truth" ignoring the well-known motto "Verifiability, not truth". He "recommends" "waiting 48 hours" then bringing "this to a close" once again failing to understand how mediation works. --Ideogram 01:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm attempting to help resolve the mediation in a way that's amicable to all parties. You are the only person opposed to this outcome. Truth is part of verifiability. If we have a source that contradicts itself, as everyone but you acknowledges, then it's not a suitable source under wikipedia guidelines on sources. Wkerney 06:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a total lie. However, since this kind of conversation is not allowed, I will not further respond to your infractions. --Ideogram 17:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
MSTCrow again attacks me and suggests users should "ignore" me since I am an "interloper", conveniently forgetting that Wkerney is also an "interloper". --Ideogram 01:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
MSTCrow tries to tell the mediator how to do his job.
Comment: Wkerney fails to mention that he recommended a 48 hour "cooling off period" so I assumed the conversation was over. Again he shows a failure to assume good faith in immediately labeling this as "vandalism". --Ideogram 17:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement by wkerney

First, in response to the above, he claimed I misquoted the source, when he was misreading the page numbering in PDFs. I have pointed it out to him before , and yet he again tries to use it as a claim! This is the problem with Ideogram in a nutshell. A second easy example can be seen above. He claims I call him an interloper in the mediation. When I point out his statement is false, he makes an unrelated attack on me. He does this indefinitely, switching between demanding sources, demanding quotes, claiming that the answers showing that he is wrong are personal attacks on him or are just personal beliefs, and then hiding behind AGF (which is an example of wikilawyering) when people point out he's not attempting to reach a consensus, but simply drag out or derail (which means to take the conversation in an entirely new direction, and probably not a very profitable one) the controversy.

He attempts to derail conversations by moving the discussion away from achieving consensus into arguing over petty points and/or demanding quotes even if they've been presented before, and then hiding behind wikipedia policy when he's called on it. I have repeatedly proposed solutions to the NPR mediation. Ideogram OTOH simply is operating to derail the process. He has repeatedly violated civility. He tries to shield himself by hiding behind ASF. (But as the ASF page says, "Yelling 'Assume Good Faith' at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions.") He has threatened to use 3RR as a weapon instead of exhibiting restraint and developing consensus. I feel the moderation process would complete smoothly if ideogram were removed from wikipedia. Some of his quotes:

  • "This is just plain pathetic."
  • "Do not accuse me of trying to ruin the mediation, that is a violation of Assume Good Faith."
  • "You don't get to decide whether I get to participate. Only the ArbCom can do that. If you have a problem with me, take it up with ArbCom."
  • "MSTCrow you aren't going to get anywhere by adding controversial links, simply because there are more than enough editors willing to remove them that you will fail 3RR."
  • "AGF and NPA."

Misplaced Pages policy recommends against snarky comments in changes (Civility). Ideogram's change notes include:

  • "don't waste our time"
  • "missing the point"
  • "learn how to be civil"
  • "ridiculous debate"
  • "truth doesn't belong here"

Tendaciousness (Ideogram is not making valid arguments or attempting to reach consensus. He has repeatedly simply made statements stating, in a nutshell, that he disagrees with someone without actually answering the original claims. For example, I hold that the source in question contradicts itself, and have provided the contradictory quotes. Instead of answering, he simply asks for a quote. Again. Or claims that it's "just my belief".)

  • "Prove it. We have the full text of the survey on the web. Quote two contradictory statements, quote where it is deceptive, quote where it is wrong. You have failed to do any of that."
  • "Fortunately saying something doesn't make it so."
  • "Please quote the relevant policy from WP:EL that justifies including this link."
  • "All of this is beside the point. Read the policy in WP:EL and quote why this link should be included, or it will be removed."
  • "If you can't convince the rest of us, it doesn't go in."

Finally, if you check User_talk:Ideogram you see he's been involved in revert wars, blanking sections, vandalizing pages and inserting himself into mediations across a wide swath of pages. IMO he should be warned or removed from wikipedia entirely, and certainly removed from the NPR mediation as he's the only problematic element. Wkerney 21:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Ideogram should be banned from Misplaced Pages, due to his intentional sabotage of mediations when he has an ideological animus against one side, his revert warring, and he has repeatedly stated that Misplaced Pages is not the place for truth, his latest reiteration at . - MSTCrow 01:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
He's the first actual "bad user" of wikipedia I've met, outside of the mindless vandals. He just wiped out/archived the entire active conversation on reaching consensus to resolve the NPR dispute, against wikipedia policy and the philosophy of trying to resolve conflicts in an agreeable manner. Wkerney 06:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

Deir Yassin

Involved parties

User:KimvdLinde
User:Guy Montag
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Template:Wp-diff
Confirmations of the case are also posted at the pages of Template:Wp-diff, Template:Wp-diff, Template:Wp-diff and Template:Wp-diff.
Notification of the case is also posted at the Template:Wp-diff
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Violation of probation, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag. Bans in this case have been applied twice and lifted twice.

Statement by KimvdLinde

I bring this case because I think Guy Montag has violated his probation with the rewrite of the Deir Yassin massacre article, based on Deir Yassin: History of a Lie, The Zionist Organization of America (copies here and here), copyright violations from various websites and votestacking
I plead guilty of moving a page on which I was myself marginally involved by starting a poll to get the page moved back to the more common name and voted in support for that. The rational for the move was posted at WP:AN/I, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Battle_of_Deir_Yassin.2FDeir_Yassin_massacre:_move_poll_closure_review_requested here and the analysis and conclusion was considered valid and was moved back accordingly by an uninvolved admin . Uninvoled admins told me that I should have not moved it myself as I was involved.. Is dealt with here Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid/Workshop#Administrators_admonished and here Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid/Proposed_decision#Administrators_admonished.
As for the sequence of events, with the banning and unbanning, let me show this:

Statement by Guy Montag

I refuse to participate in any of these procedings, nor am I playing any more of her games. She is an administrator who has sided in an debate and then abused her powers to get her way. She is involved in an Arbcomm case dealing with her abuse of powers and has been asked to not participate in the debate at Deir Yassin by more than one editor. She initiated the vote that turned a discussion about the name that was only beginning into an all out pov fest by initiated a vote. After being notified that some of the information might be copywritten, even though much of it was already available in the previous version of the article (of course, no one cared about that because the article agreed with their pov) ar as raw sources in books, I petitioned the authors to receive authorization to use the information in the article, which is completely disfigured without it. I will recieve approval early next week. She causes disputes wherever she edits.

Even though the information can simply be cited within the notes by attributing to the author, Kim has used this technicality by reverting the article and totally rewriting the article according to her pov, even though I requested numerous times to open a workshop where we can work on the content together to insert both povs . Now she is attempting to ban me to stop me from balancing the article. This is a content dispute and Kim is using every heavy handed tactic she has at her disposal to stop me from editing. She should be sanctioned and her admin powers suspended. I have not been approached for mediation, nor did I feel there to be any need for mediation during my detailed discussion and debate with other editors.

Guy Montag 19:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement by FrancisTyers ·

I banned Guy from the page for inserting a number of paragraphs of copyvio text in his rewrite. People able to read proprietary document formats can see Kim's summary here. I was asked to remove the ban by SlimVirgin as I had been discussing the issue of the title on the talk page with him, taking an opposing stance, although I hadn't made any content edits to the article itself. I subsequently removed the ban.

Guy first denied any copyright violation, but then implicitly accepted it by requesting permission to use the text. At the moment the article has been reverted to a version without any copyvio text that Guy inserted, although there may be others. So far there has been no permission given to use the text.

The fact that much of the copyvio material was from the Zionist Organisation of America, an organisation that would be expected to have a strong point of view in the matter is also concerning. I think if the article is reflecting the view of the Zionist Organisation of America, we haven't been doing our job to represent a neutral point of view. - FrancisTyers · 22:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Leifern ·

It seems to me that adequate disciplinary action already has taken place against Guy Montag, in that he was been banned for some time from editing the article in question. It isn't clear to me why KimvdLinde thinks such vigorous action is necessary. And several of her complaints are in fact legitimate content disputes that remain unresolved. Guy Montag should refrain from misbehavior, but he should not be prevented from engaging in an honest debate. --Leifern 23:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Ral315

I'm marginally involved, having placed a short-lived article ban on Guy Montag for his editing on Deir Yassin massacre (per my instructions, an administrator who dissented removed the ban). While I think a few of his actions were a bit out of line, I'm not necessarily sure it's enough to warrant a re-opening of his case. Ral315 (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Bibigon

I'm involved in this largely because KimvdLinde was the one who started this arb case, after previously initiating a move war on the article. KimvdLinde at this point appears to me to be an administrator who regularly abuses her powers in the pursuit of pushing her own POV, all the while cloaking her actions under the claim that she is uninterested party. She has previously done this in the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article and arb case, where she tried to excuse her improper behaviour in the move war that occured there on the basis that she was a mediator in that case. With regards to the Deir Yassin article:

1. Guy Montag rewrote much of the article and moved it, apparently believing that the move was not likely to be contested.
2. There was disagreement, and as far as I can tell, the article should have been moved back then and there until a consensus could be reached.
3. Instead however, KimvdLinde then began a poll on the matter, to propose moving the article back the 'Massacre' title.
4. There was no consensus after the prescribed period of time, but a majority did exist to move the article back. Given the lack of a consensus, several parties then agreed to extend the poll to get a better idea of where other editors stood on the matter.
5. The voting then shifted, with eventually a slight majority opposing moving the article back. Again, no consensus was forthcoming.
6. KimvdLinde then all of a sudden, without warning, without discussing closed the poll, claiming that Guy Montag had invalidated it by informing other editors that a poll was ongoing. There was no evidence presented to suggest that Guy Montag's actions were inappropriate, merely that KimvdLinde did not approve of them. She said this notification began after the extension of the poll deadline. It is worth noting that at that point, no consensus existed for moving the article.
7. Stunningly, KimvdLinde also took Guy Montag's actions as reason to unilaterally move the article back, initiating an edit war in the process. She did so in spite of the fact that even before Guy Montag notified other users, no consensus existed for her move. She also did so in spite of the fact that she had begun the poll in the first place, thus presumably believing it had some validity and legitimacy to begin with. So to recap, she began a poll, lost, claimed irregularities, and then without discussion, used those claimed irregularities as reason to declare victory. Note please that she did not try another poll, nor did she respect the results of the poll before the alleged irregularities. Instead, she took the her claims as cause to completely reverse the results, and take the same action that she would have had a consensus existed for the move. So if a consensus had existed for her proposed move, she would have moved the article, and if a consensus did not exist, she still would have moved the article. This does not appear to me to be appropriate behaviour from an administrator.
8. While KimvdLinde may have had legitimate cause to move the article back in the first place, due to the nondiscussed nature of the original move, the moment she began the poll, she lost any such claim to legitimacy. Why? Because by starting the poll, she implicitly gave it legitimacy and weight. If she had consensus, she was going to move back on that basis. If she lacked consensus, beyond her inappropriate actions in closing the poll, she clearly planned on moving the article back anyways claiming that Guy Montag's initial move was out of process. If that is the case however, then why did she begin the poll in the first place if she was going to take the same action regardless. What she has done here is a clever, yet appalling abuse of process. Assuming that Misplaced Pages still works through consensus, and that process is important, KimvdLinde's actions fail to meet those standards in this case.
9. In KimvdLinde's statement here to the Arbitration Committee has misrepresented the facts of what happened on the Administrator's Noticeboard. To quote her "The rational for the move was posted at and the motivation was considered valid." Reading through the noticeboard, this does not appear to be the case. Her actions were heavily disputed, and her rationale, behaviour, and tone was also severely criticized by other admins there. Some agreed with her, other did not. Her misleading attempts to claim approval here for actions should be noted as well.
If the Arbitration Committee is going to be considering Guy Montag's actions here, then KimvdLinde's must also be considered. I would like to remind the committee that KimvdLinde is currently involved in another arbitration case about Allegations of Israeli apartheid about almost this exact same issue. There, poll about a proposed article move which ended without consensus, and was followed by a move war. The entire arb case is focused around claims by several editors, including KimvdLinde, that the move was out of the process, and thus not valid, and that the involved editors should be reprimanded. Invoking a curious double standard, KimvdLinde regardless saw fit to again engage in the same same behaviour herself, without even waiting for a ruling in the ongoing case. As an administrator, her actions and her behaviour, should not be allowed to go unnoticed. Bibigon 02:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Briangotts

I requested that the ban on Guy be lifted per the instructions because it seemed inappropriate to me and inconsistent with the previous arbcom ruling. I generally endorse Bibigon's summary of the facts. I find KimvdLinde's pattern of behavior disturbing in the extreme, all the more so because s/he is an admin. This is a case of an admin heavily involved in edit conflicts in an article now using admin powers to persecute a user whose views differ. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Gatoclass

Tony Sideaway has asked me to shorten the length of my submission.

My original statement on this page was intended to be my final statement on the matter, and I really can't be bothered rewriting the whole thing again for brevity.

So all I'm going to say now is - I fully support KimvdLinde's move to have Guy Montag's status as a Wiki editor reviewed. He breached the terms of his probation by making a highly contentious POV rewrite of the Deir Yassin massacre page, including a unilateral page move, he engaged in votestacking when a straw poll threatened to move the page back, and then after long debate over his edit, we discovered that much of it had not been taken from the original sources as he pretended, but had simply been plagiarized unattributed from a handful of partisan websites.

Just to emphasize the extent of POV in his rewrite - the main denialist website he used to construct his piece itself admitted that a mere 5% of 170 books it reviewed seriously disputed the occurrence of a massacre. Guy's rewrite by contrast effectively reverses that proportion by limiting accounts of the massacre to a mere 5% of the text, while most of the other 95% lends support to the denialist position.

He wasted several weeks of other users' time on an edit that was not only heavily POV, but which also turned out to be substantially a cut-and-paste copyvio. I feel that deserves some sort of disciplinary action over and above merely banning him from the page in question - particularly since he was already on probation for similar behaviour. Gatoclass 11:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

I find many of Kimv's recent actions to be very concerning. She seems to either not understand or not care about the fact that adminstrators do not have any extra "powers" per se, they just have extra responsibilities. She regularly uses her privledges to gain an upper-hand in disputes that she is not only involved in, but is actually a primary party to, all the while she pretends to have no personal convictions one way or another about the dispute. I think it is particularly odd that she would even attempt to open this RFA on the heels of another conflict where she engaged in the same kind of inappropriate behavior.

As for Guy's behavior, I do not think that it can be called exemplary by any stretch of the imagination, however I find it equally difficult inapplicable to state that Guy's edits were a violation of his probation. Sure he edits from a pov, but so do all of us, at least Guy is able to admit it right on his userpage. If Guy did anything wrong it does not even compare to the actions of KimvdLinde. If there is a reason to accept this RFA it is only to take a closer look at the actions of Kimv.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra

I also fully support KimvdLinde's move to have Guy Montag's status as a Wiki editor reviewed. I think that the statement by Gatoclass above nicely sums up what has been problematic with Guy Montag´s editing.

Many of the statements above by Bibigon have earlier been raised by him/her on the the talk-page, see Talk:Deir_Yassin_massacre#Completely_Unwarranted_Closing_of_the_Vote. Most of his/her arguments have also been answered there; to summarize:

  • that Guy Montag´s unilaterally moved Deir Yassin massacre (about 30.000 Google hits) to Battle of Deir Yassin (about 100 Google hits) "believing that the move was not likely to be contested", is at least stretching my WP:AGF
  • I agree with Bibigon that a better procedure would have been to just move the article back right away, and ask Guy Montag to build a consensus for such a move.
  • The claim that KimvdLinde "clearly planned on moving the article back anyways claiming that Guy Montag's initial move was out of process" is completely unsubstantiated. *IF* the vote had showed a consensus for *not* moving the article back; then I cannot imagine that Kim would have moved the article. So to say (directly/indirectly) that the outcome of the poll would not matter to Kim is simply pure speculations, and certainly not AGF.
  • The argument presented by Bibigon seem to claim that somebody who is in favour of moving Battle of Deir Yassin to Deir Yassin Massacre would not also be against moving Deir Yassin Massacre to Battle of Deir Yassin in the first place. This argument hinges on that those two moves are different, i.e. people will have different preferance w.r.t. the title depending on whether you start with the "Battle.." version, or whether you start with the "Massacre.." version. I am of the opinion that when people have a preferance on one of the titles, A or B, then they will have that preferance, irregardless of whether the poll is about moving A ->B, or if it is about moving B->A. And if that preferance is static for any one editor, then the result of the poll shows that there was no concensus for the move to the "Battle" version in the first place.
  • However, I think a lot of the confusion here could have been avoided if the poll had been about moving Deir Yassin Massacre to Battle of Deir Yassin (and not the opposite). Now, Guy Montag and equal minded could claim that there had to be a clear majority, (consensus), for undoing a move that was done without consensus in the first place.

Huldra 07:05, 25 July 2006

Comment by ChrisO

I've been involved on the margins of this article, providing advice on Talk:Deir Yassin massacre on the requirements of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. (Disclaimer: I've not come across Guy Montag before and I've not had any previous involvement in this particular article, which I've only edited once to remove an erroneously placed tag. Nor am I a partisan on Israeli-Palestinian issues - my comments below have no political motivation.)

I'm not adding myself as a party, but I believe there are two key issues that need to be addressed here:

1) POV editing - as noted by other editors, GM appears to have relied on a minority POV (essentially a denialist one) to rewrite the article and move it to a new title. This presents obvious difficulties as far as WP:NPOV is concerned and the move unquestionably caused significant controversy and disruption.
2) Copyright violation - there is clear evidence that much of the content added by GM was lifted verbatim from third-party websites without permission. Personally I found this revelation very disappointing, as I'd assumed that GM was at least producing some original work. The article instead ended up being a mashup of plagiarised content.

I note that the ArbCom has already found GM to have "engaged in disruptive point of view editing" and this certainly strikes me as being more of the same. However, I don't believe that a permanent ban is appropriate in the circumstances.

I believe that GM is sincere in wanting to improve Misplaced Pages, but I think the strength of his POV on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict impairs his judgment in editing such articles. A lengthy ban from I-P articles would probably be sufficient and would allow GM to turn his energies to editing less contentious areas of Misplaced Pages, where his POV wouldn't get in the way so much. -- ChrisO 21:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

Sarner

Involved parties

user:DPeterson filed by this user.

user:Sarner Harasses me, makes false accusations, recently posted "vandalism" on my user talk page without any basis. Recently he was bocked for 48-hours by an administrator for harassment, "You have been blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks and disruption, including the AfD which in my opinion is disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point. When you come back, you are to disengage with DPeterson; he has complained to me that he feels harassed and I don't blame him. I have looked through his contributions and I don't see any incivility coming from him. You may contest this block by placing {{unblock|(reason you should be unblocked)}} on your user talk page, which you can still edit. Mangojuicetalk 01:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)" from Sarner's talk page.DPeterson 12:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
user:Sarner has been warned by others and previous mediation failed and resulted in his "soft-ban" from Bowlby page and ban from editing Barrett page.
Yes, but did you tell him of this RfAr? Morgan Wick 18:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
No. Currently he is under a 48-hour ban. I will put this on his talk page. now.
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Sarner has shown no desire to develop consensus or to collaborate. Several mediators and an advocate have been involved in the prior dispute on the Bowlby page. Several other editors have also been the victim of his attacks. Requests have been made by me for him to stop. Requests have been made by others for him to stop. Mediators have been involved in his disputes ( see Bowlby and Barrett) An advocate has been involved. Most recently an administrator has been involved and banned him for 48 hours. DPeterson 12:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement by DPeterson

Sarner placed a "vandalism" notice on my talk page. There is no basis for this. He has harassed me with false accusations and attacks. He has resisted building consensus or collaborating, resulting in his ban from editing the Barrett page and Bowlby page. He is now taking this fight to my talk page. DPeterson 15:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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 (0/2/0/0)


Warren Kinsella

Involved parties

Arthur Ellis
Pete Peters
CJCurrie
209.217.93.60
209.217.66.179
207.35.190.72
72.136.201.103
69.157.70.145
Ceraurus
et al

Clerk notes

Because of the size, statements by participants have been moved to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella. --Tony Sidaway 11:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Homeontherange

Involved parties

PinchasC (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Homeontherange (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Briangotts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
IronDuke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 00:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Update from Thatcher 131

Homey, or someone with his editing interests and POV, is continuing to edit using anonymizer.com, a proxy service. See here for the evidence. Thatcher131 23:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And see here for my response. I haven't been editing using an anonymizer, I have made a few edits as an anon IP. 72.60.226.29 01:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Update from SlimVirgin

It appears that Homeontherange is continuing to edit as an anon IP. He has tried to insert himself into the sockpuppet situation regarding Gnetwerker/Anomicene, and the dispute between Mantanmoreland and WordBomb that Fred dealt with. He has admitted to posting as 70.49.107.152 (talk · contribs) and 72.60.226.29 (talk · contribs), and may also be using proxies 130.94.134.218 (talk · contribs) and 168.143.113.52 (talk · contribs). See discussion here. SlimVirgin 01:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No, no proxies and no need for them since I have been posting a handful of times anonymously using my IP (which is dynamic) but as the RFA deals with administrative permissions only (see the terms) the point is moot as I no longer have access to those permissions. In any case, there's never been an RFC which is the step PinchasC should have taken if his motivation wasn't political. I am leaving but given SV's hypocricy I felt I had to make a comment on WP:ANI. 72.60.226.29 01:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey is also editing as 206.186.111.133 as seen here where he updated his other account AndyL as inactive. Also, there is nothing in the user rights log to indicate Homeontherange no longer has sysop permissions. Merely deleting his user page does not take away administrative permissions. --MPerel 06:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

:Homey is also editing as 206.186.111.133

So what?

Also, there is nothing in the user rights log to indicate Homeontherange no longer has sysop permissions. Merely deleting his user page does not take away administrative permissions.

Requests for desysopping are made on the mediawiki, not here and I made one a few days ago. However if you really want me to stay I will and this sort of nonsense from you and SV makes that more likely. 72.60.226.29 12:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement

I am no longer editing articles and am in the process of leaving wikipedia. However, I am not leaving as a way of avoiding this RFA and will stay to deal with it. This RFA should not be dismissed because I am leaving but because it is specious, capricious, and an abuse of process as none of the items mentioned in the case have been brought first to an RFC and politically motivated. I will be adding several individuals as parties - SlimVirgin and Jayjg because of their role in New Anti-Semitism and Zeq because he is a party in some of the evidence that has been presented. The fight in NAS and SV and Jay's behaviour there are material factors in this case as is Jay's behaviour in the original Apartheid article and in Apartheid outside of South Africa neither of which have been brought into the Israeli apartheid RFA. Also, there is some evidence of SV misusing her admin powers by protecting articles she has edited and misusing her authority, as it is, by having a proprietorial attitude towards articles that is contrary to the spirit of wikipedia. These are aggravating and mitigating factors in this case as well as offences which the ArbComm may wish to look at. 70.48.89.229 15:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The above comments have been made by an imposter, please disregard them. Formerly known as Homey 17:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for injunction

An IP editor claiming to be Homeontherange, 70.48.89.229 (talk · contribs), has today added 4 new parties to this RFAr: SlimVirgin, Jayjg, Zeq, Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg. These are all people Homeontherange has had past conflicts with. Recent cases involving Homeontherange have been disrupted by much anonymous IP editing, sockpuppeting, and claims of various editors that they are or are not Homeontherange.

I request an injunction preventing anonymous IPs and/or sockpuppets from broadening this RFAr to include others who are neither central to nor involved in the issue that prompted this request for arbitration, Homey's use or misuse of his admin tools. FeloniousMonk 16:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Because of the size, statements by parties have been moved to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Homeontherange.
Homeontherange's wikibreak is apparently to run until September 5 . --Tony Sidaway 13:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

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

user:Coolcaesar

Involved Parties

(some parties may not be contributing to Misplaced Pages at the present time, and many other users who are involved may not be listed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.173.154 (talk • contribs)

user:Coolcaesar
user:Ericsaindon2
user:Mr.Executive
user:OC31113
user:Decimal10
user:Asbestos
user:off!
user:Siroxo
user:SleekWeasel
user:Invitatious
user:ThomasisScholar
user:24.64.223.203
user:Rewinn
user:Preslethe
user:Fahrenheit451
user:Gleng

Clerk notes

I have removed extensive threaded dialog from statements in this application. Please feel restore in more appropriate (non-dialog) form. --Tony Sidaway 21:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Because of the size of statements by participants, they have been moved to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Coolcaesar. --Tony Sidaway 13:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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.

Pedophilia userbox wheel war

I would like to know if Tony Sidaway's threats at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8#Template:unblockabuse are valid per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#SPUI, especially given the comments at . --SPUI (T - C) 17:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Highways

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Enforcement of moves without consensus states that "If any participant to this dispute moves a state highway page to their preferred convention before a formal policy has been reached, he or she may be blocked for a short time of up to a week for repeated offenses." Say Route 69 is renumbered to Route 31. (This type of whole-route renumbering occurs occasionally.) Is this measure intended to make the obvious move blockable? Or should "from another convention" be added after "to their preferred convention"?

I also note that it specifically mentions state highways. Is Canada fair game, as long as I'm not disruptive? --SPUI (T - C) 19:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Also I'd like to know what the duration of the probation is as no set limit was established in the Arbcom. Is this probation indefinite? Or can we appeal it after 3 months? --JohnnyBGood 20:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you are worrying over semantics here. Uncontroversial moves should not be contested, and won't get anybody in trouble. There is a difference from moving something to the correct name and moning something to the preferred convention. That doesn't mean anyone can move to their preferred convention and say it's okay because it's the real name, but Route 69 and Route 31 are not variations of eath other, whereas a move from Route 31 to State Route 31, or Route 31 (State), or whatever, would be a violation. Dmcdevit·t 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the last sentence. If someone makes an article at simply "Route 31", which should obviously be a disambiguation page (and it is in this case), what should I do? --SPUI (T - C) 19:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the confusion is here, but I think maybe that it is that the part of the ruling you quote comes from the enforcement. Take a look at the remedy section where the controversial moves are prohibited (Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Controversial_moves): "Until a formal naming convention policy regarding state highways is reached, no page shall be moved from one controversial name to another". I think that is clear and answers your question. Dmcdevit·t 19:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
OK - so I can move Route 31 to Route 31 (State), as everyone agrees that Route 31 should be a disambiguation page, so its current location is not controversial? --SPUI (T - C) 20:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
If this is so, can someone please edit the enforcement to reflect this? --SPUI (T - C) 07:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
An appeal is likely to do little. --SPUI (T - C) 12:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Probation is indefinite. Fred Bauder 12:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Can it be appealled in the future or as SPUI says are we pretty much SOL? --JohnnyBGood 00:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
You can appeal whenever you want, but you will only be successful if you can demonstrate some new development that will make us change our minds. That may be a while from now. Dmcdevit·t 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Another question: where do I start on making a "formal policy"? I talked to a policy wonk and he confirmed that naming conventions are typically guidelines. --SPUI (T - C) 13:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking purely for myself, I'd say that the Committee can only urge the community to seek a policy solution to the question of highway naming. The community may well have good reasons to reject this. In which case, you'd probably all better be extra careful about moves, and make sure you don't make any controversial name changes. --Tony Sidaway 10:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyking

Pursuant to discussion on the arbitration committee mailing list, Everyking has recently been causing more problems. Following our previous decision, he has instead begun harassing administrators on their talk pages. He has resumed editing Ashlee Simpson articles in the same fashion we previously sanctioned. Extraordinary Machine lodged a complaint on the ANI, and I recieved one in private from someone else (that person has refused to lodge one formally because he/she is fed up with EK from previous run-ins).

Per previous discussion, I'd like to propose the following remedies:

  1. Everyking is banned for two weeks for recent offenses
  2. Everyking's current prohibitions (his ban from editing the ANI, and from commenting on other admin's actions except for their talk pages, RFC, and RFA) - set to expire in November - are extended indefinitely for one year, until November 2007.
  3. Everyking is placed on standard probation for all pop music articles - any admin may ban him from any/all of them for any misbehavior on his part
  4. Should EK harass other admins over their non-editorial actions, any admin may block him for up to two weeks per incident, escalating to one year per incident after the fifth one. Raul654 22:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

(Currently supporting: Raul654, Epopt, Fred Bauder, JamesF, Morven)

Discussion

  • Do I get an opportunity to argue in my defense? Let's consider a few things:
    1. Ashlee articles—exactly what am I doing there that the ArbCom considers so terrible? I mean, actually look at the articles and their histories and tell me. There's a couple of reverts, but I wasn't the only one reverting, and the situation seems to have settled down now into a compromise, at least a de facto one. Also, there was far more discussion going on than there was reverting—in fact, if you just look at the histories, you'll see there was hardly any reverting at all. There was no "revert war" in any meaningful sense—the only thing close to one happened on an article about a Jessica Simpson song, but again in that case, too, the situation seems to have settled down into a de facto compromise. To sanction someone for this is utterly, entirely absurd. Not only was the whole situation a pretty minor one (not even close to the explosion of conflict the articles saw 18 months ago), it seems to have settled down anyway, and I wasn't even the one with the aggressive stance—I was taking the defensive stance.
    2. Talk pages—the ArbCom ruling specifically granted me the right to discuss admin actions on the relevant admin talk pages. Am I now going to be punished for exercising that right? People would block me before and tell me to take it to the admin's talk page. So I do that, and this is what I get? Why was that exemption created to begin with, if I was just going to get attacked for making use of it? Not to mention there isn't much of this going on anyway. The last case was regarding EM threatening a user who was obviously acting in good faith, but was younger than most of us and was a little confused about how to do some technical things.
    3. No credit—where is the credit for actually following the ruling as it was spelled out for me? I have always strictly observed the AN/I prohibition. I haven't been blocked by anyone for any reason in several months. To hear Raul tell it, I've been constantly violating the ruling, which is the exact opposite of what I've actually been doing.
    4. Ruling consistency—Ashlee articles pertained to EK1; this is EK3. How can you fit anything pertaining to EK1 under a revision of EK3?
    5. The opposing party—Who is the opposing party here, anyway? It appears to be none other than the ArbCom itself—in that case, how can I possibly get a fair hearing from them? Or is it whoever sent that private complaint? Did that person actually want this taken to arbitration? Isn't it important, for reasons of transparent process, to have an accuser in public—not secretly in e-mail? Is there any precedent for that at all?
    6. Involved party?—hey, did anyone think to consult EM about this stuff that is apparently being done on his behalf? What does he think? Does he actually want me taken to arbitration? Previously he expressed a lot of reluctance to even take me to RfC, and that was at the peak of the conflict, some time ago.

I think it is fair to say you have exhausted the committee's patience. I'm going to respond, very briefly, to some of the points you raise. Point 1 - Despite your attempt to spin it otherwise, you are doing the exact same thing that led to the first two Everyking arbitration cases, and as I just said, our patience with you has run out. Point 2 - As I said to you on my talk page just a few days ago, that exception was *not* created to allow you to move your harassment from the ANI to individual users' talk pages. Point 3 - I drive to work every day and avoid the temptation to run over those skateboarders who are always on Delaware Avenue. If tomorrow I were to run them over, am I to tell the judge to consider all the times I went to work and didn't run the over? Ha, no. Point 4 - Wikilawyering; our clarification applies to the series of cases, not any one in particular. Point 5 - No opposing party is necessary. Point 6 - yes. Raul654 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I've exhausted your patience; you've exhausted mine, too, but what am I gonna do about it?
  1. I will post thorough evidence about this if the ArbCom will agree to read and consider it honestly.
  2. It's not harassment, it's criticism of admin actions—the exact thing the exemption was created to allow me to continue doing in a restricted space. Moreover, I have actually done little of this—once every few weeks, maybe? I'll go through and post all the examples I can find, again if the ArbCom will agree to read and consider it honestly.
  3. I haven't run anybody over, to go with your analogy; you haven't pointed to anything I've done that violated the ruling. You've accused me of misbehaving on Ashlee articles, which if true isn't covered by the ruling (and wouldn't even be covered by the old ruling, because even if you guys hadn't freed me from it after two months, it would still have expired long ago) and complaining on admin talk pages, which is protected by the ruling.
  4. Does "wikilawyering" mean "a point of procedure that would benefit the accused and therefore will be disregarded in this case"?
  5. I asked you to provide a precedent for this, and also to explain the inherent unfairness of having the same people as both accuser, prosecutor and judge.
  6. Notably you didn't ask his opinion before starting this thing. In any case, let's now wait and see if he has something to add about this. Everyking 17:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not at all familiar with this stage of dispute resolution; that said, I think this discussion is appropriate.
Everyking, you reverted me three times at Ashlee Simpson (including an edit that had absolutely nothing to do with removing content) and once at Pieces of Me . The main reasons I chose not to keep restoring my edits was because a) it's better to discuss a dispute rather than repeatedly revert the other party, b) I knew the history of these articles and wanted to make sure the situation wouldn't escalate like it did before, and c) because of the reverts I just listed, and the dispute 18 months ago, I had a feeling you'd keep reverting me. That's one of the reasons why I didn't file an RFC on your behaviour, the others being that I wanted to keep the discussions focussed on the articles and that there wasn't a second party around who was involved enough to be able to certify an RFC. I didn't once consider the possibility that you would follow me across other pages and revert me wholesale (These Boots Are Made for Walkin' (Jessica Simpson song)), which is simply unacceptable, in my opinion. It also indicates your statement about "taking the defensive stance", if true originally, no longer holds much water. Not that I don't care about your "defensive" behaviour either: telling me "it will be restored, naturally" (Talk:Ashlee Simpson) and comparing me to a film villain (Talk:Pieces of Me) is not appreciated.
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 states "Everyking is required to familiarize himself with the particulars of a situation before commenting on it"; with regard to Tcatron565 (talk · contribs), I don't believe that you did so. Tcatron registered here almost a year ago; as can be seen at user talk:Tcatron565, he's made many edits that violate the guidelines and policies, and has a history of incivility. I'll leave the nitty gritty out for brevity's sake, but I should note that I wasn't even the first user to introduce the possibility of a block to him. I admit I've considered just giving up explaining the policies and guidelines to him, but that's only because comments like "it seems like everytime I make a wrong move, you're all up in my face! ... when I do something wrong, wait for 4 days, then tell me" , along with his tendency to continue editing as he was, indicate that such efforts would be pointless. If you're still wondering why I told him he may be blocked, I should refer you to the case of the IP editor 200.138.194.254 (talk · contribs), a seemingly good faith user who nevertheless edited in violation of the policies in guidelines without discussion and was consequently blocked for a week not too long ago. I'm certain that I would have told Tcatron the same thing if I wasn't an admin, so the comment about me "throwing my weight around" as an admin is hardly accurate. Lastly, I am well aware that admins involved in disputes with other users (such as the one I had with Tcatron) aren't supposed to block any of the other parties, and if I thought a block was absolutely necessary in this case I would have started a discussion at WP:ANI. I feel that your comments regarding this were written with the main intention of antagonising me rather than anything to do with Tcatron. Extraordinary Machine 20:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, I don't have access to the arbitrators' mailing list, so I don't really know exactly what they are thinking. For all I know what they are saying in private and in public are completely different. But all I can do is focus on what gets written on this page. So let me directly discuss each of the things Raul calls remedies:

  1. This proposes banning me for two weeks for alleged "recent offenses". What recent offenses? Raul has so far only pointed to one somewhat uncivil comment I made about an admin warning I thought was too harsh. Yeah, I shouldn't have used the tone I did, but it was in the midst of a more general conflict that had led to a deepening of animosity on both sides; it didn't come out of the blue. To ban someone for even a single day for a marginally uncivil comment that they've since apologized for seems highly draconian—to ban for two weeks is so far overboard it almost seems insane. Aren't blocks supposed to be staggered somehow, anyway? You don't generally just jump right into such severe blocks for minor offenses. I've never even been blocked for a single 24 hour period in two and a half years on Misplaced Pages—every one of my blocks has been reconsidered or undone for some reason. Furthermore, as I've said before, I haven't been blocked at all in the last few months. So even if you think I'm in the wrong, does it make sense to jump from blocks lasting a few hours in the relatively distant past to two weeks now?
  2. Rather than try to overreach in arguing this one, considering the depth of the ArbCom's hostile feeling toward me right now, I propose that the ArbCom change this so as to give me an automatic appeal in November of this year (something I have long pleaded for), but a formal duration until November 2007 in case of failure.
  3. Again—for what? What did I do wrong here? I participated in some minor reverting and bickering that has since settled down, and I made several concessions and compromises (and expressed far more willingness to compromise throughout than my opponent did—in fact I think all the compromises were made on my initiative).
  4. I don't have much of an argument for this one; the ArbCom and I simply don't agree about what constitutes harassment and what constitutes reasonable criticism. I will just hope that this penalty is never abusively applied. Everyking 05:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

General responses, since this section is a bit too muddled for an indented reply to make sense any more: Everyking, I think your question above as to the definition of "wikilawyering" above (snide musings aside) is answered by your point directly above it, "you haven't pointed to anything I've done that violated the ruling". Also, "the ArbCom ruling specifically granted me the right to discuss admin actions on the relevant admin talk pages. Am I now going to be punished for exercising that right?" and "where is the credit for actually following the ruling as it was spelled out for me?" and "Who is the opposing party here, anyway?" and "I asked you to provide a precedent for this, and also to explain the inherent unfairness of having the same people as both accuser, prosecutor and judge." are all good examples of wikilawyering. Why were you given any of these restrictions in the first place, Everyking? If you can't answer that then I'll support every measure proposed. It was to stop your harassment. When I am faced with the fact that you've used administrators' talk pages for harassment, despite our obvious desire that you cease harassment, I am forced to conclude that you are violating the ruling. I'm weary of it: bans from AN/ANI and from criticism other than on admins' talk pages were meant to get it through to you to stop harassment. If your response is to continue to do so through the only avenue still open after the last case, then the general ban for a short time period is looking reasonable. Was really what you consider reasonable criticism where I see harassment? Note: if the answer is really "no, and I've apologized" don't tell me you haven't violated our decision again. That you have never violated even the letter of the ruling is patently false anyway, as we found out months ago, , , , and also on the occasion where I specifically pointed out to you your violation of the ruling (I am sure you recall, or maybe you decided to make a bold statement like that with no factual backing or double checking?). Despite your efforts to the contrary, you don't have the option to say: "I forgot. I'm sorry." and go on you merry way, only to "forget" again. If I can have no confidence that you cannot stop in the future, I can't object to the three proposals related to it. As for the pop culture remedy, I don't find that issue particularly pressing or interesting right now. Dmcdevit·t 06:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Although maybe out of place, "pop music" articles should be better defined. A lot of people see pop music as different things, and it's a little ambiguous. Esteffect 21:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

We generally expect people to use their common sense. Are you suggesting we credit our users with too much?
FWIW, I'm happy with the proposals that we've worked out.
James F. (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Credit me with a little, then. Just a tiny bit! Everyking 04:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Internal spamming/campaigning

There's an ongoing discussion at WP:SPAM about what constitutes acceptable talk page contact between users regarding discussions, votes, polls, etc. Prior rulings that have been pointed to are this prior ruling and this one. Could you offer any more specific information about what is and is not allowed/discouraged, for example: is it the use of mass userbox messaging that is disallowed (if it is), or is internal spamming/campaigning disallowed only if disruptive? Thanks. IronDuke 17:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zeq

Motion to ban Zeq for a week for creating an attack article regarding User:Homeontherange (article has been deleted) diff will be available to Arbitration Committee members. Fred Bauder 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Archives

Category: