Misplaced Pages

:Requests for arbitration/Polygamy: 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:Requests for arbitration Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:40, 4 November 2005 editResearcher99 (talk | contribs)511 edits →Statement by party 1← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:39, 15 May 2014 edit undoCallanecc (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators72,962 edits →Enforcement by ban: {{Arbitration standard provisions}} 
(7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
This case is a merger of "] on the ] and ] pages" and "Abuses on ] article", see ] for the original requests. This case is a merger of "] on the ] and ] pages" and "Abuses on ] article", see ] for the original requests.


⚫ <big>'''Case Closed''' on 02:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)</big>
<!-- uncomment and un-nowiki when case closed <nowiki>
⚫ <big>'''Case Closed''' on ~~~~~</big>
</nowiki> -->


Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the ], and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at ]. Evidence is more useful than comments. Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the ], and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at ]. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Line 35: Line 33:
I have very much offered and proposed a number of ways to genuinely solve issues. I have very much offered and proposed a number of ways to genuinely solve issues.


* , with * , with
* Anti-polygamy article (archived ) created for NPOV and mutual fairness. * article (archived ) created for NPOV and mutual fairness.
* - comprehensive and very WIN-WIN resoluton offer. * - comprehensive and very WIN-WIN resoluton offer.
* - a WIN-WIN and NPOV resolution offer on the ] page. * - a WIN-WIN and NPOV resolution offer on the ] page.
] has never offered/proposed even one resolution of their own to try to accommodate and work with me. ] has never offered/proposed even one resolution of their own to try to accommodate and work with me.
Line 78: Line 76:
</nowiki> --> </nowiki> -->


=Final decision (none yet) = =Final decision=

''All numbering based on ]'' (vote counts and comments are there as well)
==Principles== ==Principles==
<!-- uncomment/un-nowiki and fill in <nowiki>
===Template===


===Obsessional point of view===
1) ...
1) In certain cases a Misplaced Pages editor will tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way. Such users may be banned from editing in the affected area if it becomes problematic.


:''Passed x to x at ~~~~~ :Passed 7-0
</nowiki> -->


===Misplaced Pages is not a platform for advocacy===
⚫ ==Findings of Fact==
2) ] provides that Misplaced Pages is not a platform for propaganda or advocacy.
<!-- uncomment/un-nowiki and fill in <nowiki>

===Template===
:Passed 7-0
1) ...

===Assume good faith===
3) Misplaced Pages editors as a part of ] are expected to ], simply, to adopt a cooperative posture rather than an antagonistic one with other editors.

:Passed 7-0


⚫ == Findings of fact ==

===Researcher99's claims of expertise===
1) {{User|Researcher99}} claims to have "researched Polygamy for years" .

:Passed 7-0


===Researcher99's scope of editing===
2) {{User|Researcher99}}'s editing at Misplaced Pages has been almost exclusively limited to ], discussion pages related to that page, and user talk pages.

:Passed 7-0


===Opponents===
3) {{User|Researcher99}} has taken the position that those who differ regarding editing of ] form a coherent "anti-polygamy" block, "Gangs of Sneaky Vandals" who use "anti-polygamy tactics" . See ], especially comments by others.

:Passed 7-0


:''Passed x to x at ~~~~~
</nowiki> -->


==Remedies== ==Remedies==
===Researcher99 banned from editing polygamy-related articles===
''Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.''
1) Researcher99 is banned indefinitely from editing articles which relate to ]


:Passed 7-0
<!-- uncomment/un-nowiki and fill in <nowiki>
===Template===
1) ...

:''Passed x to x at ~~~~~
</nowiki> -->


==Enforcement== ==Enforcement==
<!-- uncomment/un-nowiki and fill in <nowiki>
===Template===
1) ...


{{Arbitration standard provisions}}
:''Passed x to x at ~~~~~

</nowiki> -->
{{NOINDEX}}

Latest revision as of 07:39, 15 May 2014

Case Opened on 17:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

This case is a merger of "User:Researcher99 on the Polygamy and Group marriage pages" and "Abuses on Polygamy article", see Talk page for the original requests.

Case Closed on 02:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

Statement by AMA advocate of party 1

Statement by Neigel von Teighen official AMA advocate of User:Researcher99 (see )

User:Researcher99 has been attacked constantly by User:Nereocystis in many polygamy related articles, but specially in Polygamy and in Talk:Polygamy with abusive behaivor including POV warring, unexplaine reversions and constant ad hominem attacks in his posts. Although all tries to solve the dispute through RfC (started by the other party), official mediation (started by us), Nereocystis has shown no intention to solve the dispute in a civil manner, so we request this arbitration to stop this abuse against Researcher. --Neigel von Teighen 15:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 1

Researcher 21:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


Please see: Polygamy Dispute Background for a better understanding of the polygamy topic, anti-polygamists, and this dispute.


Nereocystis is a proven anti-polygamist. No one who "support(s) the legalization of polygamy," would do what Nereocystis has done. In every way, Nereocystis misrepresents me and the real dispute. This dispute is not about me as a "Christian polygamist" POV editor or about "link spamming." This is about Nereocystis's hostile anti-polygamy agenda to game the Misplaced Pages process system to abuse me, so that anti-polygamists can freely sabotage the polygamy articles.

When I first encountered Nereocystis, I sincerely tried to accommodate their input. I also tried sincere accommodation with Ghostintheshell when they arrived in April. Identically, both refused any accommodation I offered, demanded sources when I did, obfuscated sources I cited, claimed I "refused" to TALK when I clearly sought STATUS QUO in order to TALK, used the announcement method, and did not know the polygamy topic. For these reasons, I believe that Ghostintheshell is simply Nereocystis or are anti-polygamists working together.

I have very much offered and proposed a number of ways to genuinely solve issues.

Nereocystis has never offered/proposed even one resolution of their own to try to accommodate and work with me.

For that reason, they may have been unqualified to have so prematurely filed the "3rd Opinion" (here) and an "RfC" (here).

Rather than offer any of their own resolutions, Nereocystis perpetrated a very calculated and sophisticated exploitation of the Misplaced Pages process. (While I am a simple content editor, Nereocystis is a Misplaced Pages process expert.) As this June 6, 2005 post shows, they even admitted their clever intent to game the Misplaced Pages process system early on, with their ultimate intent "to request an action against" me. Nereocystis sabotaged my offers and the RfM my AMA advocate filed, and still turned around and lied, saying I "refused mediation." Throughout, they also advanced many different forms of abuse.

I always declared that we need to follow the Misplaced Pages Guidelines of restoring an article to STATUS QUO before TALKING. Nereocystis ignored that, instead aggressively and very quickly "running right over me," disallowing me to restore to STATUS QUO to then TALK.

Nereocystis knew they could usually count on that "92% of people" who view polygamy unfavorably (see this external source) to bring an anti-polygamy bias with them. So, Nereocystis regularly used the announcement method to attract others to join them. Such others would not follow the Misplaced Pages Guidelines of STATUS QUO, including the few recommendations/resolutions others suggested. Nereocystis would then lie, saying that I "refused" to solve the problems or to TALK, when I alone was the one who was always trying to solve the problem within Misplaced Pages Guidelines and WIN-WIN methods.

Kewp arrived very late in this dispute (after content discussion had ceased). Their involvement in this RfArb is virtually meaningless, except to prove how hostile that anti-polygamists are in seeking to sabotage the polygamy articles.

- Researcher 21:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words


Preliminary decisions

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

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

Principles

Obsessional point of view

1) In certain cases a Misplaced Pages editor will tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way. Such users may be banned from editing in the affected area if it becomes problematic.

Passed 7-0

Misplaced Pages is not a platform for advocacy

2) Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not provides that Misplaced Pages is not a platform for propaganda or advocacy.

Passed 7-0

Assume good faith

3) Misplaced Pages editors as a part of Misplaced Pages:Civility are expected to assume good faith, simply, to adopt a cooperative posture rather than an antagonistic one with other editors.

Passed 7-0


Findings of fact

Researcher99's claims of expertise

1) Researcher99 (talk · contribs) claims to have "researched Polygamy for years" .

Passed 7-0


Researcher99's scope of editing

2) Researcher99 (talk · contribs)'s editing at Misplaced Pages has been almost exclusively limited to Polygamy, discussion pages related to that page, and user talk pages.

Passed 7-0


Opponents

3) Researcher99 (talk · contribs) has taken the position that those who differ regarding editing of polygamy form a coherent "anti-polygamy" block, "Gangs of Sneaky Vandals" who use "anti-polygamy tactics" . See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Polygamy/Workshop#Gangs_of_Sneaky_Vandals, especially comments by others.

Passed 7-0


Remedies

Researcher99 banned from editing polygamy-related articles

1) Researcher99 is banned indefinitely from editing articles which relate to polygamy

Passed 7-0

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.