Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment: 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 | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:13, 17 June 2009 editFloNight (talk | contribs)Administrators20,015 edits →Arbitrator views and discussion: ; recuse← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:18, 20 May 2012 edit undoRoger Davies (talk | contribs)Administrators34,587 edits dpuble redir 
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT ]
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude>
= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment|Requests for amendment|]}} =
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment/Header}}

==Request to amend prior action: ]==
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|Everyking}} (initiator)

=== Statement by Everyking ===
I ask the ArbCom to review its September 2006 decision to remove my adminship. Should that removal be viewed as permanent, or is it reasonable to think that adminship should be restored under certain conditions after the passage of time? On four occasions since then I have been nominated for RfA, and on the last two of those occasions I received roughly two-thirds of the vote, narrowly falling short of the generally accepted minimum; on one of those occasions (August 2008), members of the ArbCom mailing list prominently opposed my candidacy, and on the other occasion (May 2009) the nomination was seriously disrupted by a campaign against me, in which my views and actions were gravely misrepresented. I ask the ArbCom to consider all aspects of the situation to determine whether it would be appropriate to restore my adminship. ] (]) 19:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by other username ===


=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*Awaiting statements. Everyking, please provide any links that might be useful to newer arbitrators in evaluating your request. ] (]) 19:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
*I recused in the last request Everyking made to the Committee in an attempt to ease his worries that sitting arbitration members are campaigning to keep him from regaining his tools or otherwise make on wiki life difficut. As well, I made my views known at his last RFA. So this time, again, '''recuse'''. ]] 20:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
----

== Request to amend prior case: ] (2) ==

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|Kotniski}} (initiator)

=== Statement by Kotniski ===
I believe the "topic ban" that has been imposed on me in this case is totally out of proportion to anything I'm supposed to have done wrong. I accept I may have hit the undo button a bit too often on a few occasions, but that was mostly under provocation by extremely disruptive editors, in any case not exceptional by WP standards, and in no way characterizes my regular behaviour on "editing and style guideline" pages. The explanation given for the sanction by Kirill () shows how misguided it is - there is no instability on the pages in question at the moment, at least not due to me, and absolutely no reason is given as to why the ban should be extended to talk pages, where I have always worked civilly towards finding consensus - I am currently doing so on several pages (well ] and the associated RFC at least), which efforts would be thwarted by this sanction. Since all I've done wrong is possibly to revert too much, I propose replacing the topic ban with a 1RR restriction. And I can promise not to edit anything about date links.--] (]) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
:Reply to Roger Davies: I know the theory, but I can't for the life of me see how it applies to me in this case. What topics are severely disrupted ''now'' (as opposed to six months ago), and what reason do you have for thinking that ''I'' am likely to disrupt them? I don't see how it serves the encyclopedia's interests to take a constructively active editor out of the decision-making process for a set of pages that mostly have nothing to do with the subject of the dispute (which is settled now anyway). To me this feels like pure retribution, and not even for anything I've actually done. --] (]) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by other username ===


=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===

* '''Comment''': Topic bans are intended to give severely disrupted topics a break from disruption and to give topic-banned editors an opportunity to get used to working in less contested areas. A three-month topic ban does not seem to me particularly heavy-handed and serves the encyclopedia's interests rather better than a 1RR restriction, which in many instances may be one revert too many. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 12:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

* Take ]: in November last year you edit-warred there, for which you were warned. You edit-warred again a week later, and were blocked for it. You did some more edit-warring there in March this year, making substantially the same edits as the last time. The ability to learn from past mistakes and to refrain from perpetuating disputes are two major factors the Committee will always consider in imposing remedies in a case. Based on the available evidence a relatively short topic ban such as this is apt, particularly in the context of the broader dispute. --]&nbsp;(]) 16:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

* Despite the legitimate concerns raised by my colleagues both above and in the decision, I found the scope of the sanctions imposed against this user to be somewhat overbroad. I therefore lean toward granting all or much of this application. ] (]) 19:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

----

== Request to amend prior case: ] ==

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{admin|Earle Martin}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|Locke Cole}}

=== Statement by Earle Martin ===
I wish, as both an involved party in the ] and a Misplaced Pages administrator, to lodge a formal complaint regarding the ] of {{user|Locke Cole}} implemented in this case. Arbitrator Kirill commented that Cole has " of disruption spanning multiple years" and that "There's a point at which we must say that someone has had enough chances". However, anything more than the most cursory glance at this log shows there is very little to justify such harsh action.

* 21 November 2005 - 3 hour incivility block
* 3 December 2005 - 24 hour edit war block

* 4 February 2006 - 24 hour incivility block, cancelled, extended to 48 hours, then reduced to 10 hours, then ''unblocked within hours''
* 28 February 2006 - 15 hour edit war block
* 31 March 2006 - 24 hour preventative block for mass page moves, ''revoked 15 minutes later''
* 17 May 2006 - 24 hour incivility block
* 29 June 2006 - 1 month block following arbitration

Two years pass without issues.

* 3 March 2008 - 48 hour block for "harassment" (unexplained in log)
* 6 March 2008 - 1 week block for same, ''immediately revoked'' by issuer as an ''erroneous block''
* 22 April 2008 - 24 hour edit war block, ''revoked within hours''
* 16 May 2008 - 55 hour edit war block, ''revoked'' with comment "although there was a 3rr breach, locke cole was revert-warring against abusive sockpuppets"
* 3 June 2008 - 24 hour edit war block
* 5 June 2008 - 72 hour edit war block
* 18 November 2008 - 1 week edit war block, ''revoked within hours''

* 26 March 2009 - 5 day edit war block, ''revoked within ten minutes''

So, a few years back Locke was a bit hot-headed and spent a month blocked following an arbitration. Then, last year, he got involved in a bit of edit-warring. Note the preventative short blocks issued and, more importantly, revoked.

Now contrast this to the actions of {{user|Ohconfucius}}, who has ]; and has ] against him, including incivility, edit warring, battling, and performing over nine thousand automated edits without the permission of the Bot Approvals Group. But he ended up with a topic ban, an editing restriction, and prevention from using automation.

This is neither proportionate nor fair. I do not understand the thinking involved in issuing such an unbalanced set of remedies. Why is one banned, and not the other? This applies also to {{userlinks|Tony1}}, {{userlinks|Greg L}}, and the other listed parties receiving sanctions. The only other ban handed out in this case was that of {{userlinks|Lightmouse}}, who participated in organized disruption on a massive scale.

The other salient point is that it was Locke Cole that opened this arbitration in the first place. No action would have been taken towards resolving this issue, and restricting the disruptive editors who have caused so many problems over so much time, if he hadn't brought it to ArbCom's attention. He said in his initial statement, “I urge the committee to accept this case so the behavior (incivility, edit warring, stalking, personal attacks, and so forth) of those involved can be looked at.” His concerns have been borne out in full by the results of this arbitration; yet his reward is to receive a totally disproportionate ban.

I request that the Arbitration Committee rescind the ban of Locke Cole. Furthermore, I request that a full public explanation is provided of the reasoning behind this ban and how it was reached. -- ] ]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>] 13:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

* Moved from amendments area. -- ] ]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>] 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by other user ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* This question was already addressed on the noticeboard discussion page, if I recall correctly. Unlike the other editors involved, Locke Cole had already been sanctioned in a previous arbitration (the ]) for similar disruptive conduct. Since the restrictions placed in that case obviously failed to correct Locke's behavior, or to impress upon him that edit-warring is unacceptable, we have enacted a more substantial sanction in the hopes that it will prove more effective at halting the disruption. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 13:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
* Indeed, the fact that ''prior sanctions'' existed factor prominently in the selection of this sanction. When the committee warns or admonishes an editor regarding certain behavior, it is to be expected that resurgence of that behavior will lead to stronger sanctions than would have otherwise been applied. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 15:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
* Agree with both Kirill and Coren. When ArbCom or the Community previously addresses an issue with an user, then it is expected that going forward the person will make changes voluntarily after the sanctions end. The case sanctions are put in place to provide involuntary restrictions since self regulation of conduct is not thought adequate. ]] 17:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
* Some of Locke Cole's behavior in relation to the date-delinking dispute, as cited in the committee's decision, was poor. In the past, Locke Cole has been involved in other disputes, during some of which his conduct was also poor. In that context, the sanction voted by my colleagues is understandable. Moreover, the fact that Locke Cole was banned as a sanction in a prior arbitration case is an aggravating factor not present with respect to any of the other parties, and provides a reasonable justification for his being sanctioned more severely than they. Nonetheless, I do believe that a mere scan of the block log may somewhat overstate the severity of Locke Cole's prior misconduct for the reasons suggested by Earle Martin, and my vote was to impose a less severe sanction. ] (]) 21:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
* Editors with prior sanctions are inevitably going to dealt with by ArbCom more robustly than those with entirely clean hands. The solution is not for ArbCom to modify the remedy but for the editor to modify their behaviour. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 12:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

== Request to amend prior case: ] ==

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*I don't think that this relatively small change would affect any editors (yet)

=== Statement by Piotrus ===
There is a curious and I think unhelpful difference between the ] and the ] which have replaced it. The sanction allow imposing sanctions on editors who "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". The general restriction used to impose sanction for "make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith." The difference is important, as the new discretionary sanctions don't even mention personal attacks attacks and uncivility, and mention good faith in an unclear fashion later. While I think many would argue that this is covered by "expected standards of behavior", I'd nonetheless ask for a small clarification, i.e. amending the discretionary sanctions to clearly state that editors can be sanctions for (gross, repeated, etc.) violations of CIV, NPA and AGF (alternativily, we could clarify that CIV, NPA and AGF are not "expected standards of behavior" - athough I certainly hope this will not be the case). --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 09:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by other username ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* I'm not really sure where the confusion is coming in. Is there really a dispute over whether ] constitute expected behavior? --] (]) 11:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
*Civility is part of behavior. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 12:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
*I agree with Vassyana and Rlevse. Having said that, I wouldn't mind adding a few words to the remedy currently in effect if anyone anticipates any genuine dispute if and when the sanctions have to be invoked. ] (]) 21:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
*I would have thought it fairly clear that those were what "expected behavior" meant, but if you wish to suggest a wording that removes doubt I'd be receptive to the tweak. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 09:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
----

== Request to amend prior case: AndriyK ==
*].
''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*]

<!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator. Anyone else affected must be notified that the request has been filed,
immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. The line for username2 can be removed if no-one else is affected. -->
=== Statement by ] ===
Horlo is a single-purpose nationalist account. This is not too unusual in eastern European matters, but Horlo is disrupting medieval history articles where he knows nothing with tendentious edits and talk page posts that do nothing but waste the time of other users who are trying to do respectable work. No exaggeration, his contributions are nothing but entering fights to push a very extreme version of Ukrainian nationalism that is at odds with the purpose of this encyclopedia:

;Rus' Khaganate
Horlo is continually inserting a clean-up tag into the Featured Article ]. His "argues" .*

*,
*
*
*
*
*
*

;Vladimir the Great
Horlo revert wars over the name of Prince Vladimir the Great, and tries to portray use of the English name Vladimir as "Russian nationalism"

*
*
*
*
*

Though this is a periodic excursion for this user from his main interests in the ] and the spelling of ] (see ] and ] archives), it still causes disruption and wasted time and is clear proof that while the editor isn't interested in encyclopedia-building he is prepared to reduce the ability of others to do so.

The action I request is a motion amendment which either 1) topic-bans Horlo from medieval Rus articles (or at least from revert-warring over spelling forms) or 2) provides a remedy that will allow other administrators to place such restrictions ''ad hoc'' in future.

*<small>NOTE: Rus and Russia are actually the same word etymologically, and although there is pressure to distinguish the two since the break-up of the Soviet Union, Horlo knows that most medieval historians writing in English don't do this (as it has been pointed out to him in the past); also, most scholarship on Kievan Rus' was written in Soviet Russia and Ukraine, and for the works likely to be cited by western historians, is as reliable as English scholarship in the same era ... to verify that check the bibliographies of recent English works like Dimnik's ''House of Chernigov'' and Janet Martin's ''Medieval Russia''</small>

;Resp. to NYB
The AndriyK case was partly about the same behaviour, tendentious warring on the topic of Ukrainian proper names e.g. ]. No other case covers this behaviour so specifically, the EE dispute (despite its new name) being about Polish-Lithuanian and Polish-Russian disputes and involving Horlo less than the AndriyK. It's fairly common to bring newer users into older cases when they are relevant, though to me this is just a bureaucratic thing so long as the effect occurs. ] (<small>]</small>) 00:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by Horlo ===

Hello, I apologize in advance for the length of this statement, but since I have suddenly found myself before the Arbitration Committee, I believe that as much information as is pertinent should come to light.

First, I am a single-purpose account. I admit that freely. I know nothing of radiation spectrometers, Namibian Soccer players, mating habits of porpoises, life cycles of Lavender, soccer rules, Klingon pain sticks, or Romanian grammar. I have contributed not at all to anything that I don't know about. I know about Ukraine, and I contribute to articles about Ukraine.
I have created a few articles, often connected to Ukraine, and have asked many questions.

While I use Misplaced Pages for many things, when I have nothing useful to contribute, I don't. However, when I ask a question, I actually would like an answer other than "You're kidding, right?" ]

I started editing Misplaced Pages by accident, when I was looking for information for a class that I was teaching about Ukrainian history, specifically about Kyivan Rus'. I googled Kyiv, found the WP link to Kiev, and when I tried to change the name, an editor changed it back, stating ''"it's same ole, same ole; every month or so a new Ukrainian language nationalist comes along trying to push views against wiki policy, then go away;but people here have had the argument dozens of times"'']. That surprised me, as I had been labeled a "Ukrainian nationalist" before anybody had actually given any arguments as to why a change should not be made.

Now, I am a Ukrainian nationalist, but that's not the point here. When I took the advice of a Misplaced Pages administrator to start an RfC to change the name of the article from Kiev to Kyiv, one very vocal editor stated:
:::''* Oppose* Kiev is the English word for the city. Everyone knows what Kiev is, and even for those who recognize Kyiv, it still looks strange. Generally, I hate "cultural imperialism" and I'm inclined to support native forms where there is a moral argument, but here there is no moral argument which overrides Use English. There are worse etymologies than Kiev ... e.g. Gaelic and Welsh people and words are known throughout the world by English forms. Check the interwikis for Ynys Môn (Anglesey) - almost entirely English derived despite the fact that the island's language is not and never has been English (unlike Kiev and "Russian"). See then Máel Coluim mac Cináeda ... Malcolm II in all the interwikies, why? The guy has nothing to do with English! It's just what happens, and, whether "imperialistic" (as its called on at sevceral points on this page) or not, it is independent of wiki policy. At least Celtic languages are entirely separate from English, whereas standard Russian and standard Ukrainian are very similar varieties, or as one person once put it, recently conceived standardizations at two separate points on the "Eastern Slavic" dialect continuum (even though Russians and Ukrainians are now supposed to be coherently separate peoples, they still haven't, for instance, worked out who Rusyns are). Besides that, Kiev is a predominantly Russophone city in any case, and the rise of Kyiv as an English spelling is a response to the corrupt Ukrainian government's internal and international policy of Ukrainization in the attempt to give a semi-convincing national identity across its borders to what is in all fairness a fairly historically arbitrary SSR created recently as a concept and extended by gifts in the Soviet period. In reality it's a "bilingual", or more accurately, diglossic land with little pre-WWI historical precedent as a state much of whose southern territory was taken by "Eastern Slavs" (formerly everyone, including them, just called them "Russians") from Turkic peoples in recent centuries. There is no moral argument for the Kyiv spelling rather than the neutral, English Kiev. The whole controversy here is just emblematic of immature, eastern European ideologically separatistic fanaticism; never seen any Germans complain about the naming of Cologne, spelled after those imperialist standardized Frenchies, or Luxemburgers complain about Luxembourg rather than Lëtzebuerg or Luxemburg. No, you only get that when you cross the Oder in to Eastern Europe. Few English-speakers know that there is a one vowel difference between how some Russians say the name of the city and the way some Ukrainians say the name. They certainly don't know that "Kiev" is closer to the standardized "Russian" way than the standardized "Ukrainian" way until Ukrainian nationalists tell them. Hey, most English-speaking Glaswegians call their city Glez-ga, not Glasgow, and despite the fact that there's more difference between Glez-ga and Glasgow than Kyiv and Kiyev, I've never heard anyone complain about the spelling, let alone advocate that English adopt the standardized Gaelic spelling Glaschu. So not only is Kyiv not English, it shouldn't become English, and wikipedia should not be acting as an extension of the Ukrainian government's immoral and unhistorical nationalistic language policy. Kiev is the spelling everyone knows. Having said that, there is precedent for ignoring English use and slavishly following the discriminatory dictates of Ukrainian government on wikipedia. E.g. the Russian-speaking city of Kharkov, for instance, already has the less common (in English) and Ukrainianized spelling Kharkiv, but this was wrong and Kiev anyways is a much more famous city than Kharkov in the English-speaking world. The wiki article should therefore remain at this location until Kyiv or any other name does overwhelmingly predominate in actual use in the English language; and for what it's worth, the English-speaking organizations who have adopted the spelling Kyiv in print have not taught their staff to change their pronunciation, since you always here KEE-eff/Kee-EFF whether they've spelled it Kiev or Kyiv. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)''

During that same discussion, I was accused of Sockpuppetry, ''"Hello Horlo's sockpuppet with an anonymous Toronto IP. Reginmund 05:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)".''

To be honest, I have been called worse by better, so I didn't really care.
Unfortunately, I think that this established the relationship between Deacon of Pndapetzim and me. As much as we try to deny it, we cannot leave emotions out of Misplaced Pages. We're all human - that's why words like "disruption" still find their way into this case. It's very difficult to accept that we may not be correct. I think that sadly Deacon of Pndapetzim has not been able to leave that discussion.

By the way, what would lead Deacon of Pndapetzim to suspect that I am a man? Why always use "he"?

Now, with respects to my more recent edits, I believe that my statements have been misinterpreted. I have never ''"tried to portray use of the English name Vladimir as "Russian nationalism".'' (please note the incorrect use of quotation marks in "the English name Vladimir"):
:First, neither Volodymyr nor Vladimir are English words. They are both translations into English.
:Second, here is the actual discussion/reparte (again, I apologize for the length of the citation, but I think it is important that everything be out here, without the onus being on the ArbCom members to go and look for information):
::''"The sentence "Volodymyr Svyatoslavych the Great, often mistakenly spelled Vladimir" is incorrect as "Volodymyr" being a modern Ukrainian spelling is no more correct than "Vladimir" (modern Russian spelling). The old East Slavic was either "Володимеръ"(according to the Hypatian codex) or "Володимѣръ"(Vasmer). Note the different vowels in the two last syllables. The reason of this is that the root "mer" derives from the gothic "-mērs"("great") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.47.185.171 (talk) 05:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Ah, didn't notice this, thanks - '''that were edits by an anonymous Ukrainian nationalist''' (note the typical Kiev to Kyiv change). Reverted. --Illythr (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC) '''But did you notice that the preceding statement was by an anonymous Russian nationalist''' (check the whois, and this is the only contribution, even left unsigned)? Horlo (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC) "

The discussion continued: "Indeed, the IP is Russian, but how did you determine that this person is a nationalist? --Illythr (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Hello, the same way that you had determined that the previous change had been made by a Ukrainian nationalist. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC) While changing "Kiev" to "Kyiv" arbitrarily is a good indication of an Ukrainian nationalist at work (because the article's name is currently Kiev, despite the dogged, incessant attempts by the nationalists to rename it for six freaking years), a reversion of this is not an indication of anything, other than, perhaps, due vigilance (I failed to notice the change, for instance). --Illythr (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Excuse me? So what you're saying is that you have no arguments here. Do you have any others? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Er, what? --Illythr (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
"while changing "Kiev" to "Kyiv" arbitrarily is a good indication of a Ukrainian nationalist at work". That's what. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Ah. Well, everyone I saw going about doing this in Misplaced Pages articles, where the name "Kiev" is entirely noncontroversial (pre-1991) has invariably turned out to be one. Here it's even more obvious, due to the "often mistakenly spelled" thingy. Compare - "Moskva, often mistakenly spelled as Moscow, is the capital of Russia..." However, this branch of the discussion is entirely irrelevant to the article. If you find my original statement offensive, just say so and I will delete it. --Illythr (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, everyone I saw going and changing it back has been one, too. Horlo (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC) I see. Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. --Illythr (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)"''


I apologize for the long quote, but I think it is important that it is clear exactly how I call "Vladimir" Russian nationalism. Here's how: I don't.

Now, I still can't see any explanation of how I ''"push a very extreme version of Ukrainian nationalism that is at odds with the purpose of this encyclopedia"''.

This brings us back to my first edits - I am called names. I am accused of owning all kinds of puppets (meat and sock).
The fact that I don't contribute about things unknown to me is mocked. Again, name calling is not important, so I ignore it.

What I actually find most disturbing in this accusation is words placed in my mouth, such as in the reply to NewYorkBrad, ''"Horlo knows that most medieval historians writing in English don't do this"''
Excuse me? Pardon? How does Horlo know this?

Why is this case before the Arbitration Committee?

This is a pattern of behaviour that I have come to expect from some editors. If one is to be judged by one's enemies,: ]


'''I can honestly say:'''
I have never done anything in bad faith;
I have never gone against consensus when it has been shown that consensus is against me;
I have '''always questioned everything'''.


Unfortunately, it seems that one editor has a problem enough with my edits to take them to the highest court in Misplaced Pages.
This statement, is an example: ''"Horlo revert wars"'' while on a talk page the same editor states ''"The editor is rude sometimes, but not enough that he'd get blocked for it, and doesn't spend enough time on wiki to edit-war over 3RR regularly."'' ] If I don't even spend enough time on wiki, why am I being discussed here?

Finally, the thing that angers me most is the assumption by the accuser that "while the editor isn't interested in encyclopedia-building he is prepared to reduce the ability of others to do so." Why does Deacon of Pndapetzim presume to say that I am not interested in encyclopedia-building? Have I not started articles? Have I not improved articles? Is not questioning the very foundation of objective study? Is the fact that Deacon of Pndapetzim is a medieval doctoral student and may have pre-concieved notions (that I challenged) about Rus', Ukraine, and Kyiv enough to bring a case here?

I submit that the "clear proof" offeded by Deacon of Pndapetzim against me isn't so "clear" at all. I question, I question repeatedly. If there are no satisfactory answers, I continue to question. We should be concerned with seeking answers, rather than stopping people from questioning.

Unfortunately I cannot see anything in this Arbitration Request besides vindictiveness. "it still causes disruption and wasted time".

Finally, a WP administrator made changes on the Volodymyr the Great page which were an agreeable compromise, but were undone by Deacon of Pndapetzim ]. Perhaps it is not I who is not "interested in encyclopedia-building"

I apologize once again for the length of the reply. But sometimes it takes a while to say what you need to say.

Thank you,
] (]) 11:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

=== Statement by other username ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*I'm afraid I'm a bit lost here. Is Horlo a new username for one of the parties to the AndriyK case? If not, I don't see how any remedy against Horlo could be reached by amending our decision in that case, which was decided two years before Horlo started editing (and long before any of the present arbitrators joined the committee, and before several of the current arbitrators including me even started editing). Wouldn't the appropriate course here be a request for discretionary sanctions under the ''Eastern European disputes'' decision or a related decision, if applicable and if the appropriate warnings have been given, or alternatively an ANI posting or an earlier stage in DR? I'm not sure how direct intervention by this Committee at this stage would be the best course, through an amendment of the four-year-old case or otherwise. Clarification would be welcome. ] (]) 22:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
**I'll comment further after we have Horlo's statement. ] (]) 21:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
**I still think that amending this four-year-old decision is not an appropriate way of addressing any issues involving Horlo. If necessary, please pursue any other appropriate form of dispute resolution. Thank you. ] (]) 21:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
* Agree with NYB's comments. Additionally, I see no reason that a topic ban cannot be community imposed, whether by an individual administrator (subject to normal review) or by way of community discussion. --] (]) 11:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
*Per Brad. Unless Horlo is a party to the case, there is nothing to amend and this should be dealt with by the community. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 12:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
----

Latest revision as of 23:18, 20 May 2012

Redirect to: