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 03:25, 20 April 2007 view sourceとある白い猫 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers55,796 edits →Artaxiad← Previous edit Revision as of 03:44, 20 April 2007 view source Michaelbusch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,765 edits Statement by occasionally involved Michael BuschNext edit →
Line 168: Line 168:


] 03:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC) ] 03:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


==Statement by occasionally involved ]==
Like Wikidudeman, I have been invoking the regulations against Pseudoscience with regards to the paranormal articles. I was also somewhat involved in the request for comment on Martinphi's conduct. More recently, I've been involved in an edit dispute at ]. I strongly agree with the position that Misplaced Pages must reflect the scientific consensus, which is one point of this dispute (the matters of undue weight and fringe).

But there is also a question of viewpoint and language, which has become apparent to me during the ] dispute, and may explain why this dispute has gotten to this point. I don't expect it to instantly resolve, but here is the problem I see:

I (and, I believe, various other editors) speak in the terms and language of science, and place extreme importance on clarity, distinction, validity, and the scientific consensus. Those who support inclusion of the paranormal material as something categorized or derived from science seem to have a different outlook: they invoke any reference or usage, even inappropriate, as grounds for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. I will provide two examples: Martinphi has flagged the statement 'crop circles are of human origin' with a 'fact' tag, claiming that because we haven't traced the cause of every crop circle, we can't say that they are caused by pranksters or artists (whichever term you prefer), despite every crop circle that has been so traced is from a human. The second example is from ]: I have removed material such as ] from this article, because it has nothing to do with UFOs, it has merely been invoked by zealous UFO advocates, only to have it added back with the claim that that invocation makes the inclusion notable.

The above may simply be a matter of educating the editors concerned on ], but given the futility of prior attempts to do so, I am afraid that this deeper misunderstanding is the problem. I am not sure how to resolve it. Per prior ArbCom decision, Misplaced Pages must reflect the scientific consensus, but with the current wording, I foresee many disputes like this one.


==== Clerk notes ==== ==== Clerk notes ====

Revision as of 03:44, 20 April 2007

Weighing scales Arbitration​Committee
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Misplaced Pages Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

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

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Robdurbar

Initiated by Newyorkbrad at 22:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Notice left on User talk:Robdurbar.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Not applicable.

Statement by Newyorkbrad

As the arbitrators and other readers of this page are undoubtedly aware, long-time editor and administrator Robdurbar went on a spree of inappropriate administrator actions this morning, including deleting the Main page and blocking Jimbo Wales and several bureaucrats, all without explanation. There is extensive discussion of his actions on WP:ANI. See also this checkuser case, finding no overt evidence that his account was compromised.

When it became apparent that there was a serious problem, someone flagged down a Steward, who desysopped Robdurbar on an emergency basis. However, as a formal matter, involuntary desysoppings on En-Wiki are decided only by the Arbitration Committee.

This is a pro forma case intended as a vehicle for the Arbitration Committee to confirm this desysopping. In lieu of opening a formal case, if no explanation is received from Robdurbar, I propose that arbitrators confirm that they have consulted and decided that "Robdurbar is desysopped. He may not reapply without permission of the Arbitration Committee." Newyorkbrad 22:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Seems like a reasonable step, though possibly over-cautious. I don't think Robdurbar would have much luck finding a bureaucrat to give him back the bit.

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

In this case I do believe arbitration is the right step. Not only to confirm the desysopping, but also to decide on whether Robdurbar could be considered for future resysopping, and also to determine his future editing priviliges. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Messedrocker

Is arbitration really needed? The guy went batshit insane, and desysopping was a preventative measure to prevent him from doing more. As soon as he explains himself, he can be unblocked and restored. Until then, no adminship or editing privileges. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

Paranormal

Initiated by Minderbinder at 14:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Minderbinder

This proposed case involves a number of editors who have been disruptively editing articles on paranormal and pseudoscientific topics in violation of NPOV and particularly undue weight. They have given a number of articles a POV slant by emphasizing fringe views and minimizing mainstream ones, as well as including poorly sourced material including experiments that were self-published and otherwise questionable (on "historic" grounds). They have defined unproven concepts such as psychic worded as if the term is an accepted fact and refused to allow any wording that allows for the possibility that the concept isn't accepted by mainstream science (for example calling an individual a "psychic" versus "self-described psychic" ). In some cases Martinphi has insisted on definitions that contradict those in mainstream dictionaries and encyclopedias, calling them "demonstrably untrue" and saying "those definitions say something different from what they mean".

Much of this disruptive editing comes from either a misinterpretation or intentional wikilawyering of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, specifically arguing that "scientific consensus" doesn't mean the consensus of science overall but just the consensus of a group that has studied a particular topic, regardless of how fringe the group or topic is (for example that "scientific consensus" on the purportedly paranormal Electronic voice phenomenon means the consensus of only those who have studied EVP). This interpretation has been used to justify giving undue weight to controversial fringe views and marginalizing mainstream ones.

Other specific policies that have been violated are revert warring including 3RR violations, sock/meat puppetry including use to evade 3RR: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Martinphi Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Martinphi Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Davkal, POV forking, editing wikipedia guidelines with text specifically from active disputes to bolster an argument , sending a "welcome" messages with a link to an off-site advocacy page , refusal to accept consensus, and general incivility and failure to assume good faith: "the actions of the power block on this article constituted highly disruptive, un-Misplaced Pages-like gang editing" .

Many specific examples for Martinphi are at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Martinphi. At that user RfC there was wide agreement that he is misinterpreting WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, but he has made it clear that he has no intentions of listening to the recommendations of other editors and welcomes the idea of Arbcom looking at his behaviour and his interpretation of policy. I'd like to see Arbcom take this case so they may clarify the policies in question and take any necessary actions to stop continued policy violations, particularly consistent POV pushing. --Minderbinder 14:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:ScienceApologist

I first suggested that arbitration occur due to the conversations happening at Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon. A number of editors who are convinced of the reality of paranormal events have been particularly adament in their advocacy. Among the more problematic issues are:

  • Many of these editors believe that the threshhold of verifiability and reliability should be lower for attributing claims of the paranormal than for other areas of the encyclopedia. In particular, much hay has been made over the claimed employment history of one Alexander MacRae who claimed to work for NASA in the 1960s but the only citations for said claim are to paranormal promoters. Bizarre legal threats have been made by User:Davkal over this issue for ends I've yet to ascertain.
  • Complaints of bias in wording (for example, labeling various topics as "paranormal claims") have been made to the tune of advocating a sympathetic rather than a neutral point of view.
  • There is a persistent insistence that parapsychology be recognized as legitimate science and that it is not pseudoscience.
  • A number of the editors have attempted to maintain an ownership of paranormal articles through Misplaced Pages: WikiProject Paranormal.

These problems have risen to the level of concerted camps and are likely to make articles in this area more and more unstable. I encourage the arbitration committee to help resolve these matters.

--ScienceApologist 16:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It should be noted that "the discipline of parapsychology" was afforded the status of a science in 1969, when the AAAS validated the work of a PSI research group and admitted it as a member. - perfectblue 18:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment: It should be noted that this "status" is hotly contested by many including, for example, John Archibald Wheeler. --ScienceApologist 20:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment: It should also be noted that Wheeler requested parapsychology be expelled from the AAAS in 1979. So, unless the AAAS has taken more than 25 years to hear his case it would appear his case was rejected. Parapsychology, then, as of today, remains a science in the eyes of the AAAS. Not that the point has ever been that Parapsychology is a science. Rather, the point has always been that parapsychology is not obviously a pseudoscience and should not be described as such (especially without any sources).Davkal 23:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment: The AAAS publication Science is just chock full of positive results from parapsychology.  :-) Bubba73 (talk), 02:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment, The fact that "Parapsychology" is an affiliate of the AAAS in no way means that the AAAS recognizes it as a form of "science". I want to emphasize that the AAAS simply lists parapsychology as an "affiliate" and in no way endorses it's claim to being a "field of science". There are many affiliates to the AAAS who would by no stretch of the definition be considered "fields of science". See ] which clearly says that the Parapsychological Association is an "affiliate" of the AAAS. The 'American Alpine Club' and the 'American Library Association' are also listed as "affiliates". Are they "fields of science" too now?Wikidudeman 02:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment And parapsychology is not one of the 24 "sections" of the AAAS. Bubba73 (talk), 02:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
If you read the necessary qualifications for membership, you'll see that it is either a science, or has fooled the AAAS. Martin (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Nowhere there does it say it must be a "field of science". Simply "substantial support of research, publications, or teaching in science or the advancement of science." which could apply to anything from the 'American Alpine Club' to the 'American Library Association'. Neither of which are "fields of science".Wikidudeman 03:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Nealparr

Articles on Misplaced Pages dealing with paranormal subjects are often edited by passionate editors who have strong opinions on the subject matter. This is true of both sides, believers and skeptics. Finding a dispassionate, neutral tone is often difficult and requires patience on the part of editors involved. Recent research suggests that belief in the paranormal is widespread despite there being a substantial controversy over whether science supports paranormal phenomena, or even research on paranormal phenomena. There's a lot of gray area here involving a Demarcation problem of science that hasn't fully been solved outside of Misplaced Pages. Because of this, it is sometimes unclear on how to approach paranormal subjects within Misplaced Pages. The specific question that often comes up that I'd like addressed (hence my participation here), is whether Misplaced Pages as an entity is willing to say unequivocally that science has ruled out the possibility of paranormal phenomena completely, or completely dismissed research into the paranormal. This is the sole question I have (not as interested in the other stuff), because that is the position some editors have taken in dealing with paranormal articles on Misplaced Pages. Statements that science has declared parapsychology as pseudoscientific often go unsourced as obvious. I don't believe it's as obvious as they make it out to be, especially when looking for sources to support the claim that it is the official position of science. Pseudoscience is a negative term meant to be dismissive. For that reason alone clear sources should be used when applying it. My position (separating myself from the pro-paranormal crowd) isn't one of legitimizing parapsychology as science, or elevating it beyond its marginalized position within science. Instead, my position is that there is a controversy over whether science has dismissed parapsychology completely, as some editors state as obvious. I advocate treating it as a controversial position versus an obvious state of fact.

For my part, let me be clear. I do have interests in paranormal topics, but not from a supported by science perspective. I certainly don't advance that position. To my knowledge, none of my edits are all that controversial. All I'm here to do is ask that:

  • 1) Attributed statements be made and sources provided when applying the negative term pseudoscience to parapsychology, and
  • 2) Sources should match the statement being made. For example, if a statement is made that there is a broad consensus in mainstream science, the source should come from mainstream science and show a broad consensus.

I'd also like to ask that Misplaced Pages not endorse the statement that parapsychology is an obvious pseudoscience, for neutrality reasons that I'd be happy to cover in the arbitration. --Nealparr 17:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by mostly uninvolved editor MastCell

This is a set of articles where two sides have become quite entrenched. There have been quite a few inappropriate editorial actions, including edit-warring, sockpuppetry, tendentious editing, wikilawyering, etc. Many of these problems are evident at Misplaced Pages Talk:Requests for comment/Martinphi. This user-conduct RfC provided some gauge of community feeling about the actions of the involved editors, but went nowhere in terms of resolving conflict and facilitating consensus. Therefore, I'd ask ArbCom to look at this, primarily as a matter of user conduct which has been refractory to lesser methods of dispute resolution. Personally, I think the content aspects have important implications for how we interpret WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT, but I think the user-conduct issues are most pressing at the moment. MastCell 19:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by LuckyLouie

I support the statements of Minderbinder and ScienceApologist as they are a clear outline as to the nature of this dispute. While certain of a small group of editors appear to edit WP solely to push a paranormal agenda, others, although admittedly pro-paranormal, appear to understand that WP cannot be used as a platform to promote their particular minority beliefs and enthusiasms. There does however appear to be some attempt to do an "end run" around WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV using claims of 'grey areas' as a lever with which to edit paranormal articles from the fringe/proponent POV. It has already been expressed that, while NPOV requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy, "significant alternatives" refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. For example, Electronic voice phenomenon violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation, solidly placing it in the category of psuedoscience. Yet much 'creative interpretation' has been attempted to justify giving undue weight to that article's controversial fringe views while marginalizing mainstream ones. Since at least a dozen articles ranging from Psychic to Parapsychology are similarly subject to POV pushing from a small group of pro-paranormal editors, the intercession of the arbitration committee is requested. -- LuckyLouie 19:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by no longer involved Bishonen

I consider the behaviour of Davkal around these articles to be an urgent problem. I tried to deal with it in September 2006, decided that I was getting burned-out by the sheer unpleasantness of the interaction, and opted out like a coward. I've been keeping an eye out since, though, and nothing seems to have changed. See this recent ANI thread for diffs and further comments. Bishonen | talk 20:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

Statement by occasionally involved Guy

I'd like to add one more voice in support of ScienceApologist, Bishonen and the tireless Minderbinder. The comment re AAAS above is a perfect example of the approach of these paranormal supporters: the AAAS at one point decided to admit a parapsychology group, therefore parapsychology is a valid scientific discipline, therefore the paranormal has scientific acceptance; the logical disconnects are obvious to us but not to these editors. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by occasionally involved BillC

This is an important matter which goes beyond concerns over individual user conduct. There is a small body of editors who seek more respectability for paranormal beliefs than such topics would normally expect to receive in traditional encyclopaedias. The {{WikiProject Paranormal}} banner has been applied to hundreds of articles, including many on which one would not expect to see it, such as Megalith, RMS Queen Mary or SETI, with at times contentious results. Now articles even further removed from the paranormal, such as evolution, have been targeted. — BillC 23:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by SheffieldSteel

I support the statements by Minderbinder, ScienceApologist, Nealparr, Mastcell, LuckyLouie, Bishonen and Guy above. It has been an uphill struggle to ensure that the Electronic Voice Phenomenon article maintains a neutral, or mainstream scientific, or small-s skeptical point of view. There is apparently a grey area in the wikipedia guidelines where it comes to fringe subjects upon which no definitive opinion has been published by mainstream scientific organisations (such as EVP and in contrast to creation science). Pro-paranormal editors have argued that, as a result of science's lack of opinion on the subject, the parapsychology enthusiast community should become the arbiter of mainstream consensus and of what constitutes a reliable source. SheffieldSteel 00:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by frequently involved Wikidudeman

I agree with everything Minderbinder has said, however I want to add my own view into this matter. I believe that Misplaced Pages should take a strict stance against fringe science including parapsychology and anything relating to the paranormal. Even if "parapsychology" could be called a "field of science" it's definitely a fringe science. I believe that wikipedia should take the same attitude towards Parapsychology that it takes towards Creationism. I do not believe Misplaced Pages should be allowed to be used as a tool to support purported paranormal phenomena when the general scientific community looks at it and laughs. It has been very disturbing to see so many people who support these things add their spin on articles and not only violate NPOV but also provide sources that are clearly bias. Sources that come from organizations considered psuedo scientific by the scientific community and who's main goal is to "prove" paranormal phenomena. I don't believe such organizations should be allowed to be referenced, simply the peer reviewed scientific studies who are peer reviewed in journals who's goal isn't also to "prove" these paranormal phenomena. If a study "For instance one by let's say Jessica Watts" concludes that it has provided evidence for "psychics" then we should link it but we should also mention the criticism the study received from the scientific community at large. If some kook who has some website and says he has been abducted by U.F.O's then I don't believe wikipedia should take such a person seriously or consider such a person a "reliable source". I believe that only scientific studies from independent peer-reviewed journals should be used and when they are, the criticism of such studies should also be mentioned. If a study in some journal (not relating to ufo's) says it's come up with evidence of U.F.O's as being Alien lifeforms, we should present what the study says but also mention the fact that said study has been criticized by the scientific community. Depending on the criticism of the study, we should mention it as it is. For instance if there is much more criticism against the study than support for it, Misplaced Pages should reflect that Per undue weight. If the study is a laughing stock in the scientific community, Misplaced Pages should reflect that. In conclusion, I believe that wikipedia should take a strict stance against "paranormal phenomena" of all kinds the same way it does against Creationism or other pseudo sciences. I believe that ] should be expanded to bring emphasis that things relating to the 'paranormal' would be considered either "pseudo science" or "questionable science" or simply not science at all. Ufology, Parapsychology, Etc. I believe that Misplaced Pages should solidify it's stance against bias editing in favor of things relating to the paranormal and put more emphasis on the burden of such editors to provide solid scientific peer-reviewed studies from reputable scientific journals to support whatever assertions they are making in the articles. Journals that would not be considered "reputable" would be for instance the "Journal of parapsychology" etc. I believe that Misplaced Pages should also solidify it's stance that if such studies are provided(if they do meet the criteria, which they rarely do) then wikipedia should also give all relevant viewpoints in the scientific community concerning said study or viewpoint Per Undue weight. Wikidudeman 02:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


Statement by tangentially involved Reddi

A number of the editors have attempted to maintain paranormal articles through Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Paranormal. As a member of the WikiProject Paranormal, these are some thoughts. The WikiProject Paranormal is a collaboration area and group of editors dedicated to improving Misplaced Pages's coverage of the paranormal and anomalous phenomena. Wikipedians have formed the project to better organize information in articles related to the paranormal, protoscience, and fringe science.

A number of editors which are convinced that paranormal events are only a fantasy have been particularly adamant in their advocacy. Among the more problematic issues are:

  • Editors believe that the threshhold of verifiability and reliability should be extremely high for attributing claims of the paranormal.
  • Demonstration of bias in pejorative wording have been made to the tune of advocating unfavorably to a subject rather than a neutral point of view.
  • There is a persistent insistence that proto-sciences be called 'illegitimate science' and that it is not science.

Interpretations of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE does mean that a consensus of the groups that have studied a particular topic should be used, but does not exclude "popular culture" data to be included. The interpretation of due weight to controversial views states that editors should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. The policy may have been designed with an intent to use "mainstream" (you can substitute a variety of terms used by pseudo-skeptics here, such as 'conventional peer-reviewed') views, at times in the majority (but in the minority as to some paranormal issues), as a tool to push a POV.

J. D. Redding 03:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


Statement by occasionally involved Michael Busch

Like Wikidudeman, I have been invoking the regulations against Pseudoscience with regards to the paranormal articles. I was also somewhat involved in the request for comment on Martinphi's conduct. More recently, I've been involved in an edit dispute at Topics in ufology. I strongly agree with the position that Misplaced Pages must reflect the scientific consensus, which is one point of this dispute (the matters of undue weight and fringe).

But there is also a question of viewpoint and language, which has become apparent to me during the Topics in ufology dispute, and may explain why this dispute has gotten to this point. I don't expect it to instantly resolve, but here is the problem I see:

I (and, I believe, various other editors) speak in the terms and language of science, and place extreme importance on clarity, distinction, validity, and the scientific consensus. Those who support inclusion of the paranormal material as something categorized or derived from science seem to have a different outlook: they invoke any reference or usage, even inappropriate, as grounds for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. I will provide two examples: Martinphi has flagged the statement 'crop circles are of human origin' with a 'fact' tag, claiming that because we haven't traced the cause of every crop circle, we can't say that they are caused by pranksters or artists (whichever term you prefer), despite every crop circle that has been so traced is from a human. The second example is from Topics in ufology: I have removed material such as perpetual motion from this article, because it has nothing to do with UFOs, it has merely been invoked by zealous UFO advocates, only to have it added back with the claim that that invocation makes the inclusion notable.

The above may simply be a matter of educating the editors concerned on Misplaced Pages:Undue weight, but given the futility of prior attempts to do so, I am afraid that this deeper misunderstanding is the problem. I am not sure how to resolve it. Per prior ArbCom decision, Misplaced Pages must reflect the scientific consensus, but with the current wording, I foresee many disputes like this one.

Clerk notes

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

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

University of Wisconsin redirect

Initiated by Miaers at 01:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

notifications on the talk pages of parties involved: 1, 2, 3, 4

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Lengthy discussion on its talk page

Statement by Miaers

"University of Wisconsin" has been a state-wide higher education system throughout history. Before 1956, University of Wisconsin consisted of the UW-Madison campus together with 10 freshman-sophomore centers and state-wide extensions.(source: University of Wisconsin System history, Jack Kilby attended University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Contents from UW-Milwaukee, Contents from UW-Parkside 1, Contents from UW-Parkside 2). Between 1956 and 1971, it added a second doctorate institution in Milwaukee and two 4-year campuses at Parkside and Green Bay. In 1997 it added 9 more 4-year campuses in Wisconsin.

Redirecting "University of Wisconsin" to its Madison campus and ignoring other campuses is totally inappropriate. Most major large public systems in Misplaced Pages like University of North Carolina, State University of New York, University of Illinois, University of California, Indiana University, etc. all have such disambiguous page redirected to their system article. University of Wisconsin should also redirects to the system article. The above parties violated the NPOV by redirecting that to Madison based on the opinion that only the Madison campus is University of Wisconsin. Miaers 01:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Crotalus horridus

I am not familiar with the underlying issues, having just seen this request on the RFAr page. However, it looks like a simple editing dispute. Unless there's some evidence of bad behavior (none was posted above as far as I can tell), this looks like a purely content-related decision, and I would urge ArbCom to reject the case. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by John Broughton

I am also uninvolved in this dispute, but strongly suggest that the process in Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes be followed. There are a number of steps in that process between discussion on talk pages and arbitration. Since these have not been used, the request is premature. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by {party 2}

Clerk notes

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

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

Tobias Conradi

Initiated by Tony Sidaway at 15:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Tobias Conradi is apparently an experienced editor whose content contributions are well regarded. However his conduct, particularly his interactions with administrators has excited much controversy for some time, and recently it came to a head. His user page was listed for deletion and speedied during the course of the discussion. A proposal for a community ban was taken to Misplaced Pages:Community sanction noticeboard but the result has been inconclusive. As something of an outsider in this my approach is that it is for the resolution of this kind of conflict that we turn to arbitration.

Addendum 12:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC): I'm encouraged by Alex Bakharev's statement and offer of mentorship. I hope the committee will pay serious attention to mentorship as part of the successful resolution of this problem, and remind them of the role mentorship has played in rehabilitating problem editors.

Statement by bainer

I haven't been involved with this editor before, or any of the disputes relating to him. However, I have read much of the recent discussion, and I would urge the Committee to accept a case relating to this user for two purposes:

  • to look into the disagreement among the community about the approach it should take to Tobias (whether it should move for a ban or some measure such as civility parole),
  • to look into the various concerns of Tobias which he feels have not been adequately addressed yet, and which have fed into the broader conflict.

Arbitration would be a suitable venue for these issues to be investigated because it would offer a place for measured discussion with a focus on investigating matters completely, and paying full attention to the concerns of various editors.

Statement by Chairboy

As one of the administrators who Tobias has identified as abusing him, I can attest that the user's behavior is terribly frustrating. But he is also a gifted contributor, something which makes his sometimes erratic behavior that much more perplexing. He has the ability to make great things, but he punctuates these wonderful creations with poisonous, community damaging accusations of conspiracy, abuse, and plain dirty dealing. The problem is not Tobias Conradi's ability to contribute to the project, it's his dogged determination to get revenge against people he feels have done him wrong. The complication, of course, is that inherent in his approach is the assumption that his own actions have always been fine, and everyone else has been wrong.

There are asshole administrators, everyone knows that. But their strongest and most viciously effective critics have always been other admins. We're a fiercely protective lot, protective of the project, not each other. The level of organization Tobias would need to assert to bolster the statement that his block log reflects an unending sequence of errors is astonishing. We can't even agree on how to interpret WP:U, and RfA reform is even more contentious. With that in mind, the block log must be viewed in a proper light, namely, that it documents a series of missteps by a respected contributor whom, nonetheless, is being held to the same standards as everyone else.

I do not advocate special dispensation for people with high edit counts. I do not think that there's a point where if you've written enough featured articles, you are no longer required to interact civilly with other volunteers.

But I also think that the passion Tobias Conradi has demonstrated in the scope and quality of his contributions demands that we work together as a community to try and talk him back from the precipice.

A civility parole, in my opinion, meets this requirement. But to succeed, it must have two things: An admin with whom Tobias has never tangled with who's simultaneously willing to listen to his concerns but isn't timid about nipping incivility in the bud, and second, a Tobias Conradi who is willing to assume good faith and consider the idea that the "admin abuse" he's documented may not be as entirely one sided as he thinks.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, we're all volunteers here. We aren't paid to do what we do, we contribute this time and effort because we love the project. Tobias has met any reasonable test of this commitment, and I'm asking that the community give him a chance to come back into the fold and address the concerns expressed. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ligulem

I'm commenting here because Tony notified me on my talk page (and listed me as one of the admins issuing a block to Tobias). I can't remember the reasoning that lead to my block of Tobias. My comment in the block log mentions something about the AWB checkpage. However, I'm not interested in pursuing this case here or in defending my block, so I didn't dig into the histories and logs. What I would like to point out is that I added Tobias to the list of enabled AWB users () and I didn't receive any complaint about having done so. --Ligulem 18:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by slightly-involved Sean William

Tobias is an excellent contributor. Banning him would do little good for the encyclopedia, which is what we are here to create anyway. He has always been quick to allege admin abuse and censorship (I've been accused of it, even with my barely-involved status). Perhaps some sort of parole would be good, but we can't forget the fact that Tobias has done a huge amount of work for our project. // Sean William 20:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Guy

<AOL>Me too.</AOL>. Tobias is certainly a valued contributor, but his recent actions in respect of Danny's RFA are too close by half to climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man, and they follow a long-standing pattern of disruptive behaviour. Like many of us, Tobias has stonrg opinions, and like many of us he becomes frustrated when the tide goes against him, but his ability to shrug and walk away seems to be limited to non-existent. A ban would be harsh and he would be a loss to the project, but something needs to be done. Mentoring? Some kind of probation? If I had a ready answer I'd have suggested it before now. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Lar

Lots of good counsel here in the above statements, so I won't repeat it, other than to say that I think Chairboy may have said it all best. I'd have preferred a civility parole to be what was tried next, rather than an outright community ban, or an ArbCom case... but now that it apparently has come to this anyway, despite efforts by myself and others to stave it off, I'd like to see ArbCom (and others) dig into a few things and share their considered opinions (and summation of their perception of community practice and policy) with us:

  • Civility blocks... they almost always don't work, it seems we now know. Tobias has gotten a lot of them, including some from me... what else should have been done? What else COULD have been done?
  • The Community Noticeboard process... it seems that there was a minor hiccup here in that consensus seemed to be forming, for the most part, for a civility parole rather than an indef block, but a well intentioned and competent admin decided to go for the other option (indef block) just the same, making good arguments for it, but overriding apparent consensus. The ensuing minor confusion wasn't really too bad in the end, but are there things to do to improve that process so it doesn't perhaps be worse next time?
  • How much is enough? How much effort should the community as a whole expend to rescue an editor that apparently doesn't want to be rescued? Where do we cut losses? A more subtle point... if someone is there to try to help (CBD springs to mind, he expended effort in previous occurances of issues around Tobias to make things go more smoothly for him) how much of a mitigating factor is that to stay the community finally deciding enough is enough?

I'll provide diffs of previous actions and reports and notifications and warnings and etc, etc, etc... if no one else beats me to it. But there are a lot of things to dig around in. Perhaps this case will be a spur for a bot to better index AN/I?? Finding stuff there now is a bit of a trawl. ++Lar: t/c 01:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by MacGyverMagic

I was the administrator who performed the latest deletion of Tobias Conradi's userpage. I did this when Golbez commented on the MFD discussion and said that two discussions about similar material had taken place before at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tobias Conradi/2006 summer admin incidents and Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tobias Conradi/admin right abuse, both of which were deleted. The material wasn't exactly the same, but I took the concensus on the previous deletions to mean that accusations on one's userpage without going through dispute resolution were considered unacceptable. Hence also that these deletions. Despite claims to the contrary in the latter link, both these older discussions reached concensus as they were short one 'vote' of unanimity. Also, in all these discussions there was also participation by non-admins, so the result can't be solely the result of abuse by one or more administrators. -- Mgm| 08:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Alex Bakharev

Tobias is a very productive editor contributing to a wide range of topics from Unix to Indonesia. He used to be a relatively problem-less editor (one three-hour block for 3rr and one 24h block for been incivil arguing the first block) until June 29 2006 when he blanked userpage User:Ezhiki. Apparently Ezhiki had given him something like permissions (I am going to a conference to Berlin and if would not meet you there your can blank my userpage...). Obviously, nobody guessed that Tobias had permissions to blank an admin's page so he was blocked. In a few hours he was unblocked, but almost immediately blocked back for been incivil when requesting unblocking. After this he insisted on having his grievances heard on a number of fora but his complains were removed. He insisted and been blocked. He complained on various fora on meta and was blocked on meta. He phoned Danny to his WMF office, Danny cracked a joke about Tobias' English (Tobias is a native German speaker) and hanged the phone. Tobias' remembered the incident on the recent Danny's RFA and was reverted by Tony Sidaway. Tobias put the list of diffs showing alleged admin abuses of him, the list was deleted via MFD. Due to a rare software glitch the deletion was not in the log so Tobias decided that his Userpage was oversighted and complained about it ...

Both Tobias' blocklist and his list of grievances grew as a snowball. We all know that there is no cabal, but all these series of misfortunes and miscommunications led Tobias to believe in conspiracy against him that hides and suppresses the truth. Lets him show all his grievances on the Evidence section so he can see that we do not suppressing anything.

The other problem is that many editors have with Tobias is the luck of communications, particular when moving articles. I think if we could impose some sort of a parole on undiscussed article moves it would alleviate the problem. The last I think Tobias needs a mentor he trusts, I think Ezhiki or CBD or me might be a suitable person for this Alex Bakharev 10:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Gnangarra

Tobias recently left this uncivil comment against one editor on anothers talk page. After reading this, I investigated further what was going on and found that Tobias had been moving articles that he hadnt had any prior association with to a different naming format. This was causing concern to other editors, I left a message asking that Tobias discuss the moves first. Then reading Tobias' user page there was listed one of two MFD's about the removal of a list of accusations against admin abuse. This list was now on Tobias' user page to which I asked him to remove the content, which included an accusation against an editor who had raised concerns with Tobias about the moving of Indonesian articles. Tobias response to my request for the content to be removed was "I comply with policies and not with "discussions"".

Given Tobias stated position of not complying with consensus discussions, Arbcom is the only place where a resolution to the conflict is likely to occur. Gnangarra 11:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ShivaIdol

Much is said about Tobias's contributions, and the volume of edits is certainly large - 25,000 article edits. His most significant article contributions by edit count () are: Matrix of country subdivisions (94 edits), ISO 15924 (78 edits), List of FIPS region codes (73 edits), ISO 3166-2 (65 edits), ISO 639-3 (60 edits). His editing style is mostly to make small changes across many articles ("drive by editing"), with a particular focus on moving pages and creating disambiguation pages in place of existing articles. This approach can often lead to trouble with the long-time editors of these articles, particularly since he never seems to consult with anyone before making such changes even though the Moving a page policy states pages should moved via Misplaced Pages:Requested moves if the move might be controversial. An editor cited Tobias made >100 page moves in April 2007, and didn't once consult anyone before makes unilateral, and in some cases ill-advised action (). When editors have asked Tobias to consult the community before making mass moves, they have been treated rudely and arrogantly , . Furthermore, after putting disambiguation pages in place of existing articles Tobias rarely cleans up after doing so by fixing the wiki links to point to the new article name. These same complaints were central to the RFC raised against Tobias back in 2005 (Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Tobias_Conradi), but the behaviour persists regardless of this and numerous complaints by others since then. Tobias is often cited for being in conflict with admins, but I believe there is also a significant list of disputes he has had with normal editors, including one at Talk:ISO_15924 for which he was blocked. Incivility, bitterness and retribution seems to be a theme with Tobias (eg. , ). Maybe he believes his position here is privileged and the Misplaced Pages rules don't apply to him because of his large edit count()? Some of his grievances with admins may be legitimate, but instead of trying to resolve them through the dispute resolution processes available, Tobias retains a grudge with admins in general and even lists his grudges on his user page, making it hard for others to assume good faith with him. If Tobias can be rehabilitated he will be a valuable asset to Misplaced Pages, but he has already been given many chances and we can't allow the disruption to the community to continue for much longer. Tobias is not irreplaceable - there are plenty of people who can perform the same work who are willing to play by the rules. ShivaIdol 13:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ezhiki

I have known Tobias as a Misplaced Pages editor for quite some time now. There had never been an occasion when I needed to doubt Tobias's motivation—all his edits are aimed at improving Misplaced Pages. However, I also found Tobias somewhat short-tempered and often uncooperative, which lead to a lot of mistreatment, distrust, and suspicion towards this user. Blanking of my user page as a joke (with my full consent), summed up by Alex Bakharev above, is just one example of the emotions run amok—Tobias was promptly blocked without the blocking admin putting any effort into figuring out what is going on. It might have not been the best joke to pull (including me giving a permission for such an action) but the fact that it was nothing more than a joke would have been immediately obvious after taking a short peek at my or Tobias's talk page at the time. Mistreatment snowballed from there. Shortly after, Tobias was accused of vandalism for something as benign as renaming a page from Eisenkappel to Bad Eisenkappel. The latter is the full official name of the community, yet the move was interpreted as vandalism based on "user history" alone (as far as I know, no effort had been made to check if the name was the valid one). When Tobias complained, he got blocked; when he complained about the block, his talk page was protected and the block extended. If that's not mistreatment, I don't know what is. The question we should be asking ourselves is thus the following: why are so many admins who dealt with Tobias reluctant to admit their mistakes or to simply explain their actions? If Tobias belives that some stub of his was deleted contrary to the Misplaced Pages policy, why not explain your interpretation of the policy and why you think there was no violation? Chairboy above made a very good remark regarding how we, the admins, ourselves can't decide what the best interpretation of certain policies should be; is it so hard to believe that regular editors would have even more trouble with that? Why every time Tobias perceives a violation, some admins rush to block him and to shut him up, instead of explaining their actions? Granted, Tobias's short temper does not always make it easy to communicate with him, but aren't we as admins supposed to be examples of patience, civility, justice, and other virtues? It's not like Tobias responds with "yo mamma" insults; his complaints always stay on issue at hand, even though he is often too quick to jump to "abuse" conclusions. If some admins don't have patience to explain policies they are supposed to enforce and uphold, then perhaps they are not such good admins after all.

All that said, I do not support the civility parole. If Tobias makes a personal attack or explicitly insults someone (as opposed to questioning someone's actions), those attacks can be dealt within the frame of existing policies. His previous block history, being largely a result of misunderstandins and mistreatments, should play no role from some set point backward. If Tobias makes a complaint, then involved admins'd better deal with the issues he raised. Not all of Tobias's complaints are "abuses", but some of them may very well be seen as such when no explanation is provided and with admins quick to rush to conclusions of their own. I would also urge Tobias to word his future complaints in as neutral tone as possible, preferrably in the form of requests rather than plain accusations, and to always pursue official dispute channels instead of dealing with issues on his own.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

John Smith's and Giovanni33

Initiated by Deskana (fry that thing!) at 22:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • I attempted my own form of dispute resolution, detailed at Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story#Let's try something. I would only have implimented this had every party in the article agreed, as attempting to enforce an agreed version when they didn't agree to the decision process would have been a very bad idea. John Smith's agreed to the mediation, but Giovanni33 has so far not said either way, but said he is tempted to reject it on principle, though he appreciates the effort at dispute resolution.
  • I do not believe an RfC or formal mediation request will lead to any results between the two, thus my request.

Statement by Deskana

Both John Smith's and Giovanni33 have been disagreeing with each other on a lot of articles, including, but not limited to, Mao: The Unknown Story, Theory of everything and The War Against the Jews. Both users blame each other for the arguments . They have also both had requests for checkuser filed against them (see this and this) because both accused each other of using sockpuppets, although it is worthwhile noting that both accusations were backed with evidence on the RFCU pages. Giovanni33 has used sockpuppets abusively in the past. Both users (and others) have discussed an issue regarding Mao: The Unknown Story at great depth at Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story#All change without any sense of a final decision being made. The discussion (including comments by other users) now totals at 9479 words including signatures and timestamps. I believe there is very little chance that the users will ever agree on anything at all, and the constant accusations and off-topic remarks about each other. Both have violated 3RR before, and been blocked for it . I am attempting this RfAr not only to attempt to see some resolution of the conflict between them, but also to seek guidance on their history of edit warring across multiple articles, even when neither of them are involved. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 22:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ElC

At a glance, it dosen't appear that Deskana is being even-handed in this case. I voiced similar concerns when John Smith was reported for 3RR and Deskana did not impose a block and instead opted to protect the page on his version. I'm open for corrections, but it does not appear the full lengths of dispute resolution were attempted, and, as such, I provisionally recommend that the Committee decline these content disputes. El_C 22:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not claim Deskana is partisan, and any lack of even-handedness may well be inadvartant (I have no reason to believe otherwise). In my email response to John Smith, I requested he submit an accounts on my talk page (with diffs), but he argued against it. So I let it go. El_C 23:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by John Smith's

I think it is unfair for El C to make allegations about Deskana being partisan. If you look at the Mao: The Unknown Story page it was locked to the version that Giovanni supported - and Deskana overruled another admin to make it into a permanent lock until the matter was resolved. So in all fairness he has shown complete impartiality when it has come to locking the page.

If anything, I do not believe El C is being even-handed. I e-mailed him about your block even though Deskana had lifted it (because he had responded to the 3RR report first). He flatly refused to discuss the matter privately with me - why was that? There is no requirement I make all correspondance public. Also all the other admins who contributed to the discussion on the lifting of my block concurred that they should be used to prevent edit-warring and as the page was locked it was not necessary. So I think he's being rather unfair in alleging Deskana has done anything wrong/acted incorrectly.

As to dispute-resolution, I cannot see how non-binding methods will resolve anything. It would, unfortunately, just be a waste of time. Giovanni and I have tried talking things over - third-parties have also got involved but to no avail. Getting more third-parties involved would be just as pointless. So, as incredible as it seems, I think abritration is required. John Smith's 22:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I do not wish to tell anyone how to suck eggs, I would like to point out that according to WP:DR we have actually tried the previous recommended steps. Under step 4 we had third-party involvement (it doesn't have to be Rfc) and mediation by Deskana was rejected by Giovanni. So WP:DR has been followed. John Smith's 23:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment to Charles Matthews. How is getting more admins involved going to change anything if they have no ability to impose a resolution? John Smith's 17:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Giovanni33

Without touching upon the nature of the content disputes, or making any accucastions, my position regarding this proposed case and the proposed arbitration offered by Deskana on the talk page to resolve it, echo's El C's statement above. Although I appreciate the efforts of Deskana to attempt to resolve the impasse, binding arbitration is still premature. As I previously commented on the page, arbitration would be the step to seek only after mediation and/or a Rfc was tried and failed. See my comments on this here: These have not been tried yet, and I am in favor of them. I think the dispute resolution process should work, and should be followed, without taking these short cuts in the name of expediency, however tempting. If it comes to this in due course, then I welcome it as a resolution, even if it has to be unfortuanately, forced. Also, when and if it comes to this we will have a lot more evidence to get a clear picture of the nature of the disputes having gone through the other formal steps.Giovanni33 23:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by HongQiGong

As I have been actively involved in one of the disputes between Giovanni and John Smith's, I think I am obligated to comment. At some point during the past few weeks I was requested by Giovanni to join the dispute at Mao: The Unknown Story. I agree with Giovanni's edit and disagree with John Smith's, and I have given my reasons in the Talk page. After much edit warring (and I fully admit that I participated), the article is now in permanent protection until the dispute has been resolved. Please note that in the defense of everybody involved in that article, the dispute has become a very black-and-white disagreement (whether or not to make mention of a certain academic according to a source provided) and so there's not much room for compromise.

Now I have been aware ever since I became involved in that dispute that John Smith's and Giovanni are also disputing on Cultural Revolution. But I found out recently that they are also disputing on, as far as I am personally aware, Jung Chang, Theory of everything, and The War Against the Jews. That would make 5 articles, and I don't know if there are more. At this point I don't know if this is still just a content dispute. As I have said, I agree with Giovanni's edit on Mao: The Unknown Story, and I have given my reasons in the Talk page. But at this point, I can't vouch for Giovanni that he's in the dispute for good faith reasons. Of course, the same goes for John Smith's as well.

I don't know how long the two editors have been disputing with each other, if it was before I became involved in the one particular article. But please note that Giovanni has accused John Smith's of wikistalking him. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

New comment

Ok, is it just me? Or is the back-and-forth comments between the two editors becoming a bit disruptive? Most of what they're saying doesn't even seem to concern how to edit the articles anymore, but seems to be more about each other. Just my personal observation though. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Xmas1973

Having joined the debate just as it was taking off, I feel equally entitled as HongQiGong to comment on this matter as a third party. Throughout, without being partisan but merely swayed by logic and what I see as the rightful realm of comment by Misplaced Pages, I have agreed with John Smith's in the edit war on the matter of the Chang and Halliday book. (I have not been involved in the other pages, except some limited discussion on Talk:Jung Chang.) Non-binding resolutions have been strenuously attempted, only to be rejected by Giovanni33 (on a matter of principle, as noted above). A binding resolution therefore seems the only way forward. As HongQiGong has suggested, there is no room for a third way.

Deskana has added utterly properly from my perspective. He has been impartial and fair, and whilst it explicitly does not amount to endorsement of the current page, the protected version favours Giovanni33, so such claims are apparently rootless.

Just to refer to one earlier item, Giovanni33 is a proven sock puppeteer. No such action can be ascribed to John Smith's. It was at one point suggested that he and I were the same person. I can say quite definitively that that is not the case. I cannot comment on the other pages in the alleged personal war - as opposed to content objections - but I do know that where cause has arisen I have agreed in principle and on the facts with John Smith's. Xmas1973 10:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

Transnistria

Initiated by Wooyi at 02:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

I have notified both parties here and here.
The previous dispute resolution attempts all failed, and I have provided those links below in statement of Wooyi (my statement).

Statement by Wooyi

Although I am personally not involved in this case, but today I spotted it on WP:CN on Misplaced Pages:Community sanction noticeboard#Proposed community ban for sockpupeteer William Mauco. It was stalled and ended in no consensus. The administrators on that page have made the recommendation to bring this here for arbitration. As of the time I am writing this statement, however, no action has been done since then. So I bring it here for procedural reasons.

Event links:

Statement by Alex Bakharev

I would suggest to wait until the 2 month block on William Mauco will expire. While he is blocked he can not represent his part of the story and the investigation will be bound to be one sided. Furthermore, according to my experience most of the tendentious editors fall for sockpuppeting if blocked for more than one month. If he will go the same path he would be caught and permabanned - no arbcom is necessary. If he will honestly wait until the end of the block without attempt to circumvent, then there are chances that his feud with MariusM would not restart - two months is almost an infinity on wiki. If the feud would start then Arbcom might be a solution Alex Bakharev 04:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Irpen

I urge the committee to heed to Alex Bakahrev's proposal to which I would like to add the following. I emailed Mauco when he was banned for socking advising him to sit out a well-deserved two months-block and once he is allowed to edit to alter his ways, that is to cut on edit warring and to not use socking ever again. Realistically, I don't think he will be able to not ever edit war (the fault in this is not just his but some of his opponents too, who are quite vicious POV pushers) but I am optimistic about socking. He emailed back to me and he sounded quite apologetic and forthcoming. He admitted his wrongdoing, swore to never resort to socks again and agreed to some sort of probation (immediate permaban if he is ever caught socking which he swears not to do.) I elaborated more on this in my posts to WP:CSN: , ., and specifically about the possibility of arbcom: . So, the case may not be needed. Let the community handle it and wait to see whether Mauco will fulfill his promise of change. --Irpen 06:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Dmcdevit

As William Mauco's blocking admin, I largely agree with Irpen here (who is not an involved party, despite Marius' attempts to add him) regarding William Mauco. He was discovered, with CheckUser, to have been running multiple very complex personas more than one having more than a thousand edits, for many months, each in support of the other. For this, I blocked Mauco for 2 months, and I see no reason, especially considering his repentance, to change the current block to a ban for no new misbehavior. Of course, he can be easily unblocked and restricted to editing the case pages, if a case is accepted, so that isn't a problem.

However, if there is any lack of resolve on the matter from the community, I would urge the ArbCom to accept a case for MariusM (talk · contribs). MariusM is a long term edit warrior who has carried on a feud wih William Mauco. He has five individual blocks for edit warring . Furthermore, Transnistria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), currently reprotected after almost a hundred edits and rapidfire revers in less than two days since I unprotected it, has one of the longest protection logs I've seen, due to persistant edit warring by a small core of devoted editors, including EvilAlex (talk · contribs) (with five blocks for edit warring himself ), Domitius (talk · contribs), Alaexis (talk · contribs), and Buffadren (talk · contribs). A glance at the troubled history of Transnistria shows that this is a dispute that has developed into a raging edit war with no end in sight due to the conduct of a few editors (and it has continued unabated after William Mauco's block). I would ask the Arbitration Committee to open a case related to Transnistria to look into potential bans for MariusM and EvilAlex, and to consider William Mauco's block, as well as to consider parole-like remedies for Domitius and Alaexis. Dmcdevit·t 08:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by MariusM

While I would not fully agree with Wooyi's statement that no consensus existed at my request to permaban User:William Mauco (there were 15 persons who endorsed the ban, 4 who opposed and one who proposed a ban for both me and Mauco), I agreed imediatelly with the idea of letting him to defend himself and a conditional unblock (only for editing this page, if he is caught editing other pages to be imediatelly permabanned) is a good idea. I consider Irpen an involved part and I added him at the list. Alex Bakharev was also involved a little bit in the "war" between me and Mauco, he forgived Mauco twice for 3RR breaching, in this way fueling the edit-war between us, and I reported this situation at Administrators Noticeboard Misplaced Pages double standards?, however I would let Bakharev to decide himself if he want to be listed as "involved part". What I expect from this arbitration is not only a permanent ban of vicious sockpuppeteer William Mauco, but also a cleaning of my wikipedia reputation, as I received a lot of entries in my block log as result of disputes with this bad faith hypocrite editor and I want a arbcom decision stating that my previous blocks were undeserved. I don't consider relevant the apologetic email submitted by Mauco to Irpen, as there were never disputes between Irpen and Mauco. I didn't receive an apologetic e-mail from Mauco, while I am the main person who should receive such an e-mail.--MariusM 09:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments to Dmcdevit's statement: I wonder which is my NEW misbehaviour to merit a permaban? Maybe this report, where I protested against Dmcdevit's abuse of his checkuser privileges? Considering that in above debate Domitius expressed opinion that likely Dmcdevit abused his checkuser privileges, I am not wondering why Dmcdevit want a punishment for Domitius also. I would advice everybody involved in this case: Don't add personal feelings here because, to quote a famous NPOV sensor in Transnistria-related articles in Misplaced Pages, this is leading to Dark Side and ulcers.--MariusM 11:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Appeal to the Comitee: I am herebly asking the comitee to keep User:Irpen status of involved part. I notified him . I mention that the only prove that Mauco expressed regret for his behaviour (which Dmcdevit is taking at face value) is Irpen's claim. The initiator listed also the possibility of "other editors" to be involved in the dispute, I saw the clerk removed also the "other editors" line.--MariusM 12:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Moreschi

After a fairly lengthy discussion at WP:CSN, the - entirely reasonable - conclusion was arrived at that this was overly complicated for community sanctions and that the arbitrators had best have a look at this. I would urge that this case be accepted in order that this miserable mess can be sorted out. This kind of conduct should not be tolerated on-wiki: we just don't need the disruption. People are meant to work together, not war. Especially not with extensive puppet shows and attempts to out the real-life identities of fellow editors. If the case is accepted, William Mauco should, naturally, be unblocked for him to participate in it. Moreschi 09:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by EvilAlex

Hello. I would like to add some. I have been in Wkipedia since 2001. As far as I remember, Transnistrian article was nice tidy and quiet at that time. And then one day Mauco arrived. The black become white and the false become true. In the following few month article started to change from what I know the real Transnistria to the Mauco’s Transnistria. I came to wiki because I wanted to write about my country, I wanted to write the truth but it is impossible when Mauco is around: he uses socks to advance and push his POV, he uses socks for braking 3RR, and he uses socks for voting. All previous attempts to return article to NPOV have been failed. As a result of Mauro’s POV pushing activities article lost all of its reality (just compare what says Britannica and what says Wkipedia). As a result of Mauco behaviour I have been unjustly punished (3RR – I just tried to revert the vandalism, but with some many socks around it is impossible). I would support indefinite ban for Mauco. Mauco have done great wrong to Wkipedia, to co contributors. I consider the 2 month block is a slap on a face of Wikipedian community.
Re: User:Irpen said that Mauco apologized but he should apologize to me – I am the one who is deeply offended by his puppet show. He didn’t apologize to me. EvilAlex 19:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Injunctional statement by ElC

Dmcdevit just informed me that soon after I unprtoected the page, revert warring continued. At this point, I am inclined to seek an immediate injunction (as well as undertaking additional steps) against certain parties involved in this. The last revert is dated 8:38, 17 April 2007 and if others are to follow, I will note it here. I am also provisionally of the opinion that Ploutarchos (aka Domitius) be added as a party to the case. El_C 16:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Durova

The community sanctions process is not well suited to resolve a case of this complexity. I urge the Committee to accept it and suggest that William Mauco could submit evidence to a clerk via e-mail or perhaps be unblocked for the sole purpose of contributing to this case. Durova 18:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

I removed Irpen as an involved party; I really think that it should be up to the initiator or the Committee, which MariusM can appeal to for that. El_C 11:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Ngo Dinh Diem

Initiated by --VnTruth at 16:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

I have left messages regarding my arbitration request on both of the other parties' talk pages..
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
I have discussed the matter extensively with Blnguyen and suggested mediation, all to no avail.

Statement by VnTruth

This dispute involves disagreements regarding the portion of the article, titled "Government treatment of Buddhists," regarding Diem's treatment of South Vietnamese Buddhists. The article contains language, much of which has been added by Blnguyen, stating that Diem discriminated in favor of Catholics against Buddhists, who constituted the vast majority of South Vietnam's population. I have added an additional paragraph reiterating the views of several historians that Diem treated Buddhists well, and that Buddhists constituted no more than a large majority of the population. Blnguyen has regularly deleted my edits, to the point that the page was recently locked by another user. Sarvagnya has recently delted my edits as well.

They contend that my edits violate Misplaced Pages's rule against publicizing fringe opinions.(edit summary). In fact, if you review my most recent edit to the article (under "history"), you will see that I have provided more citations in support of my edits than Blnguyen has in support of his. Moreover, one of my sources, Triumph Forsaken, was published by the prestigious Cambridge University Press, and has received praise from such respected persons as Senator (and Vietnam War hero) James Webb and historian Max Boot, both of whom, as you can see, are written up in Misplaced Pages. The author, Dr. Mark Moyar, graduated summa cum laude at Harvard and earned his Ph.D at Cambridge University in England. He has already written a well-received history of one aspect of the Vietnam War, the Phoenix program. Another source, Our Vietnam Nightmare, was written by Marguerite Higgins, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist also written up in Misplaced Pages.

Blnguyen's claim that Buddhists constituted 70%-90% of South Vietnam's population was particularly weak. His citations consisted of: Dr. Moyar, who actually says that such claims were made in 1963, but were false; an internet article that says only--in passing and without citation--that Buddhists constituted a majority of the population; and a book by Marvin Gettleman that is 40 years old and so obscure that it lacks a Misplaced Pages identifying number. The more recent historians do not even claim that Buddhists constituted a majority of the population, much less 70%-90%. For example, Stanley Karnow and Neil Sheehan,widely read and anti-Diem to the core, do not make this claim.

Nonetheless, I am not asking for deletion of Blnguyen's portion (except for his inaccurate citation of Dr. Moyar), but just that all parties be prohibited from deleting my edits.

Supplemental Statement by VnTruth 19:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Since I submitted my request, my edits have been reverted twice by Blnguyen and three times by an administrator with the user name Nishkid64. I will fill in the revert links later. The page is also locked to prevent editing.--VnTruth 19:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Blnguyen

Firstly, I would like to point out that this is a content dispute. Since VnTruth last posted about content issues at User_talk:Blnguyen#Ngo_Dinh_Diem on April 8, I have replied below it and also at Talk:Ngo Dinh Diem multiple times, and more than half a dozen established contributors have voiced their opinions about the content. Since VnTruth's return from a short break, he has reverted seven further times without discussing.

Another point is his username and editing only of the Ngo Dinh Diem page. In Vietnamese language, Vietnam is spelt as Việt Nam, and is commonly abbreviated as VN. I feel that VnTruth's username is symptomatic of the fact that he feels that Misplaced Pages is a forum for rewriting history or correcting historical mistakes, and this is affecting his editing. He uses a book by Mark Moyar called "Triumph Forsaken", who in his preface notes that he is a revisionist historian, stating


“ The revisionist school, which sees the war as a noble but improperly executed enterprise, has published much less, primarily because it has few adherents in the academic world. ”

Moyar proudly presents himself as a revisionist, and so do the reviews of his work.eg, "A full-blooded member of what he calls the "revisionist school" of Vietnam War historians, Moyar firmly believes that America's longest and most controversial overseas war was "a worthy but improperly executed enterprise." . In the book. In the book Moyar notes himself that the Pulitzer Prize winners David Halberstam, Stanley Karnow and Neil Sheehan are regarded as the authorities by the academic community. Moyar then spends a lot of the book trying to overturn established historical details such as the existence of shootings, etc and attacking other historians (book review:"disparaging those he disagrees with (calling Sheehan and Halberstam, for example, "indignant," "vengeful," and "self-righteous")"), and trying to establish "counter-fact". This has lead to concerns raised about the usability of this book for "counter-fact" and the disproportionate amount of space given to these, but VnTruth has not responded to these.

User:VnTruth is using his userpage as a workspace for the Diem page. His ideal preferred version almost entirely consists of counter-fact, importing large swathes of revisionist opinion as fact. "Diệm established an authoritarian regime, because he did not believe his backward country was ready for a Western-style democracy. He established a nepotistic regime, because of the lack of loyal, qualified leaders available in South Vietnam at the time." It also contained large tracts of Moyar's attack commentary trying to discredit other historians.

I think it is clear that VnTruth is a very strong supporter of Moyar, and is trying and pushing very hard to put him into the limelight in a disproportionate manner on the article, as is being discussed on the talk page. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about "verifiability not truth". VnTruth feels that Moyar is the truth and the academic consensus is wrong, but until Moyar's discredits the others and establishes the "counter-fact", we have to go by the established "facts" about historical events, and include evaluations where appropriate. So this is a content dispute. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Bakasuprman

I edited Ngo Dinh Diem as well, and note that this is a content dispute. There is no issue here as both vntruth and blnguyen have been civil and worked under the framework of WP guidelines.Bakaman 17:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel.Bryant

Content dispute? I think it is. Daniel Bryant 00:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by PullToOpen

It seems that the parties are working together amicably on the talk page. Arbitration is not needed. // PTO 00:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/4/0/0)

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Requests for clarification with regard to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Billy_Ego-Sandstein

  1. Category:Fascist Wikipedians has been recreated. This category was mentioned in the finding of fact but there appears to be no remedy requiring it's deletion. Should I delete and salt it?
  2. Billy Ego has edited his talk page since the ban, and it is now protected. However, User:Billy Ego appears to remain unprotected. I propose protection but wish to check with ArbCom first. --kingboyk 16:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. A lot of the users don't make sense to be on the sockpuppet list, so I am asking for where the IP logs as evidence for this are and if I can see them. After looking at the banned users list, a lot of these have had very differing opinions and I've ended up arguing against. Especially User: Instantiayion, with whom I had to compromise on the Planned Economy article with (actually, that running debate was about to be solved until he got banned), Anarcho-capitalism here whos position (as much as I can tell ideologically) does not line up with either User: Instantiayion nor User: Billy Ego. I find it hard to believe that even if it were true, that one person would be able to so accurately portray so many personalities and ideologies. This just doesn't seem to line up at all. Fephisto 17:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for clarification with regard to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy

I've looked over the case of children's privacy protection, and I feel that there is several ambiguities I'd like to ask for clarification:

  • "When a user self-identifies as a child, especially if they provide personal information, the matter is frequently a subject of discussion among administrators"

What is the definition of a "child" on Misplaced Pages? Is a seventeen-year-old high school student a child? Where is the precise age to define a "child"?

  • "users who self-identify as children, project a sexually tinged persona, and disclose personal information such as links to sites devoted to social interaction are engaging in disruptive behavior and may be banned."

What is the specific meaning of "sexually tinged persona"? And If a teenage editor post the URL of his blog on Misplaced Pages that has his real name on it, does it constitute disclosure of personal information?

I hope the ArbCom will give the answers to those points. Regards. Wooyi 22:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


Requests for clarification with regard to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Request_for_clarification_on_linking_to_attack_sites due to length

Requests for clarification with regard to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan

I’ve got a question with regard to Armenia – Azerbaijan arbcom case. The final decision says: After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year.

However many parties to this case have already been blocked during the arbcom case. Do those blocks count as a parole violation or the count starts from 0, as this new section implies:  ? This was discussed here: , however I believe that we need to make this perfectly clear for everyone to avoid conflicts with regard to interpretation of this decision. Thanks in advance. Regards, Grandmaster 17:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a clarification might be helpful here. During voting on the proposed decision, arbitrator FloNight stated in voting for several revert paroles that she was doing so "ith the reminder that blocks during the case count toward the duration of future blocks." Other arbitrators did not comment on this issue. Absent instructions to the contrary I believe admins enforcing the decision would follow FloNight's interpretation but it is appropriate that the ruling be clear.
Another question that occurs to me is whether the revert paroles apply to articles that the subject editors might edit on any subject, or only to articles relating in some fashion to Armenia and/or Azerbaijan. As written, the parole applies to all articles and I take it this is intended. Newyorkbrad 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User has created two waves of sockpuppets so far using oppen proxies. User is still causing major disuption and due to our privacy policy dealing with it is becoming increasingly difficult. User said "one year is too long same thing as a indef, so I see no point in waiting it out so I will do what I have to do"

I was wondering what kind of an additional action would arbcom consider.

-- Cat 03:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)


Archives

Categories: