Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:51, 21 April 2007

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

• WP:RFAR
• WP:A/R
• WP:ARB/R
• WP:ARBREQ

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:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Piotrus

Initiated by M.K. at 10:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lysy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jadger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dr. Dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lokyz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Novickas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Halibutt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dellijks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Renata3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Talk page notifications:

Please note that user:Halibutt informed that he is leaving Misplaced Pages , but looking to the related users contributions, he wasn’t not. In any case left message on talk .

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Piotrus
• Discussions on his own talk page (for time-preserving will point only few of them): etc.
• By different contributors (for time-preserving will point only few of them): ArbCom case Cabal case
• Numerous article talk pages (for time-preserving will point only few of them):

Statement by M.K.

Piotrus contributing to Misplaced Pages for several years, sadly his valuable edits are marked and with history of inadmissible actions, starting from misused of administrator tools ending with mocking from contributors and trolling . Preserving time I will keep to the minimal. His actions still are the major problem to contributors, who have dealing with related articles, some examples:

• removal referenced information, which not suits his POV with edit summary “rv inappopriate tag and preposterous claim”
• reverting with edit summary “you are joking? please stop restoring Soviet propaganda”
• removes referenced terminology which not suits his POV, important to note he personally expanded his part some time ago, but did not classified it as POV back then
• removal of info continues
• referenced information removed again…
• same: referenced info removed…
• again removal referenced information with edit summary “npov”, worth noting that with referenced info, which was lastly removed due to “nopv”, Piotrus moved it several times without removing it completely , (quite strange arguments – “lead should summarize the lead” as well as “it fits there better”)

And of course such selective removal of information promotes revert wars and these are only few examples. And different contributors noted and stated many times that such behavior is inappropriate . For violating reverting policies he was blocked . Administrator Piotrus also, in my view, violated WP:LIVING. He began to inserting badly attributed sources to living person article claiming that presented source is an embassy web page while it was just some sort tourist-information center . Seeing such poor handling of sources I found more inaccuracies and misuse of sources in related article , and I asked for check quotation and references , but was reverted and suggested that WP:Living is not applied in other articles which relates with living persons , in contrary to the policy and leaving Misplaced Pages vulnerable. Worth noting that after few minutes he began to finding serious flaws himself . (also worth noting with which intentions article was created too please observe edit summary). Nevertheless misuse of sources were present and much later . It should be stress that Piotrus continued to mock from person in question too . Once again violating the policy. Even the neutral mediator warned that there is a problems with related articles and even warned not to remove NOPV version but in vain . Only active and systematical actions from mediator made progress to these articles, but problems still present. Another problem of Piotrus that he mocked from contributors in different cases, starting from name-callings in his native language , stalked users , other examples ,, etc. It should be noted that problems with Piotrus behavior has many contributors – Germans, Lithuanians, Russians etc, starting from quite newly contributors and ending with established ones . But the most disgusting event to place then another contributor started labeling 1991 events as annexation. Instead to prohibiting such actions Piotrus launched shameful comment directly towards me and the state. And yes I regard this and this as tragedy of Lithuanian people in 1991. My attempts to communicate and resolve the problems usually ended with threats . So I ask ArbCom to accept this case for scrutinizing such systematical Piotrus misconducts.

Update.Just small expansion after Piotrus presentation, which lacks concrete facts but full of interpretations. And reading his replay I made impression that he seeks that every contributors word should receive some sort of support or oppose, endorse etc. I have to agree with user: Mikkalai remarks that Piotrus fail to see basic rules, as for this time - Misplaced Pages is not some sort of democracy, then votes solves the problems. Regarding alleged Harassment, I do not think that asking for contributor to stop removing reverenced information and desire to know the motives why such actions there taken, can be classified as Harassment for intimidation particular contributor. But we probably will see more Polish contributors coming and stating the same in the future. Speaking about the same area - indeed questions can rose , is the wrong accusations, as noted by other contributor , of vandalism also listed as harassment  ? I do not going to list misinterpreted quotations of my words in Piotrus replay; if the case will be accepted these points of interest will be fully covered as well. And what left? A, saga continues . M.K. 08:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus

In few words, I can describe M.K.'s accusations as groundless and certainly not motivated by any "good faith" (in two words - caveat lector). It is my belief that ArbCom should discard this case and warn M.K. that such disuptive attempts to slander his opponents will not be tolerated, per Misplaced Pages:Harassment and related guidelines. Below, I explain my reasoning for such a strong-worded reply.

This is not the first time that user has attempted to portray me as 'evil incarnate' following the same modus operandi: 1) take a few controversial edits (we all make mistakes, especially in a space of ~3.5 years...) 2) ignore the fact that most of those controversial edits were discussed by community and dismissed as not serious or with support for my actions (in a few cases I apologized for certain actions and never repeated them, which doesn't prevent M.K. from bringing them up again and again) 3) spice them up with ten times as many innocent edits with extreme bad faith interpretation to 4) create an illusion of some serious patterns of wrongdoings, and 5) clamor for attention of other editors with presumed goal of misleading neutral editors into condemning me. Notably so far his claims - although seen by many (RfC, ANI and others) have never been supported by neutral editors (all occasional support he ever gets is from users representing his content POV and/or having a grudge against me from other content disputes). The best example of this is his comment at my RfC (a lecture strongly recommended to anybody who thinks to take M.K.'s arguments seriously); consider that despite his comments being posted at the very begining of the RfC, they were supported by only two people out of 40 who commented (both of which have run into DR processes for their incivility and unfairness when dealing with me, but that's another story (, )). A shorter version of his tactic can be seen in his attempt to get me for 3RR (3RR report with consensus for no action, followed by a complain at AN that was ignored by the community...).

Second, his "attempts to resolve dispute" can be hardly considered that (there were only two real attempts to resolve the disputes involving me and M.K, the informal Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution started by me which yielded no consensus and my RfC in which 5% of users supported M.K. claims; other links concern local content disputes or don't involve M.K.). As shown by the RfC example, the dispute is based on his outlandish claims, unsupported by evidence (more on that below) nor by any neutral editors; other than agreeing with the claim that I am a vandalizing troll and withdrawing from this project I can hardly resolve this in a manner acceptable to him. Consider that most of his 'attempts to resolve the dispute' by posting on my talk page are basically personal attacks, accusing me of wrongdoing and unsupported by evidence. In this diff he quotes above he is stating that I "have been warned by different contributors and mediators " - note no diff provided (I have never been warned on that by a neutral editor, and certainly no mediator or other DR official). Here is another of his posts to my talk page, where he accusses me of bad faith, using socks/canvassing, censorship and such; claims are of course not supported by neutral editors and backed with very flimsy evidence (misinterpreted innocent posts). Note that the post is not even directed at me - only at other editors, to inform them (on my talk page...) of how 'evil' I am. This MedCabal case is another perfect example: opened by one of M.K.'s friends in a content dispute, it was closed immediatly by the mediator with the comment "You need to assume good faith and participate in the discussion". ArbCom case he mentions is an even better example of how he is twisting all facts: see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla for details, but briefly: as in my RfC, most comments by observers supported my statements, and case was dismissed because of other party's withdrawal (note that the solution discussed was a civility parole on the other party, not me). How can anybody call this slander by a user with impressivly growing block log a 'dispute resolution attempt' is beyond me - unless, of course, it is cited here solely to draw readers attention that somebody accused me of 'falsification, trolling, vandalism' and such, without looking at anything deeper. The other links of the 'dispute resolution attempts' are no better - content disputes on article's talk pages, peppered with personal attacks on my person and other users, are hardly acceptable 'dispute resolution attempts'.

His arguments about my wrongdoings can be taken appart in the same way as above. They either link to innocent edits portrayed by M.K. as wrongdoings, or edits that have been discussed by the community and consensus reached I was right (most of them are discussed at my RfC in detail). Let me draw attention to how he presents those issues with few examples: even through consensus has been reached on my RfC (as well as in an older MedCabal case which M.K. doesn't mention) that I have never misued my admin tools, he repeats this claim presenting the same evidence as was shown and discarded previously (if you don't succeed, try again on a different forum...). In most cases M.K. is also freely and with bad faith interpreting my actions and those of other editors. For example his claims that I was criticized by a 'neutral mediator' at Kazimieras Garšva and Vilnija is a gross misrepresentation of the case, in which mediator criticized the behaviour of both parties (involving more than just two users), not my specifically, and which ended in a compromise which only M.K. occasionally disputes (ask User:DGG for details). Virtually all content disputes mentioned ended in a consensus I find acceptable - but he doesn't - something that may explain reason behind this RfArb. His repeated claims that my actions were criticized by many fails when we note that this critique is carried out by the same small group of editors, whose arguments have never held up to public scrutiny (re: my RfC, MedCabs or ArbCom examples again). Particulary repeated claims that 'many users criticized/warned me' fail when we look at my RfC again and see that *majority* users agree with me, not with M.K. His claims of me promoting revert wars are amusing when we consider that articles he mentions (ex. ) are often FA-class articles written by me where I am merly removing vandalism and ensuring POV remains neutral as it has been judged by the community during FAC process (and of course in his intepretation it is my actions which are leading to revert wars, when it always takes two to tango...). His claim that I was blocked for repeated revert wars should be contrasted with the fact that the only time I was blocked was because of a controversial report by a single-purpose sock that I thought was purely vandalizing, a conclusion that was reached by many (ex. this discussion). All of his other claims can be denied in the same way; forgive me but I don't have hours to take comment on every innocent link he tries to portray as an abuse, although I will be happy to do so if an ArbCom member contacts me for clarification for any particular example (again, I strongly recommend reading RfC, and seeing what were commentators replies to - many the same - accusations by M.K.). In summary, he commonly posts diffs to such past warnings issued by himself or his 'content dispute allies', in an attempt to create an illusion that I (or others who disagree with him) are wrongdoers condemned by the community; such diffs however end up either with a claim providing no diff evidence or an edit that is non controversial unless completly twisted and mislabelled.

Lastly, I will just comment on the strange selection of users M.K. have chosen to contact with information of this ArbCom: with few exceptions they are users who are often involved in various content disputes with me, and who are likely to present their individual grudges in support of M.K. claims. I strongly urge neutral editors to consider what angle they may have in commenting here, and review their claims for possible overinterpretation (over nothing can be as blantant misinterpreation of reality as M.K. claims above).

Concluding: M.K.'s "evidence" against me is primarily bad faith interpretation of non-controversial edits or repeated claims on issues discussed and closed by the community. His claims were most tellingly discarded in my RfC in which only two out of 40 users supported his POV. His behaviour towards me violates several WP:CIV/WP:NPA policies, and primarily Misplaced Pages:Harassment: do not nitpick good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks (false and bad-faithed claims of my wrongdoing), user space harassment. I'd particulary ask arbcom members to look at pararells with The Recycling Troll case, and consider how M.K.'s behaviour, repeating groundless claims agaisnt my person - on various discussion pages, talk pages, and in wikipedia namespace, resembles that of the TRT, who was harassing RickK in a similar manner.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

As the Committee is already aware, I attempted to mediate the dispute between Piotrus and Ghirla a few months ago. Piotrus remained willing to pursue that process but Ghirla declined. I proposed Misplaced Pages:Community enforceable mediation afterward, partly as a non-arbitrated alternative to some of the longstanding Eastern European editorial conflicts. Piotrus has been amenable to that option but on no occasion did his opponents agree to it. I write this without comment on the actual merits of the case. Yet it is my considered opinion that lack of resolution on this issue has hindered Misplaced Pages's smooth functioning in a number of ways, not the least of which was its connection to the immediate events that brought down Misplaced Pages:Requests for investigation. I consider the loss of that undermanned noticeboard to be a considerable detriment to Misplaced Pages. As a group, the involved parties in this proposed case have consumed substantial volunteer resources in fruitless endeavors and it is my opinion that they have sometimes pursued unhealthy structural changes to Misplaced Pages in pursuit of narrow goals. I request that the Committee accept this case to examine all sides. Durova 18:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Darwinek

A short comment. It seems to me M.K. arguments don't hold water per Piotrus analysis, but M.K's behaviour indeed violates WP:HARASS in my opinion and he should be warned to stop it. I constantly witness M.K.'s behaviour and can say he has got a personal problem with Piotrus (which is not Piotrus fault) and therefore this "case" shouldn't be accepted by ArbCom. - Darwinek 19:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Dr. Dan

A shorter comment. Because these accusations are serious, and concern an administrator, and have been bantered about before without a resolution, perhaps they need to be addressed once and for all. Let the concerned parties speak their piece. Dr. Dan 00:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Novickas

Having earlier filed an arb against Piotrus , I support this investigation. That case was based on ethical research issues. Just two more recent problems out of many: he removed a reference from the Žirmūnai article on the grounds that the source was POV - a misstatement of WP policy; the use of the phrase "evil incarnate" in his statement above is inflammatory. The limited number of editors working in this region, and his frequent use of Polish-language references, means that his work is not as thoroughly reviewed as other English Misplaced Pages articles are. The LT editors must then exercise a disproportionate amount of oversight. More scrutiny from the wider WP community is needed. Novickas 12:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by frequently involved Irpen

It would be easier for me to just state my views on the issue but I am at a real difficulty on how I can make a recommendation to an ArbCom because the issue is somewhat unique. Yes, we have a huge problem here but I don't see how it can be solved at all by any method including the ArbCom. That Piotrus is an extremely productive, committed and prolific editor is plain obvious. In fact, after Ghirla moved his activity from en- to ru-wiki (without doubt Piotrus is primarily responsible for this huge loss that will never heal), the place of the most prolific editor in the topics of my interest (Eastern and Central Europe) is undoubtedly held by Piotrus. I will not waste time praising his commitment and a huge amount of work he is giving to this project simply because those are already known, the room at ArbCom page is precious and this is not what brought us all here. Piotrus' editor's quality narrows the choices of the remedies but does not make problems non-existing. So, I will concentrate on the latter.

All these controversies take root in a huge stack of interconnected content disagreements between multiple editors with strong views, sometimes affected by nationalism or, at least, differences in narrattives in national scholarship and/or education. Piotrus, an experienced editor, knows perfectly all the tricks to get an upper hand in such disputes.

Using double standards

• applying loaded terminology selectively: if he defends the terms, like "occupation", "invasion", "massacre", etc, it is because they are "referenced"; but when he strives to remove these exact terms in cases when the usage does not fit his POV, he calls such terms "POVed"
• Double standards with Proper names: defending certain national terms as "more authentic" but rejecting other national terms as "non-English" or "counterhistoric"
• Double standards with sources: attempts to impeach certain statements claiming their being referenced to "non-Western", "non-English", "not online", "non-academic" or "Cherry-picked" sources but persisting and vigorously defending sources of similar origin/standing when they happen to advance his POV

Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing

• especially the WP:TE#Undue weight clause by flooding many articles with marginally or irrelevant material that happen to give prominence to his pet issues

Next, and perhaps worst, is what I would call "ungentlemanly conduct", such as

• Gaming the civility policy in order to prevail in content disputes (I mean invoking WP:CIV in discussions where civility concerns, while possibly existing are clearly minor).
• Frequent baseless accusations of opponents in WP:NPA violations
• Threats to report an opponent to the "proper" venue
• (Especially unbecoming) resorting to such reports, including running to boards and other admins' talk pages with complaints aimed at achieving some sort of his opponent's sanctions (up to blocks) which may include even false reports to a 3RR board. His style of using WP:PAIN and WP:RFI made the boards to be deleted If it does not work in one board, Piotrus occasionally runs hectic sprees from board to board in the projectspace as well as selected admin's talk pages.
• In such instances, Piotrus, if he can, prefers to act through proxies, inviting other editors to act and telling them exactly what to post and where to post it.
• Another demonstration of double standards, when Piotrus is confronted about his actions he makes persistent and excessive pestering for diffs; but since he knows that the diffs are there this is aimed at nothing but forcing the opponent to waste time. OTOH, when presented with diffs, Piotrus accuses the opponent in "digging through dirty laundry".
• Another highly unbecoming habit, especially in view of demonstrating such a heavy-handed approach towards the content opponents, is the persistent refusal to curb disruptive editors who advance the POV he favors but instead cleverly using them as battering rams or for a Good cop/Bad cop trick in the content disputes (no need to elaborate, the comparison is exact and explains it all)

I gave some of the issues that are rather narrowly specific to Piotrus and make working with him particularly difficult. It does not mean that he is clear of the more usual human wikisins, such as occasional sterile just under 3RR revert-warring, occasional incivility and personal attacks but I can tolerate those, especially since there are plenty of editors much worse in this respect.

I must confess that I am at loss as to what ArbCom can do with all this. The problem is obviously there and it is huge. Forcing Ghirla out of en-wiki alone is the profound loss that came from this host of controversies. But at the same time, I am at loss on what could possibly be done with this mess, and, frankly, I am not sure that ArbCom could help. It may but I just don't see how. Blocking Piotrus, even temporary, is out of question since he is writing content and a lot of it. Deadminning would simply not affect anything as incidents of admin abuse that I have seen are long in the past. I have not noticed any admin actions made by Piotrus in the past year or so (which means that if there were any they were not notable in a bad way) and adminship is in no way involved in this host of problems. As we all know too well (examples are abundant) WRT to all editors who commit so much time to the project, it is especially dangerous to have them humiliated, including by an insensitive ArbCom decision, a consideration that ArbCom should take very seriously.

At the same time, the lasting effects of this mess bring lots of bad blood felt by every community of editors around Poland as the Russian, Lithuanian, Belarusian, Ukrainian and German editors have all shown the huge frustration from this all. Until now, I was living with the idea that we will just have to take it as is since no solution seemed in sight. Loss of Ghirla is so far perhaps the highest damage Misplaced Pages suffered from this. Maybe others will follow but I remained under the impression that nothing can be done. If ArbCom can come up with some creative measures that would work, it should and we will all be better off. If it can't or won't, this frustrating state of affairs will continue indefinetely or until it gets solved by itself, which is rather unlikely.

It took me all the time I have for now to write all this and I realize that diffs would help the arbitrators. I assure you that I can provide diffs to every assertion and I will do so over the weekend. That is unless the Arbitrators decide that even with diffs this is the kind of a problem that ArbCom cannot help and we just have to live with it. --Irpen 12:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Renata3

I was about to post my opinion, but Irpen beat me to it. So I have really nothing to add, except that I urge ArbCom to take this case and (hopefully) solve this mess once and for all. Renata 13:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

The previous arbitration case, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla, was closed without prejudice due to inactivity. Thatcher131 18:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Robdurbar

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

Involved parties

• Robdurbar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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 on the morning of April 19, 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. This was very much the necessary and appropriate action. 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)

In response to comments below, while a hijacked account still remains a possibility, in spite of the checkuser comment, it was pointed out on ANI that besides blocking admins who tried to stop what he was doing, some of the accounts Robdurar blocked belonged to editors he'd had disputes with in the past, suggesting to some people who had interacted with him before (I have not) it really was probably him. :( Of course, if Robdurbar shows up a few days or weeks from now and post a shocked "yikes, that wasn't me," the situation can be reevaluated (indeed, a motion in this case will provide a location for the reevaluation to take place in). From everything I've read, this is believed to have been Robdurbar, but not a "mental illness" situation. Rather, the best theory I've seen for what happened is that Robdurbar decided to retire last month because he was finding editing too addictive or time-consuming (see his goodbye comments from early March), felt himself being drawn back (there were one or two good-faith edits just before the rampage started), and wanted to make sure he wouldn't be tempted to resume editing or adminning, at least not under this account, for quite awhile. Unfortunately, he has succeeded, although I hope this method of Wikibreak enforcement does not become common in the future. Newyorkbrad 16:10, 21 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)

Comment by Samuel Blanning

Judging by the attack on Bogdanov Affair involving hijacked accounts a couple of months ago, it isn't that hard to find an account to hijack (or three), and such an account having sysop status is just bad luck (and possibly the admin using an obvious password, but I can only guess about that). With the number of accounts I had to block in February that probably belonged to innocent contributors, I'm inclined to give Rob the same benefit of the doubt, as opposed to assuming he was mentally ill. --Sam Blanning 09:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

After being given some more details on my talk page I no longer believe my initial assumption - much as I want to. --Sam Blanning 13:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

(Belated) Comment by Cas Liber

I'd have to wonder about mental illness (I work in the area), seems weird that someone would not get involved for 6 weeks and then go off like that. The lack of an antecedent dispute that I can see, the presumed age and the time to deterioration are all suggestive of some form of manic episode of bipolar disorder. These things are mostly cyclical. Hopefully the door is left open and some dialogue or explanation will come out of all this. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 00:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Tdxiang

Just a case of a haacker attack, not a deliberate abuse of sysop tools. Do you really think this requires an Rfar? :( Perhaps emailing Robdurbar himself (directly) would be better. Spare him the confusion of this situation which he, I suppose did not want to happen at all.--Tdxiang (Talk) 03:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Although the usual number of acceptances to open a case is 4, since this is essentially a decision to confirm desysopping, I'd like to wait for at least 7 confirmations (a majority of active arbitrators). Thatcher131 15:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/5)

• Confirm desysopping, and agree that a full case does not need to be opened. - SimonP 22:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Confirm desysopping; no need for a case here. Kirill Lokshin 02:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Confirm desysopping. Paul August ☎ 02:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Confirm desysopping, as per above. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Me too. --jpgordon 04:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal

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

Involved parties

• Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tom Butler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Minderbinder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Simoes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nealparr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LuckyLouie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Perfectblue97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SheffieldSteel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikidudeman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• User RFC: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Martinphi
• Attempted informal mediation: Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-13 Electronic Voice Phenomenon
• Extensive discussion on talk pages such as Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon, Talk:John Edward, Talk:Psychic, Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, some of which have included additional mediation or article RfC.

This is not a page for discussion. Please don't add comments to others' statements. If the case is accepted, evidence and discussion pages will be created where such discussion can take place.

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)

A key part of a guideline not yet mentioned, WP:FRINGE: "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted or labeled as mainstream unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." In the case of these articles, absence of mainstream scientific sources has been used as justification for giving undue weight to material from fringe publications, often misrepresenting fringe positions as mainstream. If a topic only appears in fringe sources, it violates undue weight and NPOV to only present a fringe, often biased and unsupported position just because mainstream scientific publications haven't gone on record disputing it. Extraordinary claims have been made, cited to questionable sources, and justified by a lack of mainstream sources disproving those claims. This is contrary to the guideline above and an insistence on negative proof. --Minderbinder 12:29, 20 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)

Comment: While you guys are poking around, I'm still looking for a source from a mainstream academic society that shows a broad consensus that it isn't a science. If you find one, please let me know. --Nealparr 04:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Negative proof anyone? In all seriousness, one could turn the comment back around and ask for a source that shows a broad consensus that it is a science (which is what many paranormal-promoting editors claim). --ScienceApologist 11:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We could, and have cited, the AAAS, the fact that a number of major universities now have parapsychology departments, the fact the many parapsychology journals are peer reviewed and noted sceptics publish papers in those journals and cite them as peer-review publications on their CV, the fact that a small but significant amount of parapsychology articles are now published in peer-review journals of other scientific disciplines, and the fact that a number of noted sceptics have openly acknowledged its scientific status. As noted above though, the point is not so much that parapsychology is above reproach and is acknowledged as a science by everyone, but rather that you simply cannot keep calling it a pseudoscience on the basis that that is what you think. There is a middle-ground to be found here and observed.Davkal 12:00, 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.

As for guidelines, this is the relevant part of the WP:FRINGE guideline: "However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources."

When asking for such sourcing, it's suggested that myself and others are looking for negative proof to elevate parapsychology to a level of widespread acceptance. That's not the case at all (at least not in my case). It's asking for any statement using pseudoscience to be sourced correctly. The term pseudoscience is often applied without sourcing in paranormal articles. Asking for a source to a statement that there is a broad consensus in mainstream science concerning parapsychology is in response to an unsourced statement that made that claim.

--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)

Comment: I agree that there is a fundamental difference, but that is the result of a poorly written NPOV rule which is interpreted differently by different parties. The editor problems are a result of this disagreement over interpretation of Wiki rules, and as such, the issue for this ArbCom should be the rules. Otherwise, you all may kill off a few editors but the problem will keep coming up as new editors come in and wonder why the character who wrote the article in such a biased way was trying to mislead the public. Tom Butler 18:34, 20 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. Michaelbusch 03:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by occasionally involved Annalisa Ventola

There are misunderstandings on both sides of the issue about what parapsychology is and is not. There is a distinction between 'parapsychology' and 'paranormal research' that is not being addressed here. Parapsychology is a tiny, tiny field made up of mostly university professors, and it does enjoy some status (albeit marginal) within the scientific community. In general, the field of parapsychology has very little to say about topics like Electronic Voice Phenomena and Jonathan Edwards (at least not anything that would support a paranormal interpretation). There is no such thing as a "consensus of parapsychologists," especially given that a portion of academic parapsychologists (i.e. members of the Parapsychological Association) are skeptics who hold no particular belief in the paranormal. Any legitimacy that parapsychology enjoys as a science should not be invoked and then generalized to legitimize all paranormal topics here at Misplaced Pages. On the other hand, many of the broad criticisms of paranormal research do not necessarily apply to parapsychology, yet this tiny field has been inaccurately lumped into lists and categories of pseudoscience right along with belief in fairies and King Tut's curse.

We don't need the Arbitration Committee to solve the problem of demarcation for us...at least not right now. I think that despite the differing worldviews that these editors present, it is still possible for us to stabilize these articles without arbitration. I urge the arbitration committee to limit the scope of their decision to the user conduct issues that have been brought forward by Minderbender, and allow the larger community of Misplaced Pages editors to work out the rest. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Martinphi

I have made several mistakes on Misplaced Pages. First, was edit warring. Second, without knowing that I was breaking any rule, I "created" a meat puppet. I also made the mistake (retrospectively) of arguing some points which were merely debatable, such as the meaning of dictionary definitions, and whether they should be taken at face value on Misplaced Pages. I've made one violation of WP:POINT (which no one seemed to notice). The edit warring is by far the worst thing I've done. I should have gone to mediation much sooner: it was a bad way to edit, and I have, and intend, to correct my ways. I have also written of what I considered the disruptive, POV, or otherwise inappropriate edits of others, without, I hope, ever resorting to personal attack. I believe this is sometimes necessary to promote responsibility, and I stand by the content of what I said. I said all this before, but apparently it hasn't satisfied those who brought this RfA.

But none of these are the main problem. The main problem is my alleged POV editing. All my edits stem from my interpretation of the Misplaced Pages rules, such as NPOV, WP:V, WP:ATT, and WP:FRINGE. I am not alone in these views. Also, there is disagreement over the status parapsychology as a scientific field. I have edited out of my understandings of these things, and if I am correct my edits not disruptive but appropriate. Thus, this is a question of Misplaced Pages policy.

This issue has been introduced as a small band of paranormal POV-pushers who are trying to break the rules. I have no desire to break any rules, or to POV-push. But if I am right about the rules, the so-called "paranormalists" are not POV-pushing.

It seems to me that the rules of Misplaced Pages were not created to deal with fringe subjects. Perhaps if they had been, they would give the fringe subjects less room. As it is, I believe the rules clearly say that

1. Misplaced Pages presents the scientific consensus where available.
2. Misplaced Pages cannot state a scientific consensus which does not exist- such as a consensus that parapsychology is a pseudoscience, or that a subject which has not been scientifically studied has nevertheless been rejected by science (see this discussion).
3. Misplaced Pages cannot invent a majority, where none can be documented- such as a majority of scientists who reject a certain position on the paranormal (see statements above).
4. Misplaced Pages does not give undue weight to minority views.
5. Misplaced Pages presents primarily the scientific consensus in the field of science relevant to a particular article.
6. Misplaced Pages does not credit the general scientific view above the view of scientists who work in the field relevant to an article. For instance, the views of biologists are not relevant to the article on quantum physics.

One of the problems has been that in some cases,

1. There is no scientific consensus (and maybe little or no research)
2. The majority of people involved in the phenomenon believe it is paranormal
3. The skeptics are not scientists, and are very distinctly in the minority (in the published works and in the numbers who do research on the subject).

This was the problem with the EVP article. Nevertheless, undue weight was given to the opinion of skeptics. You will notice above how "mainstream" is equated to mean "skeptical." Those here described as "paranormalists" wanted to write the article to present the field as un-researched, rather than rejected by a (fictional) majority.

It is not necessarily a bad thing to make Misplaced Pages exclusively skeptical, but if this is policy, it should be so written.

I believe parapsychology is a scientific field, and should be treated as such by Misplaced Pages. The reasons for this include:

1. Critics (Randi, Hyman, Alcock etc.) of parapsychology agree with parapsychologists that it is a scientific field
2. Parapsychology can be practiced by skeptics.
3. Parapsychology has the institutional structure of a scientific field, including associations and peer-reviewed journals.
4. Parapsychology uses a higher degree of quantification than some other fields, such as psychoanalysis.
5. Parapsychology has a lot of institutional support
6. Parapsychology is a affiliate of the AAAS (see necessary qualifications for membership)

These facts make parapsychology more a field of science than psychoanalysis. It is obvious that parapsychology falls under the heading of questionable science, but it is science nonetheless. Since parapsychology is questionable science, I advocate giving much more weight to skepticism in articles related to parapsychology than it should otherwise get according to guidelines. This is reflected in my editing of the parapsychology article, and my other edits. It should also be noted that there does not exist (contrary to statements above) a scientific consensus that parapsychology is a pseudoscience. The people putting together the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts tried very hard to find good sources, and generally failed.

Further explication of my analysis of the rules as they apply in this Arbitration can be found here. If I am wrong, I will change my ways. Martin _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Davkal

I agree with much of what Martinphi said above but there are a number of general and specific points I would like to add.

Firstly, the problem here has been portrayed as a pro-paranormal versus sceptical debate. I believe this in inaccurate. On virtually no occasion have any of the so-called pro-paranormal editors attempted to edit articles as if paranormal phenomena had been acknowledged and accepted as real in anything like the way that that has been portrayed, or in anything like the way that some other editors have. That is, a cursory glance at the edit histories of paranormal articles will show many attempts to promote a heavily pro-paranormal POV, but these are not made by the editors here. On the contrary, almost all the editors here have attempted to portray accurately the current scientific status of a topic (where one exists) and to attribute appropriately and without bias any other claims made. For example, I have tried on a number of occasions to include in the EVP article the point (straight out of policy) that “EVP has not been considered or accepted by mainstream science”. This has been removed repeatedly by so-called sceptical editors and often replaced with the false claim that mainstream science has explained alleged cases of EVP in such-and-such ways. As noted, this is false, and what has actually happened in the case of EVP is that a number of sceptical commentators (who may or may not have even investigated the topic) have pronounced on it negatively in a variety of general interest/advocacy magazines or websites. A further point being that many of these “sceptical” commentators openly admit to bias. For example, Robert Carroll of Skepdic openly acknowledges that his book “does not try to present a balanced account of occult subjects. If anything, this book is a Davidian counterbalance to the Goliath of occult literature. I hope that an occasional missile hits its mark…". While, Chris French (another oft quoted sceptic) says “I am biased in my approach to evidence relating to the paranormal…..I make no claim to be a neutral assessor of the evidence".

One problem here, then, is that these “sceptical” views are being put forward as the mainstream scientific view and any attempt to accurately identify these sources as non-mainstream science, or to tone down their rhetoric, is taken as pro-paranormal POV pushing. These views have their place in Wiki, but at present they are being fundamentally misrepresented as the result of careful scientific scrutiny when they are more like ideologically motivated armchair criticism.

This misrepresentation is ubiquitous. For example, Minderbinder claimed “parity of sources” re a major scientific dowsing experiment conducted and published by the German Ministry for Technology and Research with an article from the magazine of the advocacy group CSI(COP). Even though the German study concluded that a core of dowsing phenomena could be regarded as “empirically proven”, the Dowsing article stated baldly (on account of the CSI article) that dowsing had been subject to “scientific refutation”. My attempt to tone this down to say “the scientific evidence for dowsing is inconclusive” was immediately changed (please note, not by Minderbinder) to say “while serious scientists find no basis for Dowsing”. This type of thing goes on everywhere. Whenever any scientific evidence for any alleged paranormal or fringe-scientific topic exists it is written out almost entirely and the CSI/Skepdic analysis is provided. Nobody is claiming that in these cases we should write the article as if one or two experiments proved the case, but neither can we take the non-peer-reviewed articles from CSI to provide genuine scientific refutation. A middle-ground needs to be found here.

A further example of the elevation of “sceptical” views to the status of mainstream scientific consensus is evident in the List of Pseudosciences article. That article is split into two sections: the first dealing with topics specifically identified by mainstream scientific organisations as pseudoscientific; and the second dealing with topics identified by sceptical organisations as pseudoscientific. In the first section, however, we now have a number of topics sourced to “sceptical” organisations/individuals rather than mainstream scientific bodies. The way this has been done is to combine two online dictionary definitions to try to show that pseudoscience and paranormal are almost synonymous, then to find one (dubious) mainstream science source that may or may not say that anything paranormal is pseudoscientific given these defintions, then to find a variety of non-mainstream sources that say x, y, and z are paranormal, and then to conclude that we have mainstream scientific attribution for x, y and z being pseudoscience. This six-degrees-of-separation sourcing is disingenuous at best and yet those who dispute it are accused of playing at semantics! And all of this in the complete absence of the type of source that the article explicitly states is needed.

An additional point about that article is that it is set up in such a way that it almost certainly breaches NPOV. That is, it is set up such that all we need to identify something as pseudoscience is one single source. And so even if we have countless other (better) sources saying that thing is not pseudoscience we cannot use them because the article explicitly identifies one source as equaling a scientific consensus. What this means, in effect, is that undue weight has been written into the article itself - the article should in fact be called “Things that have been called pseudoscience by one group or another”, rather than the disingenuous “List of pseudosciences”. I cannot see how Wiki policy can allow for an article to be written in such a way as to deliberately exclude any competing views even if/where those views are in the majority.

Secondly, a number of the so-called sceptical editors have started to ask for almost impossible sources for any claim, however mundane, in order to cast doubt on anything associated with the paranormal. For example, in the EVP article we have not been allowed to write “Alexander MacRae, former voice-recognition consultant for NASA…” because we are unable to produce his contract with NASA from almost 40 years ago, or a NASA source outlining exactly the work he carried out. We have sourced this claim to (amongst other sources) a book by Professor David Fontana, Distinguished Visiting Fellow at Cardiff University. Despite the fact that Fontana is a noted academic whose specialist field covers transpersonal psychology, and therefore, in my opinion, makes him a perfectly reliable source for basic biographical information about people involved in that area, this has been used to suggest that nothing he says at all can be taken at face value, even where multiple other sources support these mundane points. Similarly, the well known tests that Konstantin Raudive took part in during the early seventies (that were the subject of several television programmes at the time and have been written about and referred to in numerous books – including Fontana’s) are not allowed to be described as if they actually took place. That is, the actual existence of tests themselves has to be described as a dubious claim made (up) by pro-paranormal authors. There is absolutely no doubt about the existence of the tests, nor who was involved in them, nobody has ever disputed any of it, but because the sceptical editors don’t like the fact that these tests took place (the results of which are never presented as proof-positive of EVP anyway but as merely the claims of those involved) the mere existence of the tests is disputed.

The point here is that there are countless examples of well sourced mundane details which are not paranormal in any way having to be written as if they are highly contentious extraordinary claims. This is being done to try to cast doubt not only on anything which supports the paranormal (which everyone agrees has to written cautiously) but also onto anything positive or credible about any event or person associated with a pro-paranormal position. One final example: it is well known that electronics expert Peter Hale (who supervised the Raudive tests) wrote to author Peter Bander saying he couldn’t explain what happened in the tests in normal physical terms. Now, Hale may be mistaken, but he did write the letter and that is what he said. We have numerous sources to support the point and in over 30 years nobody (outside the EVP discussion page) has ever disputed it. Yet we are only allowed to talk of this letter, if at all, in terms that strongly suggest that Bander is just making it up. As noted, this type of constant hedging and disputing of totally uncontested mundane facts (someone once worked for NASA; a letter was written) not only makes the article almost impossible to read but illegitimately casts doubt where none actually exists.

Thirdly, a number of sceptical editors have continually removed fact tags from articles - followed by a refusal to cite sources (or citing sources which in no way support the claim) - followed by threats of disruptive editing for merely placing the tags there. Again the List of Pseudosciences article provides copious examples of this. In addition, they have engaged in a significant amount of original research, for example, interpreting science/scientific papers which make no mention of EVP as providing explanations for the phenomenon and then citing those sources in support of their own ad hoc theorising. Davkal 13:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tom Butler

This is not about an editor misbehaving in Misplaced Pages. This is just a turf war between people who think these subjects should be honestly presented and people who are offended by any suggestion of something outside of mainstream science.

We asked early on that the articles in dispute be made as simple as possible to avoid problems of point of view. We asked that just the fact be included and without characterization. Instead, there is a large and aggressive skeptical contingent of Misplaced Pages editors who seem determined to use Misplaced Pages as a platform to denounce anything that they see as not mainstream.

As an example, the qualifications of MacRae are not important. The fact is that he conduced an EVP experiment and published his results in a journal. The experiment and results are the point. Who MacRae is or where he worked is just a red herring offered up by the skeptics to goad other editors into a fight. If the point is not acceptable for Misplaced Pages, then it should be left out. And ... we should use the same standard for all of the other points. In the end, I think we would have an article on which we can agree.

Because of the aggressiveness of the skeptical editors and the small number of "proponent" editors, it is easy to push the "proponents" into edit wars, in which the skeptics can play tag-team and appear to stand above the fray. What is unforgivable is that whoever is running Misplaced Pages, they are condoning these acts by their silence. Tom Butler 15:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I just reviewed the Dean Radin article(http://en.wikipedia.org/Dean_Radin), and what I saw was disgusting. Minderbinder, you were part of that and your leadership here, I have to think that you condoned the behavior of Kazuba. There is no reason to expect Radin to know Wiki rules and even less reason to think he would be passive while skeptics wrote whatever they wish about him and his work. You all were just using Misplaced Pages to write history the way you see it--the skeptical agenda again.

Look also at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Dradin where you will see that Kazuba was essentially tormenting Radin on his own talk page with endless demands for clarification of just about everything Radin has ever written. Kazuba was clearly looking for a good argument and had no reason to believe that Radin would kowtow to the demands of a person with no evident credentials to even make them seem like serious questions.

Radin has since been blocked because of conflict of interest editing--no surprise that he is now a new enemy of Misplaced Pages. Any business person knows that every customer that goes away angry drains growth from the business. If Misplaced Pages's operation is public supported, how long can it hope to have anybody but skeptics contribute when there is so much negative press?

I submit to the ArbCom committee that Minderbinder knew of and supported the treatment of Radin. I experienced essentially the same COI treatment from him, LuckyLouie and ScienceApologist. This is typical of the kind confrontation between paranormal "proponent" editors and skeptical editors. The skeptical editors are well organized, by the Radin article you can see that they are ruthless and they will say anything to win the point. This ArbCom does need to be about behavior, but disciplining people will not change the reasons this can happen in Misplaced Pages, it will only hurt well-meaning people. The rules need to be changed if anyone hopes to make Misplaced Pages work. Tom Butler 17:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Pjacobi

Please add me to the case, I'll expand my statement ASAP. Only this now: WikiProject Paranormal is used by some of its member to organize a faction in Misplaced Pages. It's coverage is not defined by a specific topic, but by a specific POV. E.g. AfDs like that on Dynamic_theory_of_gravity or Electrogravitics get announced there. Articles like Megalith and Homopolar generator get tagged by the project label. --Pjacobi 18:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

• Accept. Charles Matthews 18:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Accept to consider user conduct issues. Kirill Lokshin 02:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Accept to consider conduct issues. Paul August ☎ 02:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. --jpgordon 17:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin redirect

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

Involved parties

• PaddyM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Madmaxmarchhare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dekimasu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lordmontu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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 (0/5/0/0)

• Reject. Suggest speedy; not an arb case at all. --jpgordon 03:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Reject. Charles Matthews 18:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Decline. Content dispute. Paul August ☎ 02:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Decline; premature, content dispute, etc. Kirill Lokshin 02:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Decline as above. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's and Giovanni33

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

Involved parties

• John Smith's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notifying Giovanni33
• Notifying John Smith's

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)

• Reject. Try getting some more admins involved. I don't see this as Arbitration material. Charles Matthews 13:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Decline as premature. Please try a RfC. Paul August ☎ 22:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ngo Dinh Diem

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

Involved parties

• VnTruth (talk · contribs)
• Blnguyen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Sarvagnya (talk · contribs)

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

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.)

• RFM was only suggested; Blnguyen said on his talk page that he doesn't think this warrants a RFM yet. - Penwhale | 14:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• VnTruth was blocked today for 48 hours for 5 reverts within 24 hours on this article. Newyorkbrad 00:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

• Reject; content dispute; Mackensen (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Decline, content dispute. Kirill Lokshin 02:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Accept, consensus never trumps NPOV Fred Bauder 04:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Reject; content, and the recent note about mediation suggests this is anyway premature. Charles Matthews 16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Decline as content dispute. Paul August ☎ 23:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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? It's gone. --kingboyk 10:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
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)

Regarding #2 - why protect it? Is it being vandalized? Regarding #3, no, you don't get to see the IP logs; they're confidential -- see m:CheckUser policy. --jpgordon 04:45, 20 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

Clarification regarding block parole

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)

Clarification regarding Artaxiad and his armada of sockpuppets

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Artaxiad
• Artaxiad (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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". He currently as 17 known sockpuppets

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

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)

• Misplaced Pages arbitration
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee