Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:51, 25 July 2006 view sourceTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →Humus sapiens abuse of Administrative Power: Because of the size, statements by participants have been moved to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Humus sapiens← Previous edit Revision as of 11:13, 25 July 2006 view source Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →[]: Because of the size, statements by participants have been moved to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella.Next edit →
Line 467: Line 467:
:] :]
:et al :et al

==== Users who have attempted to defuse the situation ====

:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:et al

; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
:]
:] talk
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]
:]

; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
Several users, including at least two administrators, have attempted to mediate to no avail.

==== List of affected articles ====
*{{la|Mark Bourrie}}
*{{la|Warren Kinsella}}
*{{la|Pierre Bourque (journalist)}}
*{{la|Rachel Marsden}}
*{{la|Elizabeth May (environmentalist)}}

other editors feel free to add more, this is probably an incomplete list

==== Statement by {{user|RadioKirk}} ====
A long-running war has occurred over this page with one side (and his/her/their socks) attempting to paint this person in the best light possible and the other side (and his/her/their socks) attempting to paint him in the worst possible light. Attempts at mediation have been manifold and have met with only limited success. It is time for several accounts to be banned from this article and anything peripheral (including but not limited to ], who may be editing this article under different names).

==== Statement by Thatcher131 ====
'''My involvement''' I have not edited any of the articles in question. I became aware of the situation when a number of Canadian IP addresses vandalized ], adding slurs against Warren Kinsella.

'''The problem''' Warren Kinsella and Mark Bourrie are two Canadian bloggers/political figures who are in conflict in real life, including reciprocal threats of legal action. The dispute is spilling over into wikipedia, with tendentious editing, POV pushing and multiple 3RR violations on all sides. Unfortunately, most of the participants are anonymous IP addresses, so the only practical remedy (other than permanently semi-protecting the articles involved) may be to empower admins to block IP addresses that fit the pattern without having to warn 4 times and assume good faith.

*''']''' formerly edited as {{user|Mark Bourrie}}, changed his name to {{user|Ceraurus}}, who was then indef-blocked. A few days later, {{user|Arthur Ellis}} appeared, editing the same articles and pushing the same POV (pro-Bourrie and anti-Kinsella). The article ] has also been heavily edited by a number of IP addresses likely linked to Ellis. On July 5, ] posted links on his blog to ] and ], which described allegations that Arthur Ellis, was really Mark Bourrie. Immediately, a series of Canadian IP addresses began blanking the pages and posting slurs against Kinsella, so that readers of Kinsella's blog would see the slurs and not the sockpuppet allegations. Pro-Bourrie and anti-Kinsella IPs and socks continue to appear. See ]. Policy violations include ], ], ], ], ].

*''']''' The article ] has been edited from a highly negative POV by an IP user (different ISP than Arthur Ellis) who is probably Kinsella or a strong supporter.

*''']''' is a supporter of Kinsella and thus an opponent of Bourrie/Arthur Ellis. Ellis has alleged that {{user|Pete Peters}} (whose first edit was June 27) is really Bourque, but the checkuser request was ]. However, a different IP ''has'' made a number of hagiographic and personal edits to the article, suggesting that this IP may in fact be Bourque; this has led to more than one edit war between anonymous IPs representing the Bourrie side and the Bourque/Kinsella side.

'''Reply to Pete Peters''' I have not studied the situation any more thoroughly than the brief summary above and have no opinion on your identity or behavior, except that in general there has been a lot of edit warring on these articles from both sides. My comment on Mackensen's talk page was in reference to the anonymous IP addresses that began vandalizing ] after Kinsella linked to it on his blog (said vandalism coming, of course, from the anti-Kinsella side of the conflict).

'''Reply to JGGardiner''' I saw the notice on ANI regarding Peters and I agree it looked like Peters was trying to branch out to other areas and was being hounded by the same range of IPs that often make pro-Bourrie/Ellis and anti-Kinsella edits.

==== Statement by {{user|Fuhghettaboutit}} ====
My role in this matter was quite limited. Having noted the contention displayed by numerous, warring contributors to the page, and that some of that contention was specific to whether certain sources and information provided by those sources was proper or not, I hoped that converting the sources, then all embedded hyperlinks, to more transparent inline citations would have some ameliorative effect. I did so (along with a few minor stylistic changes) first and after the next reference addition failed to follow suit, again .

I have not followed the dispute in great detail but a review of the talk page today, including the two archives (], ]), shows great effort and patience by a number of users and admins to defuse the situation over more than six months. Despite these efforts, and after over 500 talk page posts, the page is at square one. shows how charged the page is and is likely to remain.

I leave it for the those more familiar with the active players to explore exactly who should and who should not be blocked from editing this and related articles, but given the active recent warring, blocks appear warranted and necessary.--] 00:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

==== Statement by {{user|Crzrussian}} ====
I originally came to be involved in the edit war over ] after reviewing and denying by ] against ]. Since then the edit war simmered on and off on the article talk page. The article was protected and unprotected a total of eight times. Arthur Ellis received two blocks from me, both for 24 hours, for 3RR violations. He's still serving the second block as I write these words. His sock, ] was indefblocked by me earlier today after RFCU results came back positive. Pete is serving a one-week block imposed today for sustained edit warring, a bad-faith AfD nomination (]) and repeated taunting of Arthur on the article talk page. Please note that I was only involved with these users insofar as ], and did not participate in settling their other edit wars over different articles. Arthur also nominated for CSD and AfD in bad faith previously. (e.g. ] etc.)

Both editors have a long history of personal attacks, many coming against myself recently. "Marie" also made unspecified legal-sounding threats against me, which are plainly scary.

I would like the ArbCom to ban these users and various Ottawa- and Toronto-based socks from editing any article relating to Kinsella/Bourrie/Bourque/Guite - I would be glad to help compile a list if this case is accepted.

I am sorry I did not bring this RfAr a lot earlier. It was a result of my unfamiliarity with and fear of this process, bourne out of my extreme aversion to wiki-politics. - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 02:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
:'''Re: the accusations of partiality towards Peters and against Ellis''', yes, I did initially treat Ellis more strictly, because he was the one intent on actively slandering Kinsella and Peters looked like he was defending the integrity of the article (this may or may not have been the case, but this was my goodfaith impression. As to the disparity in block lengths, Ellis' 24hr block was handed out earlier, before the RFCU came back, and only on the basis of 3RR. An another situation, I would have certainly extended it after the RFCU, but now that the RfAr has begun, I see no point. As to Peters' block: I continue to stand by it; the length was preëmptively explained; and I vigorously deny making it longer than normal in order to shield myself from allegations of partiality. - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 16:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
'''Reply to Arthur Ellis #2''': No, I did not "admit bias". I was, at all points, not biased, and have no dog in this fight. Also, I did not "stuff" any talk page comments into archives - I merely archived the talk page, preserving all the comments. You have a penchant for negative presumptions. - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 19:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

==== Statement by {{user|Geedubber}} ====
I first got involved with this when I noticed Pete Peters had accused Arthur Ellis of being Ceraurus/Mark Bourrie on the Mark Bourrie page. I told him that these were unacceptable edits and that RFCU was the correct place for those accusations. I myself had the same suspicions though, since Ellis' very first edit was to complain about the Ceraurus block. After two RFCU requests, the result came back inconclusive. Arthur Ellis then filed a revenge RFCU against Pete Peters(which was promptly denied). I noticed that Arthur Ellis had been block for 24hrs for edit-warring with Pete Peters on the Warren Kinsella page. The Kinsella page got protected so I went and found citations for everything so that nothing could be disputed and the page could be unprotected. The page got unprotected and was generally improved, but Arthur Ellis kept trying to add material with dubious sources, ie. kinsellasux.com (a website operated by Mark Bourrie). I would remove anything that wasn't sourced properly, and he almost got in an edit war with me. When I warned him that he was about to break 3RR again (and get blocked for a second time that week), he accused me of acting "dishonestly and maliciously". I reworked much of the Kinsella page trying to get a version that pleased both users. Arthur Ellis and Pete Peter got in an edit war again, the page got protected again, and I tried to work things out on the talk page. The page got unprotected and I made a version that they were both chill with.... and then the Ottawa IPs started attacking the page. It got protected again. Other pages that are involved in this whole thing are the ] and ] (both Kinsella related topics). Ellis repeatedly tried to list them for CSD even though numerous admins told him that AFD was the proper venue. During the AFD for those two pages numerous Magma IPs voted to delete. ] 05:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

'''Response to Statement by Arthur Ellis''': In Ellis's statment, he claims that he uses a Sympatico (Bell Canada) account to connect, but he even made that claim from a Magma IP] 19:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

::'''Response by Arthur Ellis''': First, I listed the Hot Nasties page in good faith in June for quick delete, and, after five days, it was, in fact, deleted. No one had read it or had objected. The page was re-posted a few days later by the original author. I had no reason, after the first delete, to change my mind that the page is a vanity listing with no readership.
::Geedubber did act dishonestly. I know that's a strong word, but, after looking at the talk page again, I stick to it.
::"Kinsellasux" is actually www.kinsellasux.blogspot.com. Mark Bourrie does operate in and posts archival newspaper stories on it. You can be sure that the material is accurately presented, since Kinsella would sue him if it was not.
::I have a Sympatico account. It's possible that in Ottawa, Sympatico owns Magma or some other corporate action goes on. No matter how much Geedubber would like to think this proves something, it doesn't.] 19:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

==== Statement by {{user|Yanksox}} ====
My limited experience in this dispute has only been really on the Kinsella talk page attempting to resolve this aggressive disagreement. I have seen the actions of specifically Ellis and Peters take their action on other pages and belligerently attack each other, the subjects of articles and other users. Their behavior is persistent and it appears that they are editing with an agenda, no approachable middle ground has made itself clearly visible and within reach. The situation has extended so far out with minor meticulous edits with different sources and alterations of POV. The current dispute is also extremely concerning due to the fact that users are stating that the main editors ''involved'' in the dispute are influenced by outside circumstances, causing a severe conflict of interest. This massive revert war has spread out too far and outside intervention is needed to put it to a halt. ]] 11:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


==== Statement by {{user|Arthur Ellis}}====

No effort was made at mediation or any other dispute resolution. Two admins, one of whom admits his bias against me (for "slandering" Kinsella with sourced material -- I challenge him to find anything I posted that was not sourced) and another who does not admit bias, but should, have been involved in this dispute. When consensus was achieved on the article -- July 1 and July 8 -- admin crazyrussian actually allowed Peters to dismantle the consensus version. He was also allowed to keep raising issues and straw men, then refusing to provide any proof of his allegations that the article was incomplete or improperly sourced. Here's a sample of that kind of activity: . He would create work, ignore the result, and attack the article again. This is ''very'' clear in the talk page and the edits for those dates. Crazyrussian very quickly stuffed them into archives, but they survive.

I edited on Misplaced Pages for about a month before I ever saw the Kinsella page. I added quite a bit of material to entries on history, transportation and geography without any edit warring or reversions.

I found myself drawn into the controversy after reading the Kinsella entry and seeing that it was, originally, a vanity project to promote Kinsella and in related pages, his band and his book, Party Favours. I, along with a couple of other posters, sourced and wrote a more accurate section on Kinsella's role in the lead-up to the Sponsorship Scandal. It was constantly reverted and rewritten, often by an IP that once actually said it was Kinsella (giving permission to use a photo) to downplay Kinsella's role in this, admittedly, complicated ad contract scheme. The "sponsorship scandal" cost Canadian taxpayers $100 million in graft and kickbacks, and resulted in the national Liberal Party being disgraced and defeated this year.
After my first edits of the Kinsella piece, ] registered and immediately began vandalizing the ] entry (his first post), trolling my edits, posting sock puppet tags on my talk page, and, everywhere he could, tried to discredit my edits by saying I was a sock puppet for a Misplaced Pages editor whose account is indefintely blockled because of a revert war with ] and, (ironically), ].

We got into edit warring on several pages, and my behaviour was sometimes reprehensible. I did work with a couple of people in Ottawa through IPs to try to keep the sourced and complete Kinsella entry. I did use some IPs as socks in this dispute, but I was not the only one. I wish I had not acted that way, but I believe it is important for Misplaced Pages to be factual. I also believe that Pete Peters both registered and acted in bad faith, goaded me, and got quite good at pushing my buttons. I believe he was also very good, at least for a while, at currying favor with Misplaced Pages admins, especially Crzrussian and Radiokirk, who both adopted his cause.

I believe I never initiated personal attacks. I did, however, respond aggressively to repeated (and repeated and repeated) provocations by Pete Peters and, to a lesser extent, JCCurrie and Geedubber. In the discussion, which I hope you will read, I ask them time and again to deal with facts of the entry -- each of which was sourced -- and discuss the points they believe are wrong, but, from Peters, I got personal abuse. CrazyRussian, believing, as he says, that I was "slandering" (in print it's called libel, but, hey, who's a lawyer around here?) Kinsella, simply ignored my arguments, reverted my changes, and help set me up for 3RR. As well, he, along with RadioKirk, ignored all the complaints I made to them on their user pages about Peters and anonymous IPs trolling talk pages and edit summaries saying I was Mark Bourrie. Here, ] takes up Ellis' cause re: the Kinsella page and trolls/outs me on Crazyrussian's talk page: Nothing was ''ever'' done to control this trolling/outing. As well, they refused to block Peters when I pointed out he had broken the 3RR.
::::No, Arthur, only the last line was RadioKirk's. The comment you're complaining about was left by {{user|61.35.176.151}} - <b>]</b><small> ]/]</small> 03:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the talk pages for these two admins to see how they dealt with Peters and me. In both cases, the admins and Peters worked very amiably indeed. Crazyrussian touches on this very lightly, when, in fact, a review of the Warren Kinsella talk pages, especially after July 1, shows how blatant this was. Radiokirk was repeatedly informed of Peters' harassment Radiokirk actually coached Peters on ways to make Bourrie (believing it was me) look bad in the Kinsella article (see their talk page discussions of July 3) while at the same time refusing to stop Peters from, essentially, gutting the entry.

I want to stress that the Wiki article on Kinsella, as it stands now, is properly sourced and is accurate. Geedubber is disengeneous when he says some material came from "kinsellasux.blogspot.com". This material was, in fact, Lexis Nexis printouts of articles from major Canadian newspapers assembled as an archive by the poster. He knew very well that was the case, reverted a version of the entry that used one of these articles, then goaded me by saying my reverts were used up. I then called him dishonest, and I still do believe he was.

On July 1, and on July 8, various posters worked out compromises on the Kinsella page. It took about a day, with the help, mainly, of crazyrussian. Both times, Peters flounced at the first sign of compromise, then came back and changed the compromise version of the article. What was more aggravating, though, was that crazyrussian, who had obviously (until July 18) adopted Peters' cause, not only allowed this to happen but also ran interference for him.

As for the Bourrie AfD, not a single IP voted on it before crzrussian had the good sense to (finally) shut it down. One IP did post that Bourrie had some 86,000 Google hits, after Peters posted that Bourrie had no profile at all on Google .
As for "Marie Tessier", the checkuser came back "likely", not, as crzrussian says, positive. I don't know how they came to this decision. It is certainly not through IP checks. I take it she (it) and I edited several pages in common. I think everyone involved in the Kinsella fight did. Maybe she was an onlooker. I don't know.

I have a Sympatico (Bell Canada) account. Bell and a Canadian cable company, Rogers, split the high-speed business in my city of 1 million people. They use extremely fluid IPs. Mine changes every hour or two. I don't believe there's any way, other than a bizarre coincidence, that Tessier and I have the same IP. We certainly did not have the same IP number at the same time. There may be "blocks" of Sympatico IPs in Ottawa. They would be very large blocks indeed, tens of thousands of IP numbers.
Blocking all Ottawa Sympatico IPs, as has been suggested, would put half of Canada's capital off Misplaced Pages.

I don't really care whether I'm on Misplaced Pages anymore. I must say it has been an unpleasant, unfulfilling experience. I volunteered my time, talent and expertise, and I took a lot of abuse. I also became angry enough to give abuse back, and the experience makes me ill. I do hope you will look at the various versions of the listing and look at the sourcing and decide for yourselves which one is best.

I did a WHO IS on the IP that has posted several threats on the Mark Bourrie entry, including one today (re: his membership in the Canadian press gallery; sending derogatory material to his thesis supervisors, etc):

IP Address : 207.35.190.72

ISP : Bell Canada

Organization : Pollara

Location : CA, Canada

City : Toronto, ON m5r1c1

CustName: Pollara

Address: 101 Yorkville, Suite 301

City: Toronto

StateProv: Ontario

PostalCode: M5R 1C1

Country: CA


This is the address of Warren Kinsella's office.


Also interesting that Crazyrussian would block Pete Peters partly for bad faith AfD of ] after Crazyrussian and Peters had this discussion on the ] discussion page:


'''''Merge Debate'''
I was wondering should we just Merge the Mark Bourrie entry as a paragraph in the WK entry? ] 01:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


Put up the template and we'll see. ] 01:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not too sure how to do it. But thank you Arthur for deleting my question on the Mark Bourrie discussion page. ] 02:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


Well, if outing Misplaced Pages editors is your bag, perhaps you should tell us all about yourself. If you think people really want to see the Bourrie and Kinsella pages merged, go ask one of your admin pals to do it for you. Or quit making mischief.] 02:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? ] 02:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I should re-phrase. Without Kinsella, Bourrie would have never gotten a wiki entry. My point is not to merge the two, but to make Bourrie a paragraph in the Kinsella entry. ] 02:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Put Bourrie up for deletion, then. ] 02:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Use <nowiki>{{mergeto|Warren Kinsella}}</nowiki> - ] talk/email 03:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)''
] 20:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
-------------------------------------------------------------------


:Any suggestion that I knowingly "coached" anyone into anything other than mutual cooperation and ] is quickly demonstrated ridiculous. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 07:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

::All I ask the arbitrators to do is read the talk pages and look at the evolution of these pages. You will find nothing but abuse heaped on Bourrie and on me. You will see a very clear pattern of bias by the three admins, obvious conflict of interest, encouragement, or, at the very least, toleration of Peters' trollings, accusations and attempted outings. Most frustrating to me, you will see their complete and utter focus on personality and complete and utter lack of concern regarding actually sourcing and writing complete and accurate entries. If Peters and I are blocked from editing these articles, so should all of the people involved in this dispute -- admin and non-admin alike. I think the best thing for Misplaced Pages is a new group of non-Canadian editors work on these pages to make them accurate. ] 14:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

==== Statement by ] ====
:(Currently blocked, copied from ] by Thatcher131)

MY STATEMENT, it is long, but being a primary sunject in this dispute, I believe that it is just to be this long

Hello all Wikipedians!!! Who here would like to nominate me as an Administrator? Okalay Doke.

Let me start off by saying that as a new user, I wasn't too sure how the whole Wiki culture worked. When harsh words were used against me, I fought back with similar words. Which was wrong. Since I had never experienced an exchange between two users before, I thought this was the norm. As I got more involved with Misplaced Pages, I changed my tone to match the community spirit.

<b>The issue I have is that one person and his anon IPs should not be allowed to dominate the ] or ] with a clear POV, and IMO to simply settle a personal dispute. </b> That is the issue, and I have long argued that I would become scarce if Arthur Ellis and his anon IPs would simply stop contributing to the page altogether.

IMO this article was coveted by one individual, who would bully people with opposing view by editors. . Further more, who I had thanked for saving my page from vandalism, became victim of similar attacks by an annon user from Ottawa, and if you read his talk page, you can see the result. (Please note that the comments made against him have been deleted from the record.)

As for accusing Arthur of being a sock of Cereaus, I later stopped that, as it became obvious that Misplaced Pages Admin would not sanction such behaviour. Thus I did improve my behaviour, and began to move onto other things. (But I now see that everyone else is saying that Arthur is a sock puppet, from a RFCU that had very little evidence.)

If one accuses me of Bad faith regarding the AFD of the ] entry, they may be right in that regards. I did this as a sting operation, my goal was to illustrate the Sock Puppet antics by Ottawa based IPs who would flood the page in an attempt to Keep it. It was gaining steam, until CrazyRussian closed the debate.

You will notice that when the Warren Kinsella or Pierre Bourque entries were not protected, I made little to no edits on those pages. I believed that if Anon IPs wanted modify the page, then let them do the work. But once the page was protected, I stepped in, I reverted the Gomery Inquiry to an anon IPs version, which I thought was better suited. Please read the ] entry, which I never mentioned before, because of a suspicion that this page would be possessed by Arthur Ellis. Please read the entry, and note that Warren Kinsella is regarded as an outsider looking in. There is no justification to finger him, when he was never under investigation by the RCMP.

I have always said that I would leave this page altogether, if Arthur Ellis and anon Ottawa based IPs could do the same, to no avail. I was also the victim of attacks, on my user and talk page. This is a must read, . Okay this goes on, but please read this IPs history, the comments placed next to each edit were harsh to say the least. Most of this, I tried to take in stride, but making a comment about my father is something I take offence too. Especially when I am so proud of my father, who is working on a new mini-hubble liked telescope. Who has been invited by NASA to grade the performance of their new space telescopes. You should also note that after this user was blocked at 20:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC), Arthur Ellis made a Wikibreak statement soon after at 20:41, 12 July 2006, 9 minutes later. Then disappeared for 6 days, and only reemerged after disputed pages were semi-protected.

Now as for this statement made above by CrazyRussian, "<i>Both editors have a long history of personal attacks, many coming against myself recently.</i>" For the record, I have never made a personal attack against CrazyRussian, and I he will confirm that.

And for this satement made by Thatcher131 . I would like a clarification, and his ensurance that he was not referring to me, Pete Peters as being Warren Kinsella himself. I would have no qualms to tesify on Warren Kinsella's behalf that he is not Pete Peters. The same goes for any statement regarding Pierre Bourque being Pete Peters.

<b>
And let me be perfectly clear, I have not used anon IPs as socks ever. About a half dozen times or so, I have forgotten to sign in. This by no means merits proof that I use sock puppets. I beg you to do a thorough checkuser investigation, which will ultimately exonerate me of any sock puppet actions.</b> I can understand if there are any suspicions, because I reverted to some anon IP versions. It is just I believed those edits better suited the article.

In regards to CrazyRussian taking sides, I would not dispute this claim made by Arthur Ellis. I believe that I was given a week block by CrazyRussian to save his intregity, which I obliged and do not disagree with. His commendable career with Misplaced Pages should not be jeopardized over a simple tiff. So I would move him from the category <b>Users who have attempted to defuse the situation</b> to <b> Involved Parties</b>.

However, RadioKirk never took sides, and he should be exonerated from such accusations.

Please feel free to block me, and Arthur Ellis, along with a range block from Magna IP from Ottawa, along with IPs from the National Library of Canada like ]. And please note that I did not tag this page.
:*<b>Response to ]</b> The reason why I do not dispute Arthur's claim is simple. His behaviour was clearly far worse than mine, and thus you were more strict with him. ] 15:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
:*<b>Response to ]</b> I don't understand how you can make such statements against me, when you were away for such a long time. Making libelous innuendos that I might be one of the entries in dispute here, leads me to believe that you have ulterior motives behind your statement. Perhaps you should do your homework and read this before making such innuendos. My issue has always been, that one user should not be allowed to dominate one page. (Please see "") My sole purpose wasn't to provoke Arthur Ellis, buddy. I do admit to making one edit on ] entry, as an anon IP, BUT it was before I ever created an account. I have zero interest in the Marsden entry, and I am wondering if you are just trying to kick Arthur Ellis when he is down all the while taking shots at me. I have never used any socks, I have never colluded with any anon IP to be my meatpuppet, I think collusion requires premeditiation. So please do your homework before making any accusations.] 15:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

==== Statement by {{user|JGGardiner}} ====
I’d watchlisted the Kinsella article some time ago. In late June, I noticed an edit summary from Peters "PISS OFF MARK BOURIE". I had some familiarity with Kinsella so I thought that I could help calm things in the discussion. By the time I began on the talk page, Peters was quiet and it seemed like Ellis was simply being hard to rather than disruptive, disputing every insertion from the other editors. I ended up working more on the Bourrie article, where the same (Ellis-Peters) dispute had carried over. I’d note that while the Kinsella article is now protected and quiet, the same problem continues on the Bourrie article. This morning I removed anti-Bourrie vandalism and note that Magma IPs continue to change the lawsuit section and add vanity material.

While the article was protected, after July 3, I noticed that Peters moved on to other articles but was hounded by anonymous editors and had all of his edits reverted without explanation. I asked for help for Peters at ANI. Ellis appears to use the same Magma IP range, which is apparent from this post, where Ellis re-signs a post made by an IP the previous minute.At the same time, there were AfDs with other articles related to Kinsella begun by Ellis. It seemed like everything had been patched up at the Kinsella article when it was unprotected but the edit wars just continued and were accompanied by the outrageous talk comments. Crzrussian in particular took a lot of abuse. So did HistoryBA, a good editor who seems to have stopped editing for the moment because of this whole mess. The same range of IP’s also caused a lot of trouble at other articles, for example an edit war at ] (re-inserting vandalism calling May fat), causing that article to be protected as well.

The responsible editors and admins at work here tried to focus on the content which was objected to. It seemed like things were smoothed over with each issue but I feel now that the objections were not about particular content per se (other than the lawsuit) but were rather about particular editors. My contributions with Kinsella were mostly to ask people to remain civil, articulate their concerns, and to resolve the disputes through discussion. Unfortunately they only wanted to discuss each other. --] 19:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

====Statement of {{user|Bucketsofg}}====
There have been four pages involved in these on-going and endemic revert and flame wars: ] (which I have been involved in), ], ], ]. The participants, it seems, are one or more of these people and their ] and/or meat-puppets. The strife, as far as I can see it, involves two sides, which is possibly only one individual each.
*Mark Bourrie, who has published under his own name {{Userblock|Mark Bourrie}}, as {{Userblock|Ceraurus}}, {{Userblock|Isotelus}}, a host of Ottawa IPs that resolve to Magma Communications (64.26.128-191.xxx; 69.20.224-239.xxx; 206.191.0-63.xxx; 209.217.64-127.xxx), a small portion of which are listed above. (He threatens to use IPs for maximum disruption : "Fuck you. My IP changes every six hours. I'll be back. I will cause as much Misplaced Pages trouble as I can!") He also seems to have used {{Userblock|Marie Tessier}} as a sock (see ], implying that there are more socks to come).
**A user-check (]) implies that {{Userblock|Mark Bourrie}} and {{Userblock|Arthur Ellis}} and {{Userblock|Marie Tessier}} are "likely" the same person. (In the absence of absolute proof, I'm inclined to assume that Arthur Ellis is someone close to Bourrie, but not Bourrie himself: their "styles" are different.)
*] who seems to have been an account created mostly in order to provoke Bourrie. He may be one of the subjects in the articles under contention or associated with one of them.

Some solutions to be considered:
#Mark Bourrie = Ceraurus = Isotelus = Marie Tessier is currently under an indefinite block; Arb Comm should perhaps set a defined period.
#user Pete Peters and Arthur Ellis should be banned from the four pages under contention and warned not to engage one another
#these four pages should be semi-protected since Bourrie, based in Ottawa, regularly forces an IP address reset from Magma Communications, his IP provider.
#in order to prevent Bourrie and/or Pete Peters from creating new accounts to rejoin the fight after five days, the Arb Committee should probably pre-authorize user-checks on new, disruptive accounts that edit these four pages, with the understanding that any trollishness, vandalism, or disruption coming from the IP addresses identified above will be blocked as presumed sock-puppets
#National Library IP ({{Userblock|142.78.64.58}}) address should be indefinitely blocked (Bourrie admits to using it ], and looking at its contributions, no one uses it to edit wikipedia except him).
'''
'''Response by ]'''
::First, Bucketsofg has his own agenda on the ] page. Bucketsofg, as blogger "Buckets of Grewal", has been conducting his own off-Misplaced Pages campaign against former Canadian MP Germant Grewal, and has helped edit Marsden's page into an attack article, despite misgivings by Jimbo Wales put on the talk pages in 2005. Marsden was a former employee of Grewal's. Bucketsofg, ] (who, on his talk page, says he is a member of the left-of-center NDP) and ] (see below) have worked very hard to keep the Marsden entry as negative as possible and have reverted and blocked any signs of change to this incredibly negative bio.
::I wrote the present Marsden version, which is far lee nasty than all previous ones. To see it in its former glory, go back to a January version, where she's described as being fired from her job, and her father is mentioned as a child mollester. Bucketsofg has consistently protected and co-authored versions in which she is portrayed as a liar. .
::Something to remember: Bourrie (in his incarnations), a new member, always attempted to take attack-negative-cruel material ''off'' the Marsden page, not, like the three admins mentioned above, ''add'' it. He was accused and punished for vandalism and blanking for doing so by admins who ignored the Misplaced Pages policy regarding biographies of living people. He knew Marsden had moved to a new city and started a new job. The Marsden page is proof that sourced material, especially from newspapers, can be strung together to create an entry that is an embarrasment to Misplaced Pages.
::Second, blocking me and Peters from the pages does nothing to prevent Warren Kinsella (through IPs) from continuiing to post on both the Mark Bourrie (as I showed above, he posts on that page from his office IP) and the Kinsella page.
::Third, blocking the National Library of Canada would be rather radical. If you read Bucketsofg's footnote 111, you'll see Bourrie does ''not'' admit to using the National Library computer. He says someone did reverts from there, and says it's not his personal computer.
And, well, the National Library of Canada is the ''National Library of Canada'' (and also the Public Archives of Canada. Someone there might want to post something useful to Misplaced Pages.] 22:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

====Statement by Mackensen====
Good evening. I stand by the Checkuser results and am prepared to answer private queries from the Arbitration Committee. I strongly dispute Arthur Ellis's characterization of the findings, which I regard as fairly conclusive. Cheers, ] ] 02:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


==== Clerk notes ==== ==== Clerk notes ====
: Because of the size, statements by participants have been moved to ]. --] 11:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
: (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)
==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/1/0) ==== ==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/1/0) ====
* Accept. ]·] 16:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC) * Accept. ]·] 16:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:13, 25 July 2006

Shortcut
  • ]

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom).

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four accept votes are cast. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or clerk may do so.

See also


Purge the server cache


How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

  • Click the "" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;
  • Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
  • Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
  • Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
  • Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

Harassment and Wiki-stalking

Involved parties

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

Other Editors Notified

User:A_Man_In_Black
User:Coredesat
User:Fabartus
User:JChap2007
User:JzG
User:KickahaOta
User:Kim Bruning
User:Martinp23
User:MichaelZimmer
User:Nae'blis
User:Pascal.Tesson
User:The_Thadman
User:Will_Beback
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Discussion: Informal Mediation: Formal Mediation:

Statement by party 1

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

Statement by party 2

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Statement by KickahaOta

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

Clerk notes

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

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


Tabriz Rugs

Involved parties

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

Jump to: navigation, search To the administrator.

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

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

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

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by party 1

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

Statement by party 2

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

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

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

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

NPR

Parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
MSTCrow - MSTCrow 02:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by party 1

User ideogram has repeatedly blanked a section of the NPR article without giving any reason, and has recieved vandalism warnings. He has also worked to destroy the mediation process in NPR's talk, to the point that the agreed upon stage suggested by the mediator had been reached, but ideogram dismissed it and continued an ongoing flame-war, despite he was not part of the mediation party. Calton has repeatedly blanked sections of the NPR article only calling it "propaganda." User calton was warned twice with the "be civil" tag, and once with the "vandalism" tag. He has found a sympathetic admin to ignore his acts of vandalism and incivility, where the admin then threatened me, despite the fact the admin was not at all familar with WP:Vandalism.

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

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

Statement by User:Calton

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

Statement by User:Ideogram

I note that User:MSTCrow has stated his intention to leave Misplaced Pages, so I will not comment unless he changes his mind. --Ideogram 03:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 5

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

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

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

Deir Yassin

Involved parties

User:KimvdLinde
User:Guy Montag
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Guy Montag
Confirmations of the case are also posted at the pages of SlimVirgin, FrancisTyers, Ral315 and Briangotts.
Notification of the case is also posted at the Dier yassin massacre article talk page
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Violation of probation, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Guy_Montag. Ban's in this case have been applied twice and lifted twice.

Statement by KimvdLinde

Guy Montag has seriously violated his probation with the rewrite of the Deir Yassin massacre article, which was serious biased editing using a denialist piece of work (Deir Yassin: History of a Lie, March 9, 1998 © 2000 The Zionist Organization of America, copies here and here), copyright violations from various websites and subsequent votestaking to prevent correction of this problem.
  • Unilateral page move from common name to hardly used name , evidence based on google in this section, and after that for google books etc.
  • Total rewrite , disputed Talk:Deir_Yassin_massacre#Total_Rewrite
  • Votestacking to prevent move back: opposed, opposed, opposed, opposed, opposed.
  • Extensive copyvio: http://www.kimvdlinde.com/wikipedia/Deir_Yassin_Copyright_violation.doc, primarily from Deir Yassin: History of a Lie, March 9, 1998 © 2000 The Zionist Organization of America (copies here and here).
  • Possibly whitewash, but at least biased editing. Page tries to difuse the massacre (opposite of the view of the main historians (Milstein, Morris and related), by selective quoting of Milstien (Guy claimed to have used the official english translation, however, all page numbers are in the 200's, which is the Hebrew version, the English version goes in the 300's). Furthermore, teh rewrite is suggesting that credible historians like Benny Morris make exagerated claims of number of deaths and atrocities: Nonetheless, some historians, such as Benny Morris, and eye witness accounts have claimed that certain of these allegations were carried out after the battle, while other eyewitness accounts claim the contrary., after which no reputable historian is quoted saying this, but a collage of selectively used quotes is used to illustrate the point. I fact, Morris and Milstein are remarkebly detailed and nuanced, but do conclude that there was a massacre. The battle at DY is completly unmportant from a military point; it is the massacre and the far reaching effect that it had on the independence war, as well as on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem that is the core of this historical event. Reducing this to a battle only and trying to deny the massacre is a whitewash. (See older version ).
I plead guilty of moving a page on which I was myself marginally involved by starting a poll to get the page moved back to the more common name and voted in support for that. The rational for the move was posted at WP:AN/I, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Battle_of_Deir_Yassin.2FDeir_Yassin_massacre:_move_poll_closure_review_requested here and the analysis and conclusion was considered valid and was moved back accordingly by an uninvolved admin . Uninvoled admins told me that I should have not moved it myself as I was involved. -- Kim van der Linde 13:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
If I am correct, than Fred Bauder has added this already to the other case I am involved in, see his comment at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid/Workshop#Administrators_admonished and the proposed decision Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid/Proposed_decision#Administrators_admonished. -- Kim van der Linde 21:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


As for the claim that Guy is banned from the article, that is currently not the case, and the on/ off with the banning is the main reason to ask a decision from the ArbCom in this case so that clarity can be gained. -- Kim van der Linde 00:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
To add, he just added some of the copyrighted info back in the article. -- Kim van der Linde 01:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The statements of various others suggest a recuring problem, if you revert a move it is ok, but when you use DR tools, you are suddenly bound because 'you are involved', or similar arguments, especially when there has been votestaking or related (while you can be just as invokved etc when you just revert, the basis of revert warring). So, this basically suggests that just reverting is a better thing to do than using dispute resolution tools. A quite contradictory situation, and it might be a good thing to get clarity in this. In a sense, this is quite similar to the Israeli apartheid case. -- Kim van der Linde 05:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I am currently documenting the changes from the pre-Guy version, to his version, and how they are represented in the actuall relevant literature.
As for the sequence of events, with the banning and unbanning, let me show this:

In a short time, Guy gets banned twice under his probation, and unbanned twice as well, of which one is not by a neutral admin.

This back and forth between banning promted me to come here, as I think that the questions whether Guy needs to be banned from the article let alone in a wider context, can not be carried out by the normal processes as that seem to result in sequences of banning and unbanning. -- Kim van der Linde 15:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Montag

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

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

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

Statement by FrancisTyers ·

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

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

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

Statement by Leifern ·

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

Statement by Ral315

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

Statement by Bibigon

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

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

Statement by Briangotts

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

Statement by Gatoclass

I fully support KimvdLinde's move to have Guy Montag's status as a Wiki editor reviewed.

About three weeks ago, I became aware of Guy Montag's unilateral rewrite and renaming of the Deir Yassin article (from "Deir Yassin massacre" to "Battle of Deir Yassin"). Guy's actions precipitated a long wrangle about the appropriateness both of his edits and the page move. When a straw poll was held on the page rename, Guy then engaged in votestacking to try and get the result he desired, as Kim has outlined in her submission.

Guy's original probation was for inappropriate, POV editing of Israel-Palestine pages. I therefore assume that it's relevant to this case to review the nature of his edits on the Deir Yassin page, as well as his apparent deceptions.

To illustrate the POV nature of Guy's edits, I note that the article he mostly borrowed from, the ZOA's article denying the existence of the massacre, itself confirms the marginal nature of its own case when it concedes that A total of 170 English-language history books which refer to the battle of Deir Yassin were analyzed for this study. Only 8 of the 170 raised serious doubts as to whether or not there had been a massacre.. Of those 8 sources, the ZOA could apparently not find a single quote challenging the massacre that they deemed worthy of inclusion in their article. Instead, they rely almost totally on Milstein, who himself, as far as I am aware, has never made an outright denial either. Yet Guy's rewrite is based largely on the ZOA's denialist piece and on the quotes from Milstein the ZOA provided.

In Guy's rewrite, testimony describing the massacre itself was either marginalized or, more frequently, simply eliminated from the article, while the event was recast as a battle in which a large number of civilians were inadvertently killed. Of fifteen eyewitness accounts of the massacre which were included in the previous version of the article, only five on my count survived Guy's rewrite - and one of them is included in such a way as to make it sound like a massacre denial. In addition, Guy included eyewitness accounts too numerous to mention, mostly from the alleged perpetrators, which cast doubt on the massacre. The few eyewitness accounts of the massacre that did survive Guy's rewrite are hedged with opposing views which weaken their impact.

Another way of evaluating Guy's alterations is to look at the number of section headings dealing with the massacre in the prior version compared to Guy's. In the prior version, of 21 section and subsection headings, 11 of them deal with the massacre. In Guy's version, of 20 section and subsection headings, a mere one deals with the massacre, and that is followed by a section entitled "Counter claims" in which the previous section is debunked.

A third method is to look at the percentage of the article devoted to the massacre in each version. The earlier version devotes 8 out of 27 screen pages to the massacre (excluding footnotes etc), or about 30% in total. Guy's rewrite by contrast, devotes just one screen page out of 20 to the massacre, or about 5%. Essentially, Guy's version restricts accounts of the massacre to a single paragraph. Bear in mind that according to the ZOA's own testimony, a mere 8 out of 170 books they reviewed, or about 5%, cast doubt on the massacre. Guy's rewrite then, effectively reversed those proportions. The POV nature of his rewrite could hardly be more starkly revealed.

Having done some prior reading about the historical event in question, the heavily POV nature of Guy's rewrite was immediately apparent to me when I first read it. However, although I had a strong impulse to simply revert, I did not do so out of respect for what I believed to be a thorough amount of research and effort on Guy's part. At the same time I could see it was going to be a long and difficult struggle to try and integrate his material into a more NPOV format.

A few days ago, FrancisTyers posted that he'd found some copyvio's in Guy's edit, which apparently originated from a partisan political website. Kim then did some further research and found multiple copyvio's. It turns out that what I had supposed to be thorough and dedicated research on Guy's part was little more than an extended cut-and-paste job from a handful of pro-Israeli internet sites, with a bit of massaging and rearrangement of the text to lend it a patina of originality.

In my opinion, Guy's transgression is further exacerbated by the way he attempted to pass off his rewrite as having been made directly from the source material, rather than the shabby cut-and-paste copyvio it was. When we began to ask him for some more quotes from his primary source Milstein, he claimed that he had returned the book to the local library and couldn't provide them. When Kim finally went and borrowed a copy of the book herself, and found discrepancies in the page numbering, Guy was completely unable to explain them. Note his failure to respond to her comment here.

What Guy did was waste three weeks of everybody's time as his contentious edits initiated a long wrangle on the talk page over their appropriateness and veracity. To find out after all that expended time and effort that his edits were merely an episode of plagiarism, was quite exasperating. I think his behaviour was disrespectful of his fellow Wiki users. I feel particularly deceived because in good faith I had declined to revert Guy's edits on the basis of his meticulous research, only to discover that his research was a sham.

In his defence, I'm not going to accuse him of either bad faith or unpleasantness. Quite possibly, he genuinely believes his edit was NPOV, though I'm sure that few objective observers would agree. Also, he has always maintained civility on the talk page. However, I think that his deceptions, his copyvio's, and his violation of the terms of his probation certainly deserve some sort of disciplinary action over and above merely banning him from the page in question. It's for that reason I have added my opinion to this page. Gatoclass 12:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

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

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

Statement by Huldra

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

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

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

Clerk notes

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

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

Sarner

Involved parties

user:DPeterson filed by this user.

user:Sarner Harasses me, makes false accusations, recently posted "vandalism" on my user talk page without any basis.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
user:Sarner has been warned by others and previous mediation failed and resulted in his "soft-ban" from Bowlby page and ban from editing Barrett page.
Yes, but did you tell him of this RfAr? Morgan Wick 18:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Sarner has shown no desire to develop consensus or to collaborate. Several mediators and an advocate have been involved in the prior dispute on the Bowlby page. Several other editors have also been the victim of his attacks.

Statement by DPeterson

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

Statement by party 2

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

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

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

Intangible

Involved parties

User:Cberlet
User:Intangible
Summary of case

Intangible engages in:

  1. Reverting with little or no serious discussion
  2. Making sweeping edits and deletions with misleading subject lines
  3. Contentious and confrontational discussion page interactions
  4. Walking editors in circles on discussion pages
  5. Idiosyncratic use of language and translations
  6. Attempts to revise Misplaced Pages categories citing obscure minority-view scholarship to reflect narrow POV
  7. Revising articles citing obscure minority-view scholarship to reflect narrow POV
  8. Sanitizing articles about right-wing groups and their ties to the far right and neofascism
  9. POV pushing through wholesale deletion of the term "far right" from numerous pages

Seeking sanctions to block further editing by Intangible of articles involving the Political Left and Political Right, or other less severe sanctions deemed appropriate.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

User:Cberlet (filed by this editor)
User:Intangible

Other Editors Notified

LucVerhelst
WGee
AaronS
Dahn
Tazmaniacs
Vision Thing

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Requests for Comment for Talk:Fascism and Talk:Nazism here; Talk:Cultural Marxism here; Talk:Nouvelle_Droite here

Mediation declined at Neo-fascism here; Fascism here; Nouvelle_Droite here; Cultural Marxism here.

Statement by Cberlet (talk · contribs)

Intangible is an aggressive and confrontational editor with an idiosyncratic POV and a combative style that is contentious and very disruptive. Intangible deletes whole sections of articles with little or no serious discussion: Neo-fascism here. Intangible performs unreasonable deletions to POV push: here, here, here, here.

Intangible has launched a campaign or Renaming/Deleting Categories in POV way here, here, here, here, here, here.

In a short time Intangible has lined up a number of editors who are frustrated with the situation (see below). I note that Intangible has been blocked for 3RR here. Also, Intangible edits in a tag team fashion with User:Vision_Thing, see here and here.

The discussion on the page Nouvelle_Droite is an example of dubious translation and language issues, using an obscure cite to challenge majority scholarship, POV pushing, and arguing in circles. See: here.

Intangible engages in rapid-fire discussions on multiple pages, frequently declaring there is a consensus when none exists or that there is no discussion, has the same debate on multiple pages with multiple editors, then procedes to edit in an idiosyncratic POV way. The following series of edits was accomplished between the time I last asked for agreement for mediation and Intangibleresponding that he could not discuss the suggestion because an artitration was filed. I filed the arbitration because it was clear that Intangible was going to continue his pattern of disruptive and combative edits and circular discussion page entries: ,, , , , , , , , , , .

There are several editors who have added their comments and diffs below.

--Cberlet 15:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Intangible

  • This RFAr filing has no merit. I have only declined mediation once, namely here, because there was still an on-going discussion on Neo-Fascism#Section on the United States, which continued here. About my editing, I think it suffices to say that all my edits are sourced (to name a few) and I am always happy to provide direct quotes from the sources I use . On multiple occasions I have asked User:Cberlet to use direct quotes or make explicit what his references are saying , alas to no avail. That this was needed was also put forth by other wikipedia editors . And in the rare cases User:Cberlet is explicit, he uses a piece from the Institute for Historical Review#Journal of Historical Review, while other sources should be available.
  • About my deletion of the section in the Neo-Fascism article , that that section was unbalanced and POV, which was later acknowledged here
  • About putting up articles or categories up for deletion, maybe User:Cberlet should have included these as well: . See also Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#Words implying a value judgement.
  • I have only been blocked once for "3RR," this was because other editors kept removing a POV tag, after I went to the talk page to discuss my inclusion of this tag. One of these editors, User:AaronS, was later found to be in contempt with the 3RR rule in removing this POV tag.. See also User_talk:Intangible#User_notice:_temporary_3RR_block.
  • The goal which User:Cberlet seeks in this RFAr, "Seeking sanctions to block further editing by Intangible of articles involving the Political Left and Political Right, or other less severe sanctions deemed appropriate," is utterly vague. I can only see this process as a character assassination; something that has become a custom of User:Cberlet ever since calling me an "apologist for neofascism." I do not think ArbCom should also become part of this. Nonetheless, if need be, I am happy to defend this case more fully, to stop this pestering.
  • Intangible 23:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by AaronS

User:Intangible engaged in edit warring with regard to the article on anarchism, and was eventually blocked for violating WP:3RR. In violation of WP:V, he insisted on inserting a dubious claim into the article's lead. When asked to back up the claim, he provided a nearly 120 year-old, unreliable source. When that was removed, he claimed that the article violated NPOV and inserted a POV tag. He repeatedly re-inserted this tag, regardless of whoever removed it. He continues to edit the article with POV/false information. Discussion proved fruitless, as Intangible feels strongly about his original research. His POV bias became clear when he claimed that being a socialist was incompatible with supporting liberty. Much the same thing occurred at Template_talk:Anarchism, and he disruptively edited the template to prove a point. I only ask that Intangible be reminded, at least, of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:NPOV. --AaronS 20:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Update. Intangible has now been attempting to insert the originally researched claim that Thomas Jefferson was one of the main sources of anarchist thought (see Talk:Anarchism#Thomas_Jefferson). He appears to be using a sock puppet account (User:Intangible), which he often piggybacks his edits with, to do this. --AaronS 20:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by LucVerhelst

Intangible has a very confrontational style. He seems to be unable to accept changes that are outside what he believes is the truth. The only way to bring NPOV into such articles, seems to be to go along with his tendency to start an edit war, an hoping that during the conflict a third party can convince him to partially concede.

I seem to find it harder and harder to go along with this confrontational style, and have a tendency to give up, letting him have his POV-truth.

Some examples :

  • 12 July 2006 Vlaams Belang While reverting vandalism, Intangible reverted good faith edits by TedMundy. After a revert back by TedMundy, new revert by Intangible ("use the talk page first when you want to remove references here"). Revert back by TedMundy, commenting "What references ? I edited the text, made it better. No need to ask permission first, I should think.", upon which Intangible reverts back again : "I don't have time for silly games, so use the talk page first". I step in, and revert back : "I don't see why user TedMundy should first confer on the talk page". New revert from Intangible : "surely it can be included though". Revert back from myself :"I agree with TedMundy. This belongs in the Vlaams Blok article", upon which Intangible goes to my talk page : . My answer on his talk page : , upon which Intangible reverts back Vlaams Belang : "instead of proving a POINT, I will add the reference back again". Another revert from me, following some edits by me and another user, and a final revert back by that other user, accompanied by a personal attack by that user on me and TedMundy on the talk page.
  • Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism, 15 July 2006. Between edits and  : discussion between myself and Intangible about the content of the criticism section. Intangible inserts the vision of a minority far right group, using weasel words, trying to depict them as mainstream. I tried to find some middle ground, but I gave up.
  • July 18, Guido Demoor Guido Demoor recently died in Antwerp, Belgium. Initially, press coverage led to believe that he was the victim of a beating by 6 youths of North African descent. Later was revealed that he himself had far right connections, that he initiated the fight in question, and that his death was primarily caused by his bad condition, and only circumstantially by the fight (that he started himself). The article as it is now depicts only the first, racially coloured story. I've tried to bring NPOV into it, giving two independent sources, but my edits were plainly reverted by Intangible, while commenting : "rv to sane version - see talk page". The page meanwhile has been blocked. The discussion on changes continues on the talk page, where he refuses to cooperate to find a middle ground, but instead suffises with trying to minimise the value of the sources provided. --LucVerhelst 21:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by WGee

Intangible is a very tendentious editor who has consistently demonstrated an incapacity or unwillingness to refrain from promoting his point of view in political articles. I have observed his intransigent, partisan editing style in the National Front article, in particular. He single-handedly commandeered the article (being blocked as a result ) to remove the term far-right as a description of the party, claiming that the definition of the term is ambiguous and that the word therefore cannot be used in a neutral sense. This is despite a consensus in the political science establishment (and among the involved editors, with Intangible being the sole excpetion, of course) that the National Front is far-right. In other words, he resorted to a specious, tangential argument about semantics to minimise a consensus among some of the most reputable, scholarly sources and to promote his point of view that the FN is not far-right. Information on Misplaced Pages is supposed to be derived from reputable sources—that is one of the core tenets of this encyclopedia. But Intangible's suppresion of reputable sources in the National Front article indicates that he/she is willing to violate the essence of Misplaced Pages when the sources contradict his/her beliefs. That is something I find roundly unacceptable. -- WGee 23:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Tazmaniacs

Intangible has the right to his own opinions, but not to delete the term "far right" from a serie of articles and categories. Does he thinks, as does Marine Le Pen, Jean-Marie Le Pen's daughter, that Le Pen has gone too far? Does he think, as do most European far right parties (including Jorg Haider) that the French Front National is not a respectable party, and should become so by deleting the reference to its being a (proud) member of the far right? Despite his apparent knowledge (Intangible often likes bringing quotes from various books, showing a scholarly profile), he has nothing else more important to do than endlessly removing these NPOV terms used by all political scientists ("left" & "right wing" being particularly relevant to France, as explained a thousand times to him during the deletion debate of left & right wing categories; see third nomination for deletion for the last one of them]. Having discovered the recently created article on Far right leagues, based on the French fr:ligues d'extrême-droite, a obvious and necessary article (and category) to regroup such similar groups such as de la Rocque's Croix-de-Feu, Marcel Bucard's Francisme, the Jeunesses Patriotes, etc., Intangible has only one desire: asking for its deletion, or at least separating it into "fascist" and "nationalist leagues". He thus proposes a new CfD (proposing ten CfD at the same time, all about the same subject), here. This new CfD is an obvious trolling attempt. Two solutions possible: either Intangible is not an idiot, and knows what he's doing. In this case, he would wisely limits himself to articles he knows something about, and let others of which he is ignorant alone. Anybody familiar with French far right leagues know that breaking this category up into "nationalist" leagues on one hand, "fascist leagues" on the other hand, would be very difficult, as it engages all of the debate on the existence on a "French Fascism" (while the term "far right leagues" doesn't imply if these leagues were fascist or not; that they were "nationalist" is an evidence, of which Intangible is of course aware). Thus Intangible is only asking this CfD to make us loose time on Misplaced Pages. Of course, Misplaced Pages will survive without us, and we could let Intangible at his little work. If he wisely uses his summmer, he could end up deleting tens of categories and the use of the term "right" and "far right" from hundreds of articles where the consensus between editors agreed on its use. The other solution, of course, is that Intangible is an idiot, whom interfers in articles he knows nothing about with only his ideological stance as navigational tool. This would explain why he doesn't find time to make more interesting edits (should I add: and combative? There are lots of smarter ways to support far right parties than by erasing the term "far right" from its pages, Intangible has got a defensive posture that puts him in an agressive, biting, position; if he had real, relevant info to defend his views, why doesn't he adds them instead of losing time in edit-warring over the silly inclusion or not of "far right" in the Front National page, although 99% of Frenchmen and all political polls class it as a far right party?) Let me tell you that I don't believe Intangible is an idiot, but he has dedicated himself to provoking others users in stupid, time-consuming, edit-warring, because Intangible seems to be part of this ultra-minority of people (a group which has nothing new, in the same way that Fukuyama's predictions on the end of history and the victory of the liberal democracies were about 50 years late on the same statements made (with a little bit more irony) by Kojève) that doesn't believe anymore in the distinction left-right inherited from the French Revolution. Should we recall that fascism was the first movement to declare itself above these political lines which divided the nation, instead of the nation gathering itself around its fuhrer and against all strangers, Jews, Black people (anti-Black racism in Nazi Germany is often overlooked), Gays, disabled people, communists and all other obviously "degenerated artists"? Someone who has nothing else on Misplaced Pages to do then enter conflicts with other users because he wants to remove all references to "left" and "right wing" obviously has nothing interesting to bring to us, but plenty of occasions to troll around. Here are a few more trollish edits by Intangible, deletion of "far right", July 20, Ibid, Nouvelle Droite, July 20, Same, one hour later - I let him here, will reverse just now, let's see in how much times he rv this - ) ] ), Ibid, Front National, July 20, after having just been reversed by User:Rama. Deletion of "far right" at GRECE: June 4, a few hours later, trying to keep "far right" out of the text, including it only in the last lines, deletion of critics, and on July 20, , , ... A non-exhaustive list may be found on Cberlet's workspace, here. Tazmaniacs 14:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: Intangible's pretext that "left", "right" and "far right" are terms that should be censored on behalf of Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#Words implying a value judgement is ridiculous. First of all, politics is about value judgments, so he can let aside his pure innocence and naivety. More importantly, The Front National article clearly provides its sources for its qualification as "far right" which is almost universally recognized. Politics is about taking sides, although it's also about lying about one's own position and the others' positions; this doesn't take out the reality of the "left-wing" criteria, and in any cases, if Intangible really has problems with this distinction, this debate should take place at Left-right politics and nowhere else. Furthermore, his comment about Cberlet's use of a Journal of Historical Review article in the Nouvelle Droite article is close to an ad hominen attack where he tries to reverse the charge and let Cberlet pass as a revisionist. This is quite indecent especially in the views that Cberlet's citation was there to source a quote from Alain de Benoist, that the article is about a far right movement not totally unrelated with the revisionist galaxy, and all the more if you see a bit the debate on the "Nouvelle droite" talk page: Intangible is trying since a month to transform the Nouvelle Droite in the New Right, forcing Cberlet to endlessly repeat the same evidences. If this isn't trolling, than what is? Tazmaniacs 14:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by other editor 2

Clerk notes

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

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

Warren Kinsella

Involved parties

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

Clerk notes

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

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

Homeontherange

Involved parties

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

Clerk notes

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

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

Zer0faults

Involved parties

Not involved in the current situation but aware of it


Clerk notes

Because of the size, statements by parties have been moved to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults. --Tony Sidaway 10:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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

user:Coolcaesar

Involved Parties

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

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

Comfirm all parties are aware of request

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


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • User has been warned that further consequences will come if his personal attacks don’t cease on numerous occasions

  • This user tends to use inappropriate language, and uses personal attacks for his own benefit in a situation. Despite the notices of his inappropriate actions (in list above) he continues to bring negative energy to the project, and tends to humiliate other users

] ] ] ] ]

  • This user also tends to leave inappropriate and degrading comments as his edit summary. Since he usually does not back his statements up on talk pages, most of this disruptive behavior is seen in the edit summary. He tends to disrespect the hard work of others in these summaries.

] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]


  • User misuses the term “vandalism" in its context on a continuous basis

] ] ]

  • Mediation was offered to settle a dispute between several editors, and rejected by user:Coolcaesar which was offered by user:PS2pcGAMER on the Talk:Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California page for he thought another user should just "give in" to what he requests out of the page. Instead of taking this more peaceful approach, he decided to file an Arbitration Case against the user he was against. I dont think it would be any use just one week later to try and introduce mediation again.
  • After this user apologized for his destructive behavior to arbitration, it began again in this edit summary. This shows that even a pending case against him is not enough to change his actions, and that his behavior can only be changed with punishment. ]
Checkuser request

Due to the allegations that user:Coolcaesar has used sock puppets, I request that the CheckUser tool be used to inspect the records in regard to user:Anaheimat.

Suspected puppets

Statement by user:Mr.Executive

User:Coolcaesar has involved himself in many controversial pages in his career at Misplaced Pages. However, in most cases it is reasonable for two editors to disagree from time to time. This particular user tends to make derogatory comments, misuses the term of vandalism, and degrades the emotions of the people he disagrees with. Over the past two years, over 50 Wikipedians have fallen victim to his cruel comments and harsh reactions to disagreements on a page. He has been notified plenty of times for his egotistic attitude, and strong views, but continues to use his comments in a ruthless and inhumane way. This type of an extremely negative attitude disrupts the other editors who engage in normal conversations. These users do not deserve these comments they receive just for having a different viewpoint, yet find themselves humiliated with his comments in front of many other editors who read these personal attacks. As we all know, this type of editing and commenting does not provide any positive change to the Misplaced Pages community, and has gone on long enough. One major Misplaced Pages rule that is probably most shun upon is the devaluing and personal attacks toward new users who are learning their way around Misplaced Pages. Many users who edit a page for their first time do so incorrectly, but user:Coolcaesar tends to use personal attacks and their lack of knowledge against them. He is also suspected of having a sockpuppet, user:Anaheimat, which as an experienced Wikipedian, he knows that these are prohibited. Another tendency of this user is to revert edits continuously, as for he claims articles as “his own”, and leaves personal attacks on these edit summaries.

Statement by User:Coolcaesar

This request for arbitration is clearly a retaliatory and harassing move on the part of Ericsaindon2 in response to my recent filing of a request for arbitration against him. Furthermore, to file it, he used a sockpuppet for the umpteenth time in violation of Misplaced Pages policy (as noted by SCEhardt). I have already noted Ericsaindon's attempt at retaliation on the Evidence page for Ericsaindon2's arbitration.

I will concede that on certain occasions I have forgotten about the civility policy (particularly when I was editing WP to cool off after a bad day and came across inept edits or clear vandalism). But I also wish to remind the Committee that unlike Ericsaindon2, the vast majority of my edits have greatly improved the encyclopedia. In particular, see my work on Lawyer, Roger J. Traynor, Rest area, Pruneyard Shopping Center, the State Bar of California, and the Supreme Court of California. Unlike me, very few editors go to the trouble of providing citations to reliable, verifiable hard copy sources for the assertions in their edits.

Also, because of my passion for Misplaced Pages, I have provided under the GFDL many high-quality photographs of important places and things; see Puerto Vallarta, Motel 6, University of California, Santa Barbara, FedEx, and World Wide Web.

I apologize for my tendency towards excessively harsh commentary. In the future, I will be more careful about complying with the civility policy. I ask all members of the Committee to vote to reject Ericsaindon2's frivolous request. --Coolcaesar 05:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to Ericsaindon2's rather self-serving statement, I wish to point out that I have always acted in good faith. I have been careful to comply with core Misplaced Pages policies: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:No original research, and Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not while Ericsaindon2 has repeatedly inserted unverifiable, partisan original research as if Misplaced Pages were his personal soapbox — as I have pointed out on the Evidence page for his arbitration. Even though I do not always agree with the consensus of the community, I have conceded to it many times, and I have been careful to not violate the 3RR rule or to use sockpuppets. This is why I have never been blocked, while in contrast, Ericsaindon2 has been blocked seven times so far ], and his sockpuppets Mr.Executive and Mr.Executive2 have been blocked indefinitely. Having failed in his quest to distort the Anaheim Hills article (which was properly resisted by User:Mike Dillon and User:Will Beback), Ericsaindon2 is now lashing out in a vindictive bad faith action against me, just because I stepped in and did the legal research that conclusively repudiated his position (see the arguments and counterarguments at Talk:Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California). I again urge the Committee to vote to reject this frivolous request. --Coolcaesar 16:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:69.238.56.207

  • Note that right after this user apologized for his destructive comments, he left this edit summary clearly showing that his apology means absolutely nothing, and his behavior is not ceasing ] --69.238.56.207 19:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:JCO312

Although not involved in this dispute, I have been involved with several articles that User:Coolcaesar has also edited, most notably the article on Capital punishment. I have never seen any comments from him that rise to the level of "inhumane." It's true that he is assertive in his edits and comments; he has also always been correct in every edit I've ever seen. There are unquestionably users out here who abuse others, but I firmly believe that Coolcaesar is not one of them. JCO312 13:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by President Lethe

I'm not involved in this dispute.

When I got notice of this matter, I wasn't sure what it was all about. I knew I had seen several edits by Coolcaesar at "United States" and Talk:United States, and I didn't have any specific recollection of hostility there.

Then I remembered that he'd been the one to write "DUDE! ARE YOU BLIND OR DYSLEXIC OR SOMETHING? Read the top of this page! There's a humongous link RIGHT THERE to Talk:United States/Frequently asked questions. That's the sixth or seventh time that question has been asked this year!" at Talk:United States—but, when I originally saw that edit, I took it as somewhat humorous, one-off flabbergastedness.

This morning, however, having looked at every one of the references of Coolcaesar's behavior linked above, I'm ... just very surprised and rather annoyed.

Now I also see that Coolcaesar is the person whose "idiot" and "dumb" edit summaries at "Raised pavement marker" led me to leave a brief comment at his/her Talk page once.

I don't know what to say. My recollection of most of what Coolcaesar has done at "United States" and its Talk for the last weeks is one of decent civility. Why Coolcaesar has such a different style elsewhere: it baffles me. I've seen Coolcaesar be decent and civil and even nice; so why all the hostility and meanness and personal attacks elsewhere? I'm sure other users exhibit the same contradictions; but it's just strange to see such detail of it in one specific user.

The main thing that gets me is the NUMBER of instances of incivility: so many times calling things a mess and calling users idiots and dumb and bozos and ... just on and on and on. Appalling.

I know Coolcaesar is capable of being a good contributor; it's happened plenty of times. But something must be done to effect the end of the poor behavior. Immediately. This behavior must not continue.

One last point. About Coolcaesar's describing non-vandalism as vandalism: at least one of the examples given above is inappropriate; Coolcaesar's edit here most definitely looks to me like reverting vandalism. In a few of the other examples, while I wouldn't necessarily reach a vandalism conclusion, I can see how someone else (e.g., Coolcaesar) might reasonably reach it.

President Lethe 15:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel compelled to supplement my comments.
While Coolcaesar may not have gone against other Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines, I don't find that mitigating; also not mitigating in the matter of Coolcaesar's behavior is Ericsaindon2's behavior. When your neighbor sues you for crashing your car through her fence, it doesn't matter that you've always paid your rent and never beaten your kids, while your neighbor has been convicted of possessing pot and has disobeyed housing-association guidelines in building the swingset in her back yard; the point is that you crashed your neighbor's fence. (I'm not drawing any connections between these specific example behaviors and what Coolcaesar and Ericsaindon2 have done. I'm simply pointing out the dissociation.)
I'm baffled by the comments left by users who find themselves unable to believe the Coolcaesar has ever been unreasonably and oft repeatedly rude at Misplaced Pages. The evidence is linked just some paragraphs above their comments.
President Lethe 14:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by BlankVerse

I'm not involved in this dispute.

There has been no RFC, nor an RFM. This RFaR should be summarily dismissed.

Furthermore, I think that a checkuser should be done comparing user:Mr.Executive with both user:Ericsaindon2 and user:OC31113.

A check user was filed with user:Morven by user:Mr.Executive earlier yesterday in an effort to remove any speculation that the two parties are afiliated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.173.154 (talk • contribs) (who, by their edit to the Ericsaidon2 RFA evidence page, implies that they are user:Ericsaindon2.
Even if a checkuser comes up negative or inconclusive, the editing style and wording, plus the style and wording of the spamming of article pages against Coolceasar says that Mr. Executive is Ericsaidon2. 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yeah right, if it comes up false (which it will) you cannot treat this user like you have treated me. There is no way any of that stuff you have done to him is going to last... --69.227.173.154 00:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Because of the way that my ISP handles it's POPs, I could easily look like three different users that would come up completely negative on a checkuser check. If I wanted to risk inconclusive checkuser results, I could also look like users in two different counties, in four different area codes, up to 30 miles apart. If I started borrowing or paying for internet access from friends, neighbors, work, the local libraries, Kinko's, etc., I could have a dozen or more sockpuppets that would get completely negative results from a checkuser check. That's one reason that doing a check is as much art as science and access to the tool is limited to those who can interpret the results. 09:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Coolceasar occasionally gets grumpy in his edit summaries, and I have even scolded him once for losing his cool, but if I did as much vandal fighting as he does I'd probably get just as grumpy and start leaving snarky edit summaries as well. On the other hand, we share an interest in Southern California topics, so I've seen him do plenty of good article edits, and leave lots of comments on article talk pages. I've never seen any of grumpy comments on article talk pages, where sometimes he has also had very good reasons to be exasperated as well. 17:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by SteveBaker

I am not involved in this dispute.

user:Coolcaesar has left numerous comments on Computer and everything I see there seems very level-headed and reasonable. I have not always agreed with him - but the conversation has always remained civil and polite. SteveBaker 22:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Fahrenheit451

user:Coolcaesar did commit a personal attack and was uncivil in this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/archive3#My_view_of_this_debate I had no other incidents with him before or after the cited incident.--Fahrenheit451 00:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Rewinn

user:Coolcaesar's edit summary is disparaging to an editor, and his comment at is both snotty and wrongheaded. For my part, I laughed it off and gave him the snub direct and was satisfied, but since we are here, let me make an additional comment.

I hope it is not inappropriate to note that the intersection of his and my interests is our profession: user:Coolcaesar describes himself as a young lawyer, and I am a not-so-young lawyer, with extensive experience in bar associations. Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution procedure is a remarkable development the legal profession should study for applications elsewhere. Tools for dispute-resolution can always improve! In this case, I think we can agree on a few basic rules, in particular:

  1. Edit summaries must never disparage another editor
  2. Edit summaries should rarely if ever name an editor or contain a naughty word
  3. An apology goes a long way.

I am willing to live by the above code and to apologize when someone tells me I've slipped. Is this an appropriate request to make of user:Coolcaesar? It would be a shame to lose a prolific editor on a question of manners, if that's what this is. rewinn 05:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I see Coolcaesar apologized very nicely at 05:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC). Thank you. I suggest we drop it and move on. rewinn 21:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I see the Clerk has very helpfully deleted remarks that were inappropriately threaded. Let me re-introduce one point: if this matter had any valid purpose, it was served when its target acknowledged the issue and resolved to do better. Therefore this matter has no further valid purpose and should be closed (rejected). The further complaint by User:69.238.56.207 at 19:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC) lacks factual merit. Let us return to making wikipedia as good as possible. rewinn 23:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Will Beback

I made a previous comment , but it was moved out of this case by the nominator. Instead of fighting over that, I'll write fresh material.

Since this request has been filed by EricSaindon2's puppet and since Coolcaesar filed a request about ES, it would be typical to merge this case with ES's case. However this RfAr does not fit that mold because this request does not merit arbitration. While CC has used frank language at times, there have never been serious formal complaints - no mediation, no RfC, no AN/I threads. This request has obviously been brought simply as revenge against CC for his RfAr on ES.

CC is a valued, longterm contributor to this project who has my full support. -Will Beback 09:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Ericsaindon2

I know I am on block but I am highly involved in this user’s personal attitude, and attacks. I will return to my block once I make this statement, because I feel, since this is the user that blocked me, I need to make a statement when he faces a similar situation. I have, over the past month been harassed by this user. I was involved in a content dispute with him, and he continued to use the slander, and inappropriate language, as exemplified above (but for some reason not all of it is shown above). He degraded me and treated me inhumanely throughout the entire month for just a content dispute. I made no personal attacks against him, but he came at me all the time for reverting uncalled for edits he had made, and treating all my work as vandalism, even though it was not. He seems to, by the statements and proof above, feel that if it doesn’t go his way, he can trash talk the users, and therefore creating disputes which are counter productive. His personal attacks need to stop now, for they are uncalled for, and unmanageable. I feel that mediation would never work because this user has been warned in excess of a dozen times by high Misplaced Pages figures and admins that his behavior is unacceptable, but continues his trend. He needs a break from Misplaced Pages to think about what he is doing, and how he can change it to become productive, and stop being the instigator and attacker that he has become on this website. The debate in which I received my Arbitration case for were far less significant and destructive as his have become. My comments were not ruthless, and all my disputes were limited to the one page, whereas this particular user has created chaos and devalued Misplaced Pages with counter-productivity on over 50 pages, and has involved and attacked 30+ users. I don’t care who was right in the situation over the content dispute, his behavior was downright uncalled for, and needs to be terminated, and treated as such. People are not rag dolls like he has tended to treat them without punishment. Using the profanity used by this user is the worst offense committed on Misplaced Pages, and people have rights to be treated like people, which is far worse than the easily fixable edits I made with good intentions that got me blocked. Plus, in cases like this, where it was me, sorry is just too late, and there is a point when the word sorry has been abused so many times that it carries no meaning for certain people, like in this case. I urge you to take this case, because the attitude of this user is reckless, and uncalled for, and despite any apologies, it has all been heard before by this user, and still no change. This user can use all the excuses to why he committed these malicious attacks, but in the end, like in my case, it doesn’t matter, it is the harm you created and the people you offended that matters. I don’t think that he should be completely abolished from Misplaced Pages, for he does make the occasional good edit as stated by users above, but a temporary block would help this user, and give him time to thoroughly understand Misplaced Pages and its rules and how to treat people. -- Ericsaindon2 09:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

I have removed extensive threaded dialog from statements in this application. Please feel restore in more appropriate (non-dialog) form. --Tony Sidaway 21:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Humus sapiens abuse of Administrative Power

Involved parties

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Humus_sapiens
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Adam777
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Smitty_Mcgee
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Itsmejudith
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kusnetsov
http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Bhouston
http://en.wikipedia.org/User:MSTCrow

Clerk notes

Because of the size, statements by participants have been moved to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Humus sapiens. --Tony Sidaway 10:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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

CoolKatt number 99999 (talk · contribs)

Involved parties


Clerk notes

Because of the size of statements by participants, they have been moved to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt number 99999. --Tony Sidaway 10:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process.

Pedophilia userbox wheel war

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

Highways

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everyking

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Internal spamming/campaigning

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

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zeq

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

Archives

Category: