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 08:57, 17 August 2006 view sourceEl C (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators183,803 edits →Zeq wikistalking and block count: re-re-requesting request on top, please (hold the tuna! :← Previous edit Revision as of 10:38, 17 August 2006 view source Jim62sch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers23,810 edits →Comment by []: Response to Schlafly, CBD, and DocNext edit →
Line 185: Line 185:
==== Comment by ]==== ==== Comment by ]====
I really think I agree with the above. Ed notoriously has some unpopular beliefs - no-doubt they influence his editing. Mine do me. No doubt they'll get his into heated debates. People with minority perspectives often throw up questions about what NPOV really means in an article. But NPOV =! 'what most liberal wikipedians believe, so to hell with the pseudo-scientists'. Ed has an 'anti-Science' POV (what the hell is that?)? Perhaps. But should wikipedia have a 'pro-science POV' (whatever that might be). As long as Ed is being civil, explains his perspective, and isn't edit waring - there should be no ''major'' problem. Some of the diffs above arn't great - but they are hardly a matter for arbcom. Where is the evidence of disruption? --] 23:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC) I really think I agree with the above. Ed notoriously has some unpopular beliefs - no-doubt they influence his editing. Mine do me. No doubt they'll get his into heated debates. People with minority perspectives often throw up questions about what NPOV really means in an article. But NPOV =! 'what most liberal wikipedians believe, so to hell with the pseudo-scientists'. Ed has an 'anti-Science' POV (what the hell is that?)? Perhaps. But should wikipedia have a 'pro-science POV' (whatever that might be). As long as Ed is being civil, explains his perspective, and isn't edit waring - there should be no ''major'' problem. Some of the diffs above arn't great - but they are hardly a matter for arbcom. Where is the evidence of disruption? --] 23:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

====Response to Schlafly, CBD, and Doc====
The purpose of this stage of the request is merely to, as it says, request arbitration. This is not the evidentiary phase -- that occurs once the case is accepted and the clerk begins the project page for the RfAr proper. (see comments by CydeWeys) At that point I would assume that Doc's and CBD's concerns regarding civility, POV-pushing, edit-warring, etc., will be satisfactorilly addressed by the evidence. ] 10:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


==== Comment by ] ==== ==== Comment by ] ====

Revision as of 10:38, 17 August 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

Ed Poor

Initiated by JoshuaZ at 01:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ed Poor (2).

Statement by JoshuaZ

I bring this RfArb with a heavy heart. Ed has been an editor with Misplaced Pages far longer than I have, and has a history of many productive edits. However, on certain topics Ed has a long standing history of POV pushing and related problems. These problems were yet again addressed, this time in a recent RfC. In that RfC, multiple editors from a variety of topics, especially topics related to global warming and creationism. The RfC, painted a picture of edit warring, gross violation of 3RR. When he didn't ignore it, he attempted to game the system in a disturbingly literal fashion, comparing how he was allowed to revert to a game of Go . Since then, his conduct has unfortunately not improved. Continuing his edit warring and POV pushing on climate and creationism articles(recently spreading to animal rights related articles), he also continued other problems, such as POV forking and POV redirecting, constructing articles which were complete OR/POV and/or copy-vio such as the now deleted Good scientific practice. In one dif he declared that he won't "abandon" NPOV, showing that even after a heavily endorsed RfC, he is undable to understand that his POV is not NPOV . He has also taken to disrupting attempts to get new editors to conform to 3RR and other policies and made spurious claims on WP:PAIN and WP:3RR . I could continue, but the above should be sufficient to demonstrate the basic point: past attempts at mediation have failed. RfCs have failed. Intervention of the Arb Com is now necessary.

Statement by Uncle Ed

(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.)

Excuse me if I change my statement radically. This is a wiki, of course, so it's easy to make changes.

I myself wrote the definition of Misplaced Pages:POV pushing, and I pride myself on abiding by it scrupulously. On those rare occasions when I fail, I am quick (and eager!) to acknowledge these failures.

You need only point them out, as this contributor did. I can accept correction, when a mistake is explained to me.

If I've failed so many times as to constitute a "history of POV pushing", it should be easy to demonstrate this. I'd love to see some examples, especially if these show me creating and editing articles so that they show only one point of view and then laboring to preserve them in this unbalanced, biased state.

As I understand NPOV policy, the the following points are crucial:

  • Misplaced Pages's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.
  • It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view.
Agreement that 3RR is not an entitlement

As for the "game of go" remark, JoshuaZ has perhaps overlooked my use of this metaphor as something I realize I should not do, the opposite of how he construed my remark.

  • I got confused about "partial reverts"
  • You simply can't bring the article back to its previous state - like repeating a board position.

Since then, I have drastically reduced the frequency of reverting unexplained reverts on the article Joshua mentions and increased my attempts to get discussions going.

I also advised user:Schlafly as follows:

  • Carefully avoid making more than 3 reverts per 24-hour period to any article (2 is better, and 1 is ideal).
  • invite other contributors to look at edits that have been unfairly reverted.

I fail to see how this is "disrupting" an attempts to counsel him on 3RR adherence. I specifically requested that he cut down on reverts and engage others in discussion, and He hasn't been blocked since.

Attempts to describe both sides of global warming controversy fairly
  • The global warming controversy is an ongoing dispute about how much of the modern global warming is caused by human beings.

I don't see how it is "pov pushing" to write an article intro like this. If I've failed with this edit, then Joshua is right and I need to be restrained somehow - because to me this looks like a model of neutrality.

Restoring balance to controversial articles

Much of what interests me at Misplaced Pages is the opportunity to add information which explains the opposing point of view to articles on controversial topics which are dominated by a single POV. Far too many articles are unbalanced, emphasizing a mainstream point of view and neglecting minority viewpoints.

If edits which "advance" a POV are in violation of web site policy, then I guess I'll have to stop doing this. I didn't know this was wrong. --Uncle Ed 18:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Cyde Weys

I've seen Ed Poor's work for awhile now and I've often seen him as pushing a pro-fundamentalist, anti-science POV, whether it's on evolution, intelligent design, global warming, et al. Ed will vehemently deny this, of course, and he will try to Wikilawyer his way out of it. He's pretty good at wikilawyering, especially because he's been around for so long, but the edits will speak for themselves. Ed has a long history of POV problems, whether it was forking off a POV version of an evolution-related article so he could make it more anti-evolution, or creating non-encyclopedic articles on "evolution polls" to try to use the populist argument to "refute" evolution, or constantly over the period of months trying to bend the wording on Intelligent design. Ed is editing on his faith rather than the facts; for a neutral encyclopedia, this is untenable. I urge the ArbCom to accept this case so that we can write out a full evidence section detailing all of Ed's history of POV-pushing. --Cyde Weys 14:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by user:Ladlergo

When I first started looking at this group of articles, I didn't know of Ed's history with the community of editors and attempted to mediate. Right now, my feeling is that he's attempting to game the system. In my opinion, Ed's main problem is that he attempts to give WP:NPOV#Undue_weight to ideas that are properly discussed on other pages. In addition, when he makes edits, he fails to concretely address why his edits are better than the previous version. Ladlergo 15:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Karwynn (talk)

I'm involved in one article with these two editors. My limited experience wth JoshuaZ has shown me that he seems to think that he need only declare an edit NPOV and that's that. Afterwards, further discussion from him is generally in the form of "It's NPOV, why can't you respect policy?" Sometimes I feel like he's not considering "I may be wrong about this" enough. Not in a sinister "I AM THE LAW" manner, just kind of a lack of enthusiasm for disagreement. So I think very careful evaluation of JoshuaZ's claims on Ed Poor's inability/refusal to grasp NPOV is necessary. All in all, Ed Poor seems to be acting in good faith, cautioning me on edit warring over an article where we disagreed with JoshuaZ (Godless:_The_Church_of_Liberalism) and being very open to discussion and rational on the talk page, where JoshuaZ's comments were at times notably absent until we I guess made enough fuss to encourage him to reply. Ed Poor's comments specifically related to NPOV and verifiability issues on that article, and seemed very oriented towards achieving a fair, objective and relevant-to-the-specific-subject article. His motives, to me anyway, seemed geared towards neutrality, not a pro-creationism agenda. Poor judgement of NPOV and non-neutral motives are not the same thing. It seems like this is more a wide-scale content dispute than a conduct dispute, and further discussion would be a more productive venue for this I think. Perhaps a content-based RfC or something?

Comment by User:ScienceApologist

Ed has a problem in believing that he is a paragon of neutrality here at Misplaced Pages. He prides himself on being able to "balance" articles he perceives to be unbalanced. He does this not through research, verifiable citations, or making factual additions, but rather by changing the wording, introducing equivocation, and occasionally majorly disrupting articles in order so that his version of the NPOV policy is realized. When people dispute his behavior, he usually balks. He has claimed that there is a de facto cabal of Wikipedians who are surpressing what he has termed a "conservative political view" in science controversy articles. The big problem is that Ed doesn't engage in the normal activities of consensus building, occasionally acts spitefully against individuals and seems to hold personal grudges, and instead of appealing to research or literature cited by his fellow Wikipedians, Ed prefers to fall-back on a prefunctory "Uncle Ed knows neutrality" attitude that implicitly accuses everyone but himself of being biased. Ed does not think that there has ever been any evidence presented that he is biased in his approach to editting despite the growing list on his RfC. I have tried to discuss these issues with him to limited success. Ed's a valuable member of the Misplaced Pages community, having been here for quite some time, but he is doing a great disservice to his years here by being so tendentious in so-called "science controversy" articles. --ScienceApologist 21:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to user:Ed Poor

You said: Far too many articles are unbalanced, emphasizing a mainstream point of view and neglecting minority viewpoints.

WP:NPOV#Undue_weight says:: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

and

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.

and

Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

Ed, can you please explain why you believe your edits to create "balanced" articles are not directly in opposition to WP policy? Ladlergo 20:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:Schlafly

I don't know about Ed Poor, but I've battled JoshuaZ on the Kansas evolution hearings page. He repeatedly insists on name-calling witnesses as creationists and other epithets, even tho many of the witnesses deny being creationists. I say that a NPOV requires that a Misplaced Pages article on the hearings first describe what actually happened at the hearings in a fair and neutral way. Criticism can come afterward.

JoshuaZ's complaint is surprising weak. He fails to give an example of one of Ed's edits that shows a biased POV. Given JoshuaZ's history of an anti-creationist POV, I think that it is odd for him to complain. Roger 21:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by CBD

I would just point out that while this RfAr is ostensibly about POV pushing there has been exactly one diff link purporting to show such... but which really doesn't seem to. The only possible 'POV bias' I can detect there is that Ed changed it from saying that the 'global warming controversy is about whether humans have an impact on the climate' to 'about how much human action is responsible for the existence of global warming'. The original suggested the possibility of climate change and that there might be some human contribution to it... the latter states flat out that global warming exists and humans have been part of it, with only the degree of such in question. Clearly Ed's version might be less palatable to opponents of 'global warming' who don't believe it exists at all or that humans have any impact on it, but it does match my understanding of the current scope of the debate... even scientists who oppose the theory now acknowledge that warming has occured and that people inevitably contribute to it, but hold that what we are seeing is primarily a natural cycle with minimal human impact. Very few now argue that there has been no increase in average temperature. All of which is covered in the article and unaffected by Ed's changes. If this is the best available example of his 'POV pushing'... it seems to me extremely weak. Likewise, the link on 'edit warring' and the 'game of Go' clearly appears to be an apology for misunderstanding the policy on partial reverts (which I see admins interpret differently all the time) and a promise not to do so again. This is evidence against him? For the record, my only significant interaction with Ed was when we more or less simultaneously came up with a series of date computing templates using completely different naming structures and methodologies. I found him very reaonable and flexible in working out those differences for consistency. --CBD 22:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Doc

I really think I agree with the above. Ed notoriously has some unpopular beliefs - no-doubt they influence his editing. Mine do me. No doubt they'll get his into heated debates. People with minority perspectives often throw up questions about what NPOV really means in an article. But NPOV =! 'what most liberal wikipedians believe, so to hell with the pseudo-scientists'. Ed has an 'anti-Science' POV (what the hell is that?)? Perhaps. But should wikipedia have a 'pro-science POV' (whatever that might be). As long as Ed is being civil, explains his perspective, and isn't edit waring - there should be no major problem. Some of the diffs above arn't great - but they are hardly a matter for arbcom. Where is the evidence of disruption? --Doc 23:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Schlafly, CBD, and Doc

The purpose of this stage of the request is merely to, as it says, request arbitration. This is not the evidentiary phase -- that occurs once the case is accepted and the clerk begins the project page for the RfAr proper. (see comments by CydeWeys) At that point I would assume that Doc's and CBD's concerns regarding civility, POV-pushing, edit-warring, etc., will be satisfactorilly addressed by the evidence. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Davril2020

My experience of Ed's habits on the Evolution and Intelligent Design pages have been quite disturbing. The tendency to pov-push is worrying, particularly since he has a tendency to repeatedly come back to the exact same issue, re-presenting the same evidence again and again against the consensus version, despite repeated requests for documented evidence to support his proposed changes. He has a tendency to react to collective criticism as though there were a cabal and typically responds to the failure of his changes to be implemented not with agreement to the community consensus, or even a decision to agree to disagree, but often with a good deal of frustration. In particular, he seems to believe his changes fail to succeed because his edits are blocked by pov-pushers, and does not accept that the community consensus is deserving as respect. Indeed, where this consensus exists and is in opposition to him he typically dismisses it altogether, showing a disappointing level of disrespect to his fellow editors. --Davril2020 04:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Clerk notes

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

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

Jayjg, PinchasC & FloNight

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Jayjg.

Note, after this note was left, it was removed by the same user that posted it see this diff and then blanked this case as well see this diff then readded by an ip see this diff. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
See my response to Jayjg below, I removed the notice after I removed this RFA and intended to restore the notice when I decided to proceed with the RFA with the edit note "this seems to be necessary", the same comment I made when I restored this RFA however, since there was an intervening edit by Flo which I didn't see I misfired and a) reverted to the wrong prior edit (the one that followed my notice) and b) accidentally removed Flo's edit. Ex-Homey 17:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I cannot leave a message at User talk:PinchasC as that page is semi-protected, I have sent him an email instead. And he has responded.
  • FloNight is already aware of this RFA
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

As first party, you may feel tempted to add a summary here. If you do, make it a single sentence of not more than twenty words. Please make your case in your statement.

Statement by User:Ex-Homey

Withdrawn See . Ex-Homey 20:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC) I was formerly User:Homeontherange. My former account was never banned, rather, I abandoned the account for various reasons, partly frustration at wikipedia and partly the suspicion that it had been compromised. I no longer have the account's password and thus cannot edit from that account, additionally it has been blocked and desysopped on my request. While there was an RFA against that account at the time that I left it was for a review of admin permissions and did not extend beyond that.

I have been in the process of withdrawing from wikipedia however I have continued to edit under single purpose accounts which with one exception I have tended to use only for a day or so.

Today, Jayjg declared these various accounts to be sockpuppets of Homeontherange and blocked them despite the fact that a) Homeontherange was never banned and b) none of the edits by those accounts were tendentious. Nevertheless he has labelled them all "abusive sockpuppets". This is wikilawyering and an attempt to use WP:SOCK as a pretext for his arbitrary actions despite the fact that WP:SOCK was not actually violated by the existence of these accounts.

As well, as I use a semi-public computer cluster along with a few hundred other people in my building, Jay's action has also declared several accounts I am uninvolved with as sockpuppets, including one belonging to my roomate.

I attempted to rectify this situation using User:Ex-Homey by pasting a "former Wikipedian" tag on User:Homeontherange. User:PinchasC reverted and then blocked me giving "homeontherange" as his justification for the block despite the fact that Homeontherange is not a banned user. I tried to explain this to Pinchas but he responded in an uncivil way by reverting me and then semiprotecting his talk page.

Both these users have thus misused their administrative permissions and acted arbitrarily. They have used wikilawyerly justifications for their actions based on a misapplication of WP:SOCK.Ex-Homey 15:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: FloNight

FloNight also banned an account of mine on sight despite the fact that Homeontherange was never banned by ArbComm or the community. After the fact she argued that there is a community ban when, in fact, no such thing has been done. In the face of opposition she unilaterally declared that there was a community ban in effect and banned User:Homeontherange despite the fact that that account had already been banned at my own request. This ban was lifted by Fred Bauder. Flo is engaging in an Post hoc ergo propter hoc argument to retroactively justify her arbitrary and out of policy bans. Ex-Homey 15:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to SlimVirgin

In fact Sonofzion is not "confirmed" and was never "confirmed". The CheckUser result at the time was "likely" and there is evidence that someone who signed themselves Sonofzion (and later daughterofzion) is in fact in Sweden suggesting "Sonofzion" may have been someone off continent who perhaps made it appear that he was editing from Toronto by using a proxy server or dummy computer. Jay seems to have conveniently changed the finding several weeks after the fact based not on a new checkuser run (since that account has not resurfaced in the past month) but on his own wishful thinking. I specifically asked if Checkuser showed same system or not same system and was never given a reply. SV is deliberately misrepresenting the facts as is Jay by including Sonofzion in a confirmed sockpuppet cat. Given dynamic IPs the number of anon IPs is quite meaningless. The other alleged sockpuppets were either single purpose accounts (since it was my intention to leave and not start a new permanent account) or are not mine but either my roomate's or others started via an IP feed shared by our co-op. None of them violated WP:SOCK save for one instance in which someone was asked to review a page for a possible 3RR violation by SlimVirgin in which ignorance of 3RR was feigned. The Homeontherange account at Mediawiki was an obvious imposter and I sent Fred and a steward an email to complain about it at the time and there is no reason, except for Slim's vivid imagination and her wishful thinking, to suspect that the other mediawiki account she lists was me. I see by some of her talk page chatter that she is now accusing anyone who has a different view than her on animal rights pages of being me - this may be a convenient pretext to use to delete contributions she disagrees with but other than that it's bogus. I have shown no hesitation to confirm accounts I have actually used but if Slim wishes to go on a self-serving witchhunt to stamp out edits contrary to her fringe animal rights opinion so be it.Ex-Homey 22:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to PinchasC

Post hoc ergo propter hoc there was no talk of a community ban prior to Flo banning me on sight. This was introduced as an after the fact justification. It also makes no sense to argue that someone should be subject to a community ban because there are imposters pretending to be him. Ex-Homey 15:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Jayjg

That was accidental. What I was trying to to was revert my own removal of the notice of this RFA as I had decided to go ahead with it. Look at and specifically as well as where I made the identical edit comment of "this seems to be necessary". I did not see Flo's intervening edit and because of that I a) reverted to the wrong prior edit and b) removed Flo's edit inadvertently.

In any case Jay, your post to ANI misrerepesented things by mischaracterising edits and also implying that several of the alleged sockpuppets had been banned for "disruption" when, in fact, only one had and not because the edits it made were disruptive but because Flo mistakenly assumed it was a Wordbomb sock because the account asked if Mantanmoreland's CheckUser results were going to be posted. If you misrepresented the situation similarly to the ArbComm then you obtained permission to act under false pretences. Since you are an involved party in past disputes you should have left this to someone else. As it was you distorted and misrepresented in order to obtain a desired result. Ex-Homey 15:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Committee

*Two admins (at least) oppose the community ban which means there is none in effect. What I need is a clear understanding that I am free to edit without FloNight, PinchasC, SV or anyone else blocking me under the false pretense that I am a banned user.

::If there *is* a community ban then I would like to appeal it (something that is now permitted according eg Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Saladin1970_appeal. If there is no community ban then I want that to be stated clearly. Ex-Homey 00:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Query to FloNight

according to Requests_for_arbitration/Saladin1970_appeal/Proposed_decision#Ban_by_the_community

The touchstone of an appropriate "ban by the community" is that there is no administrator who after examining the matter is willing to lift or reduce the ban.

Accordingly, since ChrisO below, for instance, says there is no community ban will you still ban me? If so, if ChrisO or another admin unblocks me will you respect that?Ex-Homey 10:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

This is another attempt by Homeontherange to use arbitration as a platform to cause more chaos. In the last few weeks, he has used 15 confirmed sockpuppets, some of them abusive, one of them in order to evade a block for 3RR. He has also posted using 20 anon IPs, including proxies, sometimes claiming to be Homey, then denying it a few edits later and claiming his computer/user account had been compromised; or that other disruptive editors were pretending to be him. He used these ambiguities to create confusion over whether he had asked to be desyopped, over whether he was leaving, and over whether he had filed a previous RfAr. He is having a laugh at everyone's expense and has come close to exhausting the community's patience. See the proposed community ban suggested by Thatcher131.

Sonofzion was used to evade a 3RR block. Deuteronomy was used to file a 3RR report against an admin who had blocked Homey for 3RR. Fluffy the Cotton Fish (who Homey claims is a friend of his) was used to comment on the nomination to the Mediation Committee of Pinchas, who had filed an RfAr against Homey. Schroedinger the Cat was used to accuse me of admin abuse, and deliberately gave the impression that he was banned User:WordBomb in order to cause confusion. Hunting Thomas was used to make provocative edits to PETA, an article Homeontherange had previously stalked me to (but had otherwise no interest in). Hunting Thomas also pretended to William_M._Connolley that he was a new user who didn't know about 3RR, which is evidence that the account was being used deceptively in violation of WP:SOCK.

I request that the Committee not allow him to prolong this disruption with yet another arbitration case. SlimVirgin 14:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed accounts:

Suspected:

Confirmed IP addresses (these have either been posted on the check-user page or Homeontherange has admitted to them, so there is no private information here about his location that is not already known):

Suspected:

Statement by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

I must say that Homey has a lot of gall to even write this request. He has almost been as disruptive since he has "left" than he was before. He has an entire drawer of sockpuppets following around his former enemies, and in some cases making disruptive edits, . Homey has always had a tendency to go to ridiculous heights to try to get his way, but this situation just takes it to a whole new level. In this situation however I really don't see how it can accomplish anything besides backfiring in his face.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to User:KimvdLinde

I really do not know where you have found such a definition but I don't think it was anywhere on wikipedia. There is always one or two people defending even the most odious users. If we had to get the consensus on evey single person or even every single administrator before we enacted a community ban then I doubt anyone would ever be banned at all. Think about it, Willy on wheels would be running wild and free, Xed would still be making progressively crazier and crazier accusations of a vast conspiracy, that crazy religious guy would still be trying to convert people, Brandt and Merkey would have scared everyone off wikipedia by now. No, I don't think universal consensus is needed for this.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to User:Homeontherange

I must say that Homey's argument that Slimvirgin is basically just accusing everyone who diagrees with her of being socks of his, really sounds similar to every other time he denied that various sockpuppets belonged to him. I would say that even for someone who does not have access to checkuser reports, the evidence against him is rather obvious. His statements are beginning to look more and more like Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf and his annoucements of American soldiers setting themselves on fire in the streets of Baghdad in fear of the dreadful Iraqi army. In other words, to believe he is telling the truth flies in the face of all reason and common sense.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by FloNight

IMO that User:Homeontherange is currently under a community ban. All of User:Homeontherange's user accounts are indef blocked on sight by myself and other admins. No other admins have undone these blocks. This type of behavior by the community is by definition a community ban. If they so desire, the Arbitration Committee and Jimbo can review our ban. If the Arbcom wants to open a case and modify the community ban they can. Until an admin reverses one of User:Homeontherange's blocked account, hopefully with full community consensus, I consider him under a community ban and will continue to block his sockpuppet user accounts. FloNight 14:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Selected comments from User talk:FloNight#Ex-Homey thread.

Fred Bauder explains reason that he unblocked Homey's accounts.

I have unblocked Ex-Homey to participate in the arbitration request he made. He is limited to editing only arbitration pages. I will use checkuser to enforce this. Fred Bauder 15:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC) I also unblocked Homeonetherange. The password is lost and the only effect is to autoblock his new account. Fred Bauder 15:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

FloNight explains the reason all Homey's accounts are indef blocked.

My blocks have nothing to do with an editing dispute. As far as I can recall, I have never edited an article with Homey. My indef blocks are purely based on his use of disruptive sockpuppets which are proven by Checkuser... FloNight talk 19:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on the above, I will reblock Homey if he edits outside of arb case pages. FloNight 01:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by ChrisO

Following up on FloNight's statement above, I don't think the assertion that Homeontherange is under a community ban is accurate - the block log has this entry:

20:16, 26 July 2006, KimvdLinde (Talk) blocked Homeontherange (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Unblock) (Per request of Homeontherage per e-mail)

I assume this was done in the light of the apparent compromising of the Homeontherange account. No community ban applies in this case as far as I know. -- ChrisO 14:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:KimvdLinde

Community bans can only be applied when no body objects, and I objected, so there is no community ban. That I did not unblock any of his accounts is that it will probably end up in a wheelwar, where other admins will reblock as I am likely to be considered involved. -- Kim van der Linde 14:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Reinserted by SlimVirgin . -- Kim van der Linde 17:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK#Users_who_exhaust_the_community.27s_patience: Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users Currently, I do not see that strong and wide consensus beyond editors that have been involved in various content disputes with Homey. That he was not community banned was confirmed by Fred Bauder here I however, would very strongly suggest to Homey that he limits his editing to the ArbCom cases. -- Kim van der Linde 14:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

See also Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Saladin1970_appeal/Proposed_decision#Ban_by_the_community. -- Kim van der Linde 04:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The ruling states: The touchstone of an appropriate "ban by the community" is that there is no administrator who after examining the matter is willing to lift or reduce the ban. Seems clear to me. -- Kim van der Linde 04:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:PinchasC

The abuse committed by Homeontherange is fully elaborated in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeontherange and by Slimvirgin, Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg and the others above.

In regards to the claim of him that I blocked User:Ex-Homey, the reason was because with his username he may have been impersonating Homeontherange. I noted this by placing a suspected sockpuppet or impersonator tag on his user page, as he claims that there are multiple users using his ip and accounts. And even if it was Homeontherange, then as FloNight wrote above that there was community support and as Jayjg wrote in AN/I arbcom support for the banning of his sockpuppets. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Jayjg

Before tagging and blocking Homey's sockpuppets I consulted with the Arbitration Committee mailing list. I was advised to go ahead, and to note the fact that I had done so on WP:AN/I, which I did: I also note that the IP address which brought this case vandalized my User: page before doing so: , and is one of a series of IP addresses claiming to be Homey, or claiming that other addresses claiming to be Homey are, in fact, not Homey, or various other deliberately confusing and disruptive actions and scenarios intended to spread FUD. Jayjg 01:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Bhouston

A user who goes by the username User:WordBomb among others was actually responsible for a lot of the shinnanigans as well as the original accounts that Zeq believed were sockpuppets of Homeontherange. Whether WordBomb and Homeontherange are the same people is a different question -- although I think it is established that they are different people because WordBomb has a history of abuse (I think SV mentioned this once) while Homeontherange doesn't. I can present evidence to this effect. WordBomb was incredibly effective as a troll. --Ben Houston 07:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

Requests for clarification

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


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)

Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article. Fred Bauder 16:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Zeq wikistalking and block count

I've been having a difficult time applying arbitration enforcement for Zeq and feel I have since been targetted by him. For example, after I blocked Kelly Martin for her B-list attack page, Zeq just happens to come along so as to caution me from blocking a user with whom you have a dispute" (what dispute? he fails to mention). Or, after removing and protecting the attack page by Sarasto777, Zeq just happens to come along, again. These are not isolated examples. Then today, Zeq questions my adminstrative compotence and speaks of an "edit conflict" after I delete his copyvio entry, twice. Many blocks later, how should I proceed with the tendencious edits by the user? Should I implement Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Enforcement_by_block next time — it will be the 6th block. Or will it? I am inclined to count article bans as blocks, and am seeking clarification as to this approach, and Zeq's conduct overall as illustrated above. Thanks in advance. El_C 13:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I see two article bans that were rescinded, two article bans that stuck (total of 5 articles), and one block (for vote stacking). Plus the 1-week block for creating an attack page that has not yet been implemented. Although the recent posting and reposting of copyright materials is a problem, it does not look to me that he has reached the 5-block tripwire that would allow a one year block. On the other hand, there are 8 reports against Zeq at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive1. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: When I "reposted" I was not aware of any issue with that material I just thought the article has vanished. Only later I realized why it was deleted. My request from El_C was after that not to delete the history of the page cause this does not let anyone see what actually takes place. She deleted ithe history anyhow misuse of admin power).

  1. The block for "vote staking" was a total violation of admin power as no vote staking took place and it has nothing to do with ny Arbitration case anyhow. All there was is that I left 6 messages on user pages asking people to participate in a vote. That was not even a violation of WP:Spam as all that policy require is to delete such messages. The fact that there are previouls attacks on me should not be counted as blocks.
  1. The "wikistlaking" accusation is not made in good faith. I don't follow El_C around but the reverse is true: She has admitted that she is "watching" my edits and proud of that. In fact in a previous incident where she had a dsipute with me she used her admin powers to ban me and now tries to count this as "block". Over all her behaviour is the one that should be looked at since she is constatly show that she is unable to deal with edit conflict with using her admin powers. I am not the only person who have such issues with her. The best would be this:
I have been engaging Zeq in my capacity as an administrator enforcing the AC remedies. I did not follow his contributions (though I would be entitled to do so, I think), as is clear from my own contributions list, and only attended to the latest breach (copyvio) via an ANI notice. I fail to see why I should be recused. I consider Zeq's claim of "pride" etc., is false and utterly divorced from reality. El_C 15:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and not to mention that I placed a notice on Zeq's page at 04:23 — he recreated the copyvio on 7:24, three hours after the fact. El_C 15:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have hard time responding to all the false accusations. I did not see El_C message on my talk page until after I created an article that I had no idea how it disapeared. If El_C would not delete the history file none of this would be confusing. She could have just made a simple edit to remove the content she had problem with. Instead she deleted the article and the history and now makes false accusations because two messages I wrote on talk pages months ago. Zeq 17:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Once again, the notice was placed on your talk page three hours before you recreated the copyvio entry. The oldest diff I have here is three weeks old, not "months." El_C 17:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
And I even offered to author the article myself, telling Zeq "I encourage you rewrite the article using uncopyrighted contents; or I'll do it later." My body of work on Israeli topics is substantive; I have not compiled a list of all the countless Israeli-related biographies, places, historical events, organizations, etc. entries I've authored (except the IDF ones), but at any rate, it isn't insignificant (considering that the focus of my edits are far from limited to that area of the world), and not a single one of them is contested, including controversial ones, such as the Green Line, etc., not by Zeq, not by anyone. Yet today, Zeq (once again) levies the same baseless accusations against myself as he has been doing for months — I have not even read the copyvio entry, I have not even glanced at it. What I did do was ctrl.c many whole paragraphs from the article (without even reading at them), then ctrl.f and ctrl.v these in the aforementioned Haaretz article to consistently see the green match in firefox. But Zeq assumes the worse (&the false), writing that I have problem with content that you think is "pro-Israel". hat is all there is to it. You havwe a political agenda and pushing it by claimng "bad edits". This is unacceptable. El_C 16:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

El_C deleted the history file. That is a fact.She did it twice.

El_C accused me of wikislatking her. That is also a fact. This is a false accuastion.

I have not seen El_C message when I saw that the article is gone. El_C could just remove the parts where she objected.

This is how it has always been with her. No discussion, no compromise just all or nothing. Enough. If she wants to re-write the article she could already have done so. Instead she edit war to delete it (intentionaly) twice. I was unaware of the fact it was deleted and why (only noticed it is gone) so i recreated it. Now that it turned into an edit war I have not edited it although this may change once I have more time. My suggestion remain: El_C should not edit where I edit and I will not edit where she edit. This is to avoid conflicts as she hard time resolving conflicts so let's avoid them.Zeq 17:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I rest my case; nothing appears to resonate through. El_C 17:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
You can "rest your case" as much as you want but that does not solve anything. Are you going to recreate the delted article or I should do it. The article itself can exist in Misplaced Pages, it is part of it;s content that you have a problem with and that problem will indeed be addressed but the article should be recreated. Zeq 17:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
This repetition is unhelpful. El_C 17:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
This was not a repition. I was asking a simple question: Do you want to resolve this edit dispute and how ? This whole issue has nothing to do with any previous arbitration case you just made things up and imediatly brought it here. I want to resolve this edit dispute and I asked a simple question (above was the first time and now I will ask it again): Do you want to recreate the article and fix what needs to be fixed in the text or should I do it ? Zeq 17:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Once again, this is not an editorial dispute, I am enforcing policy in my capacity as an administrator — your claim that The article itself can exist in Misplaced Pages, it is part of it;s content that you have a problem with is a fabrication, since again, I have not read it, and have only checked it for copyvio, in a technical sense alone. El_C 17:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
You have offered to edit the article to solve the problem so it is a problem with the content. Now you have clarified what this problem is and I since accepted that (I did not yet recretaed the article after I realize what the problem is) So I ask again: If your offer to solve the problem by recreating the article and edit it yourself I will off course yeild to your editing but if you are not intesrted I will do it my self without the parts you have objected too. It all would have been simpler if you would just edit the article instead of rushing and making it a criminal case. Zeq 17:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I offered to write it "later." Rewriting Zeq's entry, which he has thus far only been able to contribute to via palagiarism, is not on the top of my priority list, sorry. But copyvio is. El_C 18:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, I wrote: 1. "I encourage you rewrite the article using uncopyrighted contents; 2. or I'll do it later." This dosen't mean I read the copyvio entry/haaretz article beyond confirming the gross copyrights violation, and indeed I didn't read it — so why would I have a problem with its contents? As I courtesy, I offered to rewrite the entry if Zeq would be unable to do so without committing plaigiarism. El_C 18:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Fine. I'll do it. You are welcome to contribute to the article edit in hope you will do so as editor without deleting the history file of the article. Zeq 18:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm holding you accountable for the above conduct discrepancies, and hope the Committee will, too. El_C 18:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I see that there is yet a new complain about you on AN/I (not involving me)/Incidents#User:El_C_Vandalism_by_Administrator Removing_Warnings.29, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#El_C_blocked_me. I also see that other admin over ride your block decision - I am less than surprize. You should really strive to find a better way to resolve disputes with people you have edit conflicts with. It is impossible that every conflict you have will end up in a block of the user with whom you have the dispute or ina ban or ina request for arbitration like you are now doing with me. There are mecahnisms to resolve disputes and you should use them. Zeq 19:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Zeq's wikistalking as per the 1st link (Sarastus777's attack page), I've already linked in my very 1st comment in this section. Second one (Moe Epsilon's attack page) appears to have been resolved, with the user promising not to recreate it. This all serves to underscore the underhanded manner in which Zeq operates. El_C 22:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and no admin overrode my block — I submitt that Zeq is making things up again. El_C 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It is also important to note that every message I ever left on El_C talk page received the same rude answer:

A revert of her talk page. The latest is this: but this is by no means a unique (, , ). That is her only answer to my polite comunication attempts with her. This is a clear violation of WP:Civility Zeq 20:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please review each diff carefuly; note that several of these diffs I have already linked above before Zeq ever responded to this section. The OpSR diff may appear strange, but it actually makes perfect sense — I welcome & encourage any questions on on what happend.El_C 22:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Important note: This whole complain by El_C is priviulus and made without Godd Faith. Why ? Because the idea in the ArbCom rulling was to ban me from several articles and to block should I violate these bans. I never violated any of these bans ArbCom also rulled that should i violate the bans 5 times I would be blocked for a year. But I did not violate any of the bans - not even once . Still El_C, as you see below tries to make an issue out of unrelated claims and even messages I left on a talk page to claim that the 5 blocks have been done (not true) and want to block me for a year. Zeq 19:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not top post; I authored this section, please aim at avoiding self-aggrendization. I moved your comment to the bottom. El_C 22:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Ridiculus to claim that if twice I commented on a talk page this is wikistalking. I am not following her aroud (this is a fact that is east to check: I raraly edit in articles she edit). If I happned once or twice to comment on complains other editors have on her (out of many complaints other editors have) this is not wikistalking. This is why the complaints board are public so people van talk about it. There is no wikistlaking in making two commnets over several month in which El_C is abusing her admin powers against me and other editors she disagree with. Zeq 03:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
It was more than twice. And two more things. 1st, Please stop edit warring over the propper order (!). 2nd, Zeq: to view my naked breasts and pussy (incl. the then horrible injury to my side, since healed), click. La_C 04:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC) ;P

Why are you reverting my comments and putting naked photos of yourself using a wrong user name ? This is beyond me. Please act ina civil way. No one who is in an edit conflict with you need to see your "naked breasts and pussy" Zeq 08:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he does like tuna! Anyway, thankfuly, we are not in an "edit conflict" over a single article! :) More to the point, I have asked Zeq repeatedly that s/he refrain from placing a notice above my request, please. Thanks in advance, Zeq. El_C 08:57, 17 August 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: