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 09:36, 28 June 2007 view sourceDavid Gerard (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators213,066 edits →Statement by David Gerard← Previous edit Revision as of 10:01, 28 June 2007 view source JzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,070 edits →Statement by []: replyNext edit →
Line 69: Line 69:
<div class="notice spoiler endspoiler" style="border-top: 2px solid #dddddd; border-bottom:2px solid #dddddd; text-align: justify; margin: 1em; padding: 0.2em;">''Significant plot details end here.''</div> <div class="notice spoiler endspoiler" style="border-top: 2px solid #dddddd; border-bottom:2px solid #dddddd; text-align: justify; margin: 1em; padding: 0.2em;">''Significant plot details end here.''</div>
:The RFA is about the propriety of making massive changes based on a disputed policy. You're trying to argue that this is okay because the disputed policy is actually correct. That's ] and is irrelevant. ] 21:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC) :The RFA is about the propriety of making massive changes based on a disputed policy. You're trying to argue that this is okay because the disputed policy is actually correct. That's ] and is irrelevant. ] 21:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
:: No, the RFAR is about you wanting to revert the removal of a large number of essentially self-referential templates fomr articles in almost all of which they were, by common consent, completely unjustified. There was significant discussion before, during and after the event. As far as I can tell the vast majority of editors think the vast majority of spoiler tags were useless; if you think spoiler tags genuinely contribute to the encyclopaedia then all you need to do is go to the articles you think need them and a case for the inclusion of spoiler tags ''in those articles'', on a case-by-case basis. I haven't seen a justification for a spolier tag on a Talk page yet so I have no idea what one would look like, but I'm guessing there would be a pretty low bar. If the sources agree that knowing X about film Y is a spoiler, and if the cat is not out of the bag long since, it should be trivially easy to persuade other editors that a spoiler is needed. I repeat, though, that the onus is on those seeking to ''include'' content to justify its inclusion. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


==== Statement by apathetic ] ==== ==== Statement by apathetic ] ====

Revision as of 10:01, 28 June 2007

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

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

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

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/How-to


Current requests

Spoiler Warning

Initiated by Ken Arromdee at 16:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Tony Sidaway:

Phil Sandifer:

David Gerard:

Kusma:

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Link to current spoiler talk page as of now. . See also the archives at Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler/archive5 with much relevant discussion, including longer presentations by others of the problems with current anti-spoiler activity. Discussion has been going on for months with no result. Moreover, a RFC was tried and closed with no useful result. . The policy has had a disputed tag since June 9 with no result. A request for AWB revocation was also tried but cancelled.

Statement by Ken Arromdee

This is in some ways an unusual request for arbitration. The problem has to do with the spoiler policy, where need for consensus has been bypassed by users deleting tens of thousands of spoiler warnings and claiming to have consensus because not enough of them are being restored. There are less than two dozen currently out of a former 45000. . The guideline is *not* settled and has *not* achieved consensus, as can be seen just from reading the pages or looking at the index.

The users listed above are three users who have participated in the spoiler page discussion and whose edit histories show a substantial number of recent removals of spoiler warnings, plus Tony Sidaway, who is the most prominent public supporter of the claim that the 45000 removals have consensus because they have not been reverted. There may be others, but my intent is to establish whether this is proper behavior for any user. I don't have the technical skills to determine the full set of users responsible for all 45000 removals.

As a way of establishing consensus, deleting 45000 warnings is inappropriate for several reasons:

  • Deleting a spoiler warning is much easier and faster than adding one. Adding one requires carefully reading the article and deciding on where to put the warning; deletion requires no such consideration. Moreover, spoiler warnings to be deleted are easily found with the "what links here" feature, but spoiler warnings to be restored can't be found in the same way. This makes the procedure imbalanced towards deletion (particularly with AWB assistance); restoring the warnings means facing a nearly impassable logistical barrier.
  • Spoiler warnings have been deleted with comments such as "(rm per WP:SPOILER (redundant with section title))", which would imply to most users that the deletion was done according to a settled policy/guideline. Users not intimately familiar with Misplaced Pages processes won't think of reading the spoiler guideline talk page to determine if the guideline has really been settled.
  • Once a user does restore a spoiler warning, it will get deleted again (almost always with no discussion). It's impossible to keep a spoiler warning without edit-warring. Under these circumstances, claiming that the policy has consensus because the spoiler warnings don't stay restored is absurd.
  • Using the lack of reversions to prove that the guideline has consensus, but also invoking the guideline to *prevent* reversions, is circular reasoning.
  • Part of the controversy is over editing the spoiler warning template itself. The current template doesn't include the words "spoiler" or "warning". This discourages users from restoring spoiler warnings by making spoiler warnings themselves vague and almost useless.
  • The template also includes disputed parts of the guideline (particularly the one about no warnings in plot sections) with no mention that they are disputed. Again, an average user would conclude that there is no dispute and that he is not permitted to restore most warnings; if so, the failure of users to restore warnings cannot prove consensus for one side of the dispute.

As this guideline enforcement has been done on a Misplaced Pages-wide scale, it has gone far beyond content disputes on any individual article. Policies not followed include the AWB policy ("Do not do anything controversial with it"), WP:POINT, and particularly WP:Consensus. Note that this RFA case isn't about whether the spoiler guideline itself is good; the case is about whether the activity of deleting 45000 warnings and enforcing a disputed policy is appropriate.

Response to arbitrator FloNight: I don't understand how to follow advice that says "continue following the process", when the complaint itself is that the other side is not following process. Ken Arromdee 21:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

There seems to be a small amount of disagreement over a new guideline that has almost universal acceptance. There have been numerous accusations of abusive behavior. A little ugly, but I suspect mainly resulting from lack of experience of Misplaced Pages on the part of the objectors. --Tony Sidaway 17:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by JoshuaZ

I'm not sure that this is ripe for arbitration at this time, but Tony's claim above that there is a consensus is far from true and the repeated removal of spoiler warnings as a way of testing their consensus is frankly disruptive bordering on making a point. JoshuaZ 17:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Note: Significant plot details follow.

By common consent almost all - 99% being a guesstimate frequently touted - spoiler warnings were redundant (in plot sections), unnecessary (works of fact, not fiction), fatuous (Plato, Dickens) or downright absurd (nursery rhymes). All the pro-spoiler crowd have ever had to do is go to the Talk pages of articles they think need spoiler warnings, and make a case, on an article by article basis, showing that the plot element or device is generally identified as a significant spoiler in current critical discussion of the work in question.

As far as I can tell, they refuse to do this, preferring instead either to edit-war over the tags, or to complain endlessly that there is no "consensus" to remove the spoiler warnings. In article space, of course, the onus is always on the editor seeking to include a tag or other content to justify that inclusion.

The real question here is why tens of thousands of spoiler warnings were placed in mainspace in the first place. Can someone show where it was discussed? The debate that justifies 45,000 spoiler tags in articles as diverse as Catch-22, the Book of Ruth and The Three Little Pigs? There is no evidence that editors were discriminating in adding these tags, or that they ever served any encyclopaedic purpose in more than a very small proportion of articles (and only debatably in those).

This request is baseless. Tony and Phil are responding to criticisms, this entire request appears to be functionally equivalent to: we don't like this, we can't be bothered to go and justify the tags on an article by article basis, but nobody else agrees with us that it's a Huge Big Problem that needs enormous effort from lots of other people to fix.

Somehow I doubt that the arbitration committee will see the removal of spolier tags form articles where their inclusion shows no evidence of critical judgement to be anything other than a reasonable action. This is, after all, an encyclopaedia: it is not exactly a surprise that the plot section on a 1930 film includes a discussion of the plot, and warning the reader of this does look rather silly. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Significant plot details end here.
The RFA is about the propriety of making massive changes based on a disputed policy. You're trying to argue that this is okay because the disputed policy is actually correct. That's Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler and is irrelevant. Ken Arromdee 21:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
No, the RFAR is about you wanting to revert the removal of a large number of essentially self-referential templates fomr articles in almost all of which they were, by common consent, completely unjustified. There was significant discussion before, during and after the event. As far as I can tell the vast majority of editors think the vast majority of spoiler tags were useless; if you think spoiler tags genuinely contribute to the encyclopaedia then all you need to do is go to the articles you think need them and a case for the inclusion of spoiler tags in those articles, on a case-by-case basis. I haven't seen a justification for a spolier tag on a Talk page yet so I have no idea what one would look like, but I'm guessing there would be a pretty low bar. If the sources agree that knowing X about film Y is a spoiler, and if the cat is not out of the bag long since, it should be trivially easy to persuade other editors that a spoiler is needed. I repeat, though, that the onus is on those seeking to include content to justify its inclusion. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by apathetic User:MastCell

This looks like a case in which a reasonable and laudable project, which ought to have universal support, has been somewhat sabotaged by a ham-handed and counterproductive approach (disrespect for newer contributors, high-handedness, etc), and not for the first time. It might be useful as a case study in how we can keep our metaphorical teapots tempest-free in the future, but it's hard to see an ArbCom case here. MastCell 21:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by David Gerard

The problem with the spoiler tag was that it was being applied indiscriminately to anything and everything someone might conceivably consider discussed plot details. This led to ludicrousness such as spoiler tags on non-fictional topics such as Anagram, Kiss (the article about kissing), Roger Bacon or Ultimate fate of the universe, Shakespeare, fairy tales and so forth - and people edit-warring to keep the spoiler tag on articles such as Three Little Pigs! In addition, it was causing serious problems with neutral point of view on some articles, as people were considering spoiler tags more important than the fundamental policy of neutrality. More than a few of the pro-spoiler edit warriors also got blocked for going over three reverts in twenty-four hours.

What I did: I removed quite a lot of spoiler tags (10-20,000?) from sections headed "Plot summary", "Character history" or something equivalent that would tell the reader to expect plot details. I did keep an eye on what I was doing. In some cases I was in error, and these were flagged on my talk page. On a few articles I erroneously removed the tag again when someone put it back, and when this was flagged I apologised and made sure the article in question was taken off my list for processing.

At present there are only a few uses of the spoiler tag remaining. I have tried in many such cases to re-edit the article so that it gives adequate warning of plot details for those who care without using an (in my opinion) problematic tag that has directly encouraged unencyclopedic writing and violations of fundamental policy - e.g. putting such things in a section titled "Plot summary" or "Character history", or using the {{future}} tag as appropriate - David Gerard 09:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Reject. A matter for the community to decide. Sometimes matters take longer than a few weeks to work through. Continue following the normal dispute resolution process to gain consensus. FloNight 19:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

COFS

Initiated by Durova at 02:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Statement by Durova

I submit this request for arbitration per recommendation by El C at a community sanctions noticeboard thread that became too convoluted to achieve closure. SheffieldSteel had proposed a community ban on COFS citing tendentious editing on Scientology topics, multiple confirmed sockpuppets including IP addresses that originate from official Church of Scientology computers, and a history of userblocks. I responded by proposing a three month topic ban, reducible to one month if COFS pledged to enter WP:ADOPT, and referred the editors to dispute resolution. The topic ban, which is provisionally in place per El C's closure, allows COFS to post to article talk pages.

A minority of editors at the CSN thread voiced strong objections to any sanction on COFS and alleged that anti-Scientology editors were attempting to skew the articles. I extended an offer to both sides of the dispute to review separate reports of policy violations. When I conducted preliminary research on this dispute I uncovered circumstantial evidence that some pro-Scientology editors may have violated WP:MEAT. That in turn led to accusations that I had acted improperly. This looks like a situation where multiple editors have acted in ways that merit examination per WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, and WP:SOCK. WP:COI is also pertinent for at least one party.

The editors at this dispute have rejected my repeated recommendations that they pursue dispute resolution so the only viable alternative is to ask the Committee to examine this matter. Durova 02:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Justanother's statement, the initial lines confirm my serious WP:COI concerns. This editor's claims regarding me are mistaken: I have always had the power to block COFS if that had been my intention. Instead I expressed that COFS was on a trajectory that would likely merit future userblocks and possible sitebanning unless some remedies were undertaken. Although I clarified that repeatedly it continues to be asserted against me. I stand by my investigative and training methods and I welcome the opportunity to clear any shadow of suspicion. Per Justanother, alternative methods of resolution are not available. Durova 03:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Lsi John's statement, Jehochman and I exchanged no private dialog regarding either this conflict or Scientology until I notified him of this arbitration request. He did not solicit my opinion or participation in any way. It is no secret that he is one of my admin coaching students and that I have a very high opinion of his conduct. Similarly, Lsi john's other assertions appear to me to be based on misinterpretation and conjecture. I invite the Committee to accept this case and examine all sides. Durova 02:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Justanother

Looks to me like more blowing things out of proportion and misrepresentation by User:Durova. Neither COFS' edit history nor her block history warrants sanction. That is my interpretation of the result of the WP:CN discussion. Convoluted or not, if COFS' history warranted sanction, COFS would have been sanctioned. Nor is there any sockpuppet issue at all and no proven meatpuppet issue; simply a number of editors that share a proxy IP address and that was the outcome of the checkuser case. Durova stated that she would not abide by the results of the noticeboard if they did not go her way "If you refuse to volley we can serve a 3 month topic ban, and if consensus doesn't form for that I can still use my sysop tools as needed." I guess she decided that unilaterally blocking COFS would not go over so well so here we are. I called Durova on what I considered contributing to the misuse of the sanctions noticeboard. I felt that Durova was indulging her stated and restated "hobby" for this sort of stuff at the expense of the proper usage of the sanctions noticeboard and at the expense of a good-faith editor that did not and does not deserve such treatment.

I should mention that I am not looking for any WP:DR vis-a-vis Durova for her actions. I was going to bring up the issue of the correct use of WP:CN on WP:AN but not to go after Durova, simply to clarify the procedure. So I am not looking for anything here for myself though I would like Durova to find another subject for her "hobby". --Justanother 03:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I should also say that if this arbitration does start then I would like to see any COI issue for COFS resolved and I would also like to see Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of COFS and Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of COFS deleted as they were created by a highly POV editor(s) and are used by that editor(s) in what I consider bad faith to smear COFS at every opportunity. They are inconsistent with the actual situation, a number of editors sharing a proxy IP address. However, it is important to note that other WP:DR remedies have not been applied in either case (and any admin is welcome to delete the categories - hint, hint) and I do agree with Lsi john that WP:DR is being used in a backwards fashion, starting at community sanction, then to ArbCom, etc. --Justanother 14:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Durova, please do not start discussion here - see talk page. --Justanother 04:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Lsi john

I'm stunned. We are going backwards?!!

As a 'last step' of dispute resolution, this arbitration is WAY TOO SOON .

First sanctions failed. Now we are trying arbitration? Next is user Rfc?

This case improperly STARTED at WP:CSN.

It was moved there at the urging of Jehochman, who already had an adversarial relationship with COFS and a motive to escalate.
His response to SheffieldSteel's post at WP:COIN indicates prejudice against 'these people', and mis-states the facts:

"How about taking this to Misplaced Pages:Community sanction noticeboard and requesting a community ban? I think these people have worn out our patience. I believe past investigations have shown that COFS works for the Scientology organization, so these are nothing but COI edits." Jehochman

To my knowledge there has been no user RfC, no mediation (failed or otherwise), and no evidence of trying, and failing, to resolve disputes with COFS.

COFS has 2 blocks for 3RR. The other blocks, related to sock puppet accusations, and were all subsequently 'unblocked'.

COFS addressed the COI question multiple times in the discussion 1 example.

COFS was agreeable to resolution here. Durova ignored it.

Regarding COFS, there is nothing for the committee to decide, as it is too soon.

  • However, Durova is mis-representing the facts to serve her wiki-sleuthing hobby. (cite1 and cite2):
  1. Someone rejected her recommendation to pursue lower DR? A review of the WP:CSN thread will show several editors wanted de-escalation. Durova unliaterally decreed only two options for COFS were possible: a) 3-month ban or b) Mentor program and ban.
  2. El C advised (not recommended): RfAr OR RfC. diff. Unless done privately, claiming that he 'recommended' arbitration is a misrepresentation.
  3. When I voiced oposition to the entire thread, Durova threatened me by suggesting that I would 'do well' to also enter a mentorship program (in the same sentence that she suggested a 3 month ban on COFS if COFS did comply).
  4. Durova also improperly suggested wrong doing on my part and accused me of offline collusion and lying.
  5. Durova rejected previous findings and declared judgement here.
  6. Durova had her mind made up about the outcome, and clearly said so here (e-comment: Put any ideology through that grinder and it produces the same sausage) and therefore there was no good-faith effort to resolve any disputed issues.
  7. SheffieldSteel did not request sanctions. diff
  • The committee may wish to look at Durova's conduct in this. She has stated that she enjoys wiki-sleuthing as a hobby, she has been unwaivering in her insistence of a community ban from the very beginning, she entertained no 'evidence' and went straight to 'verdict'.
Durova is open to having her adminship recalled. That may be extreme, but a suspension or serious reprimand might be in order.

Statement by ElC

I defered the case to arbitration, or RfC; I would understand if the Committee opts for the latter —not so much for lack of dispute resolution attempts, but rather, due to incomprehensibility and the need for some sort pre-evidence, evidence page. El_C 03:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Smee

I agree with Durova's assessment of the situation, and judgement, above. However it is also pertinent to note that after Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS, other than the actual confirmed results of the checkuser case, no other details were fully established after the case, other than unproven claims of some sort of shared ip usage or filter by the confirmed users themselves, and discussion from others on the case's talk page. I agree with Durova's assessment, and also think that in the case of User:COFS as well as the other confirmed users, it is more likely that WP:COI sockpuppeteering is going on here, as well as violations of the policies cited above by Durova, most notably WP:COI, WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT, and WP:NPA. Smee 04:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC).

Statement by Anynobody

It should be understood that I am not advocating the wholesale banning of Scientologists from editing Scientology articles just because they are affiliated with it. However, when a Scientologist continually makes questionable edits despite warnings from various editors, action is clearly called for.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS was initiated because another account, CSI LA, seemed to take up an argument two separate times after COFS was blocked. The investigation ended up revealing several users with a pro-Scientology POV editing from the same IP. COFS has evidently continued to let their WP:COI get in the way, based on the recent posts to WP:COIN and WP:CN.

I see no reason why Durova's solution is unfair. COFS has been given numerous warnings and the ban would still allow posting to Scientology talk pages thus not eliminating their opinion.

The vocal group opposed to the ban include some editors who could find themselves in the same situation COFS is in if they continue editing the way they have AND this solution is implemented. I feel that it is for this reason that some have been so passionate about decrying Durova's efforts here and on WP:CN. Anynobody 04:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


Statement by Jehochman

I am one of Durova's admin trainees. While on routine WP:COIN patrol, I noticed a complaint about User:COFS and two other editors who had allegedly whitewashed the Scientology article. COFS has been listed on WP:COIN before, and was found to have operated sockpuppets, and to have used the Church of Scientology's proxy server. That raised an obvious conflict of interest concern. Previous blocks had been issued against COFS, yet the apparent COI editing continued. That's why I suggested to User:SheffieldSteel that he bring this case to the Community Sanctions Noticeboard.

I don't remember editing any Scientology-related articles, except: I mediated a dispute between anti-Scientology activist User:Hkhenson (Keith Henson) and an unrelated editor over Capture bonding. This mediation ended prematurely when Henson was incarcerated. At the time I noticed serious WP:BLP violations in the Keith Henson article, removed them, and cleaned up the article a bit.

My concerns here are the incivility and disruptions caused by the constant edit warring between the pro- and anti-Scientology factions, and the waste of time inflicted on WP:COIN volunteers who are already stretched thin. I have attempted to counsel parties on both sides that they should stop fighting, respect each other's views, and work together to create good or featured articles. I urge the committee members to take on this case and fashion whatever remedies they see fit. Jehochman 02:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john is relatively new to Misplaced Pages. He has compiled a large number of edits over three months, but edit counts do not always provide the same experience as time. Indeed, one needs to see how slow moving processes resolve over months. John has much energy and promise. I think that with training, he could become a mediation specialist. I am convinced that he is acting in good faith, and may just be experiencing a bit of newcomer disorientation. Jehochman 02:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by COFS

Clerk notes

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

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

Mark Kim

Initiated by — Selmo at 00:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Statement by uninvolved Selmo

I am filing this case after reading Mark Kim's RfC. I feel after analyzing the evidence, that an RfC won't solve this dispute that has been ongoing for over two years because it requires all participants to want to come to some resolution. Mark has shown no interest in listening to others' opinions, as evident here, here, and here. The description from the RFC is as follows.

Mark Kim (previously known as Vesther) has been acting in an uncivil manner for an excessively long time. Several editors have tried to speak with him and help correct his behaviour but all attempts to do so are met with more incivility, denial, and his own assertion that he should be allowed to do whatever he deems necessary to "protect" articles and to get his point across in articles, which includes violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:OWN, as well as threats to edit war. He also maintains a double standard where he thinks its perfectly acceptable for him to do certain things (like try to moderate his user talk page with an iron fist) but then warns other users for doing the same thing (a diff will be provided where he warned a user for removing warnings from his talk page). Mark Kim also maintains that any disagreement with his behaviour is a personal attack of the utmost degree (and has referred to them as "damaging his persona"). This demonstrates his inability to work in a group setting. In a place as large as wikipedia you're never going to be able to avoid coming across someone who disagrees with you. I have never been involved in a content dispute with him. My only observations with him were as a third party recently and a year ago as I stumbled across two disputes he was involved in. After the second I dug a little deeper and found just how prevalent this behaviour was.

— Selmo 00:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Crossmr

I have little to add to the above, since its my summary that was being used to open this case, but I felt that this should be given as further evidence of the editors behaviour. Even though he claims to have closed his account, he continues to edit as an ip here . Same articles, same language (he can be seen writing "screw it" in a couple of earlier edit summaries) plus the IP edits Mark Kim's talk page. As far as I'm concerned this an attempt simply to dodge the arbitration case as he knows it will finally be binding and he'll have no choice but to edit by the ruling laid down.--Crossmr 01:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Mark Kim has deleted his userpage, and his talkpage currently reads, "Note: Due to excessive disputes, the user has voluntarily cancelled his/her Misplaced Pages account." (However, see above for an allegation that he continues to edit as an IP.) Newyorkbrad 01:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Request to re-open Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing

Initiated by Moreschi at 21:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

(others may add themselves as they see fit)


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

Statement by Moreschi

Misplaced Pages is a community project. If someone can't work with others, eventually it has to end in tears.

User:Pigsonthewing, hereafter known as Andy Mabbett, has a long history of problems with the rest of Misplaced Pages's community. Previous dramas culminated in the requests for comment and arbitration linked above, where he was sanctioned heavily by the ArbCom of the time. He has also been blocked a considerable number of times, including a one-year arbitration committee ban after the initial case. Since then, he has recently accumulated further blocks for revert-warring and repeatedly adding insults against other users to his userpage, after multiple uninvolved administrators had removed the offending material. He has also been in several tussles that have lead to multiple reports to WP:AE, and my personal involvement with this user has come over a move to remove infoboxes, where they are inappropriate, from classical composer and opera-related articles. After a self-evident consensus to do just this was reached, Andy Mabbett has continued to bang the drum against this for months on end, a lone voice in the wilderness, working on the principle that "no consensus == I disagree", and all because a lack of infoboxes mess up his Microformats. Others will go into that in more detail later.

Andy Mabbett has a singularly lengthy and entirely infamous history of disruption to the project. Recent events have brought this to boiling point. Given Mabbett's past history and current refusal to acknowledge, in multiple incidents, when he might possibly be wrong, I am asking the ArbCom to re-open the previous case to consider further sanctions at the very least. An outright indefinite ban, in my opinion, is to be preferred. Thank you. Moreschi 21:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Folantin

I second what Moreschi has written. As one of the admins writes in Andy Mabbett's block log, "This user appears to be here to make nuclear war with contributors; not to write an encyclopedia". AM is a belligerent editor who insists disputes cannot be concluded until he has his own way, even though majority opinion is clearly against him. This is true of his activities on the infobox topic (as documented by Moreschi). Mabbett has used various techniques, including violation of WP:POINT, canvassing and forum-shopping to keep that argument going for over two months and has tried to block any moratorium on the subject. I can provide evidence of this if necessary but I think this thread at WP:ANI shows AM's arguing technique in a nutshell . AM refused to remove inflammatory material from his user page, engaged in an edit war and was blocked for 72 hours . The material in question was intended to keep a quarrel he had with User:Leonig Mig still burning, although it is over 18 months old. The first thing he did on his return yesterday was to dig the dispute out of the ANI archives, insisting it was not over, to the frustration of other users involved. This is the same method he has used elsewhere and it is an enormous waste of time for other editors who simply want to get on with writing an encyclopaedia rather than using WP as a battleground. Since AM seems incapable of learning from experience, I think a lengthy (possibly permanent) enforced absence is in order. --Folantin 07:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Semi-Involved SirFozzie

I agree that ArbCom should pick up this case with an eye to determining how to handle Andy's behavior. He still is insisting that his latest escapades, that it's everyone else that's wrong, not him, and has shown no better behavior now then that which earned him his one year ban already.) He brought the latest dispute out from an archive and insisted on having the last word, refusing to accept what people were telling him. I finally gave up trying to discuss the case with him, because his insistence on hanving the last word. SirFozzie 19:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by slightly involved Durin

I saw this come up at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pigsonthewing and reviewed for myself what was happening. I made a posting on the matter to the thread, noting that PoTW rapidly embroils people in the conflict, when they came to the conflict as uninvolved parties hoping to help resolve the matter. Subsequent to that post of mine, three other editors who responded were attacked by PoTW as being dishonest, making ad hominen attacks and censoring PoTW, which I noted in a subsequent post.

PoTW conducted more than a dozen reverts over several days of the removal of a personal attack from his userpage. Three of the users conducting the removals are administrators. I am deeply troubled that despite being warned he would be blocked for continuing to place what was widely regarded as a personal attack on his userpage , PoTW once again put the text back on his userpage just three minutes later . When he was blocked for this, he then put the text on his talk page , in the process referring to the people against him as "the lynchmob". When this was removed from his talk page, PoTW complained calling it a "totally unacceptable act of censorship" . Even now, he's placed a message on his userpage saying it is being censored and people should review the history of his userpage for what was censored .

It is clear from the recent and past record both that PoTW does not respond well to feedback, and insists on taking to task anyone who disagrees with him. He is not amenable to making changes in his manner, and seems singularly incapable of working in a cooperative editing environment when he comes into conflict with other users. --Durin 20:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

ArbCom cannot ban editors indefinitely. - Penwhale | 00:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
. —freak(talk) 00:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
This statement has been made by various arbitrators who have indicated that either as a limitation on the authority originally delegated by Jimbo and/or as a matter of policy, the Arbitration Committee will not issue a ban of more than one year's duration. (Notwithstanding, they have actually done so in a couple of cases). Compare colloquy here (where it was I who asked the question). Newyorkbrad 02:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
In Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic, and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist, the ArbCom have either endorsed an indefinite community ban, or banned someone indefinitely right off their own bat. Moreoever, in this case, the editor in question has already been banned for a year. Moreschi 07:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Except very limited circumstances, ArbCom has never outright banned anyone indefinitely on its own. - Penwhale | 17:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Irishguy

Initiated by Tecmobowl at 20:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Tecmobowl

Admin Irishguy has violated so many rules and regulations in his blocking and sockpuppetry case of me that I feel his actions need to be reviewed by third parties. Dispute resolution does not really apply as far as i can tell. The best way to simply see what happened is to review my sockpuppet case here. Regardless of whether one feels I am a sock, which i am not, this user acted as judge, jury, and "executioner". He engaged me in a number of issues and then used his power to tilt the situation in his favor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tecmobowl (talk • contribs).

Statement by Irishguy

I caught him spamming his own website into articles. That is the only issue I was engaged in with him. He has tried to make it seem as if I was/am involved in a larger problem of general external links in baseball articles, but I have nothing to do with those debates and never did. As noted in the sock report, he and Blacksoxfan are one and the same. Tecmobowl has even gone out of his way to delete all mention of Blacksoxfan's spamming on article talk pages and user talk pages. Other than this issue (and evading his block) I have had absolutely nothing to do with this user and frankly I have no idea why he is still bringing this up. IrishGuy 20:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tecmobowl

This will probably be my last statement for now as I am not sure how this process is to proceed. Again, I am not BlackSoxFan. I have met blacksoxfan in person as I live in the same complex. The situation is simple: regardless of whether or not I am a sock, this user failed in a number of instances (which I will be happy to provide) to follow due process and adhere to the guidelines and policies of wikipedia. While I too may have failed, I am not an admin. This user should not have this type of power over users. Playing judge and jury is wrong and completely inappropriate. I will wait to hear from an uninvolved third party before proceeding any further. //Tecmobowl 21:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tecmobowl

In response to the second rejection, it appears that admins here will not review the facts and ignore WP:AGF. I know someone who created a pretty damn useful website for making the content on this site BETTER, that's it! Instead you guys jump to conclusions and toss accusations around. And YOU DON'T READ WHAT PEOPLE WRITE! Irishguy abused his power as an admin! He opened the sock case, blocked me, and then went on to provide all the "reasons" why he was so sure i was a sock. He extended my blocks during this time, and despite my prevoius attempts at discussion on pages like Talk:Kevin Youkilis, he continued his abuse of power. This RFA was taken up over ten days after the event. This is not about cooling of, this is not about my actions. Although I must again preface this (because you guys keep bringing it up) - I am not a sock. I have never used accounts or attempted to be a sock. Regardless, some people have deemed me to have used sockpuppetry at one time - i was punished - and that punishment has been served. THAT IS NOT THE POINT. The point is that this user engaged me in a number of irresponsible ways, failed to recognize MANY guidelines (for example: WP:AGF). He involved himself with me to the point that he had a WP:COI and yet nobody gives a rats ass. Does someone have to hit you guys over the head to see what the point is? I get it, i say things that rile up people. I say things like fuck and shit. Okay, we got it. I am an adament supporter of WP:BOLD and will continue to do so. I guess consider this closed and I'm going back to doing my thing. Bottom line, the ability to make content here is a great thing. I will continue to do so, but i have lost all respect for the group of people that come here. There are individuals who are clearly here to better the content and I will deal with them from now on.//Tecmobowl 13:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tecmobowl

A discussion with User:Jpgordon provided very beneficial. There is another avenue that I need to explore first. //Tecmobowl 12:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

TTN

Initiated by Angie Y. at 02:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive255#Mass_deletion_of_television_articles_by_TTN

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Angie Y.

TTN is charged with mass deletion and redirects of television and video game articles. He is being disruptive, snotty, and very rude to countless editors as well. Most of the cleanup that is done is left on the editors that made the articles, all under the guise of the WP:EPISODE guideline, which he/she believes is a policy.

"Regardless of where one stands on the issue, the manner in which it is being handled is completely unacceptable. At the very least, there should be some sort of discussion regarding WP:EPISODE. A crusade like this, especially with no attempt at discussion, is divisive and will only damage the Misplaced Pages community. This is *not* how Misplaced Pages should operate." 08:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Also, having just read your notice on the main page, I'd add that giving 14 days and threatening to delete the work that many editors have contributed to is not in keeping with the spirit of Misplaced Pages." at 21:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Matthew

TTN shows no apparent desire to engage in meaningful discussion, rather the user insists on pushing his/her POV. The user shows no desire to accept that Misplaced Pages works on consensus. I urge he arbitration committee to accept to review this user's behaviour. Matthew 14:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Sceptre

Seeing as I get involved with episode articles and notability a lot, I should comment that this isn't RFAR material and should be discussed on WT:EPISODE. In fact, I'm more concerned about Angie's stalking of TTN and use of the anti-deletionist-mergist-immediatist-exclusionist userbox on her user page. Will 15:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by ChazBeckett

I agree with Will/Sceptre that ArbCom isn't the proper venue for this discussion. I recommend that this case be rejected and an RfC or other dispute resolution steps be attempted. From my slight involvement (a TfD), the problem does not appear to be one-sided. If this case were to be accepted, it should examine the behavior of several participants, including Angie Y.Chaz 15:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Tvoz

While I did have an exchange with TTN about what appeared to me to be arbitrary posting of tags on articles without specificity and with no attempt to evaluate them or discuss his concerns, and I am concerned about this guideline's application, I was not consulted about this arbitration request prior to its posting. I agree that it's premature, but I would encourage the community to take a closer look at the way TTN (and the episode project) has been proceeding, which seems to me to be antithetical to the spirit of the encyclopedia. Tvoz |talk 17:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Bignole

How many editors does it take to realize they are reading the template wrong? Where's Mr. Owl. There is not deletion Angie, please, for the final time, understand that. Also, it isn't a threat to do anything, it's a helpful alert to others that the page is going to be reviewed by many in "at least" (that means no sooner than) 14 days. Please don't misquote or attribute the wrong idea to other users. TTN knows WP:EPISODE is a guideline and not a policy, but it still a guideline and not being followed. TTN is acting based on the consensus of others at the WP:EPISODE page. Angie's personal vendetta against TTN is personally getting annoying. They seem determined to find any oppurtunity to bring TTN to the AN/I (as they have done some previously). Plus their random vandalizing of TTN's user page should be a concern as well. It seems certain people are more concerned with a concensus that goes their way, then one that doesn't, and when it doesn't they demand a recount. TTN's action, although quick, are not the problem here. He's being singled out because he happens to work fast. I personally keep several tabs open and work on multiple projects at once. The spirit of Misplaced Pages is to have encyclopedic pages, not be a subsititute for TV.com. We have notability guidelines for a reason, not every tiny subject needs its own article. There was a reason merging tags were created.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Ckatz

I should also note that I wasn't consulted about this process prior to being named as a part of it, and I am uncomfortable with being associated with it given the manner in which the initiator has conducted herself. While I do feel quite strongly that TTN's goals, approach, and methodology are a problem, I do not think an arbitration proceeding is appropriate at this time. TTN, while determined to continue with his plans, is at least willing to participate in the episode review process. For now, that is the best way to monitor the situation, and I would encourage concerned parties to participate there. --Ckatzspy 18:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Note to filing party: Please explain what the dispute is about and why you believe the Arbitration Committee should decide it. Please give notice of this request to each of the other parties by placing a note on their talkpage with a link here. Newyorkbrad 03:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Did that. :) Angie Y. 03:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You must notify each of the involved parties on their talk page of this pending arbitration request and then posts diffs of the notification here. Thatcher131 14:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

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


Bus stop

Initiated by Drumpler at 17:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Involved articles

List of notable converts to Christianity

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Compromise
Mediation

Statement by Drumpler

I was initially made aware of the dispute when a request for help was listed at WP:EAR The issue largely revolves around an editor named Bus stop on the List of notable converts to Christianity article. Bus stop continually reverts editor contributions without discussion because of one individual: Bob Dylan. As can be seen in the diffs, the user continually makes accusations of anti-semitism. It should be noted that Bus stop has had opportunities to participate in votes to determine consensus, but has opted not to do so. If one checks the diffs, reliable sources abound of Dylan's former Christian status. However, instead of actually discussing, Bus stop repeats pretty much everything he's said in the past and makes little to no effort at communication. However, a compromise was reached by all other editors where the article would be renamed to make clear that this is a list of people who converted to Christianity and that if their status changed, it would be noted in the footnotes. No one, to my knowledge, has ever tried to portray Dylan as a Christian, but has desired to state that he was a Christian convert and believe the article should reflect that. Likewise, this user has demonstrated behaviour unbecoming of an editor to both mediators and an admin.

Statement by Warlordjohncarter

There are at least a few other substantial issues involved. I am not sure whether assisting us in perhaps resolving this disputes falls within the scope of arbitration or not. However, there is some substantial discussion as to whether individuals who have at least appeared to have left a religion they had earlier converted to should be included in the list of converts to the religion they have apparently since left, what the criteria for determining whether or not a person qualifies as such a subsequent convert are, and how such pages as the List of notable converts to Christianity should be formatted. Many of these issues will often deal with living persons, and thus might qualify under BLP. I suppose it might even (technically) be possible to state that all such lists of converts might be violations of BLP rules, at least for the individuals included. I'm not sure whether ArbCom can assist in these matters, but, if it would be possible to have some opinion on these matters of substance involving this article, I at least would appreciate it. But, like I said, I'm not really sure whether this group has the prerogative to assist in those matters, or whether you believe that you would be the best people to address it. I did, however, think that the issues were important enough to at least be mentioned here. John Carter 18:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Isotope23

My involvement in this dispute has been largely peripheral. I protected the page on May 30th and unprotected it a few days later (as mediation was ongoing) with a reminder not to edit war. I then blocked Bus stop (talk · contribs) for resuming the edit war as soon as the protection was lifted. Another mediation was apparently attempted, but I re-protected the article on June 17 due to continued edit warring over the same disputed text. I then unprotected it today when I became aware that there appeared to be a rough consensus. The edit warring resumed and I suggested WP:ARBCOM as the next logical step. While this started as a simple content dispute, I think this has evolved into a situation that ARBCOM is going to need to sort out as it is apparent that while some editors feel there is a consensus, others feel the consensus is contrived or against policy. It is probably worthwhile to expand this a bit from just considering Bus stop (talk · contribs) and the behavior of this editor. A couple of key points that might need to be considered:

  1. WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF at Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity and the talkpages of some of the involved editors.
  2. The contention that refactoring the name/purpose of the article is a contrivance to allow the inclusion of Bob Dylan
  3. WP:BLP; specifically addressing the claim that even though content is sourced and a group of editors assert the source is reliable, it still may run afoul of our policy on negative, poorly sourced claims.

Statement by Nick Graves

Bus stop has a long history of refusing to work toward consensus or compromise on this article. His input was utterly lacking in the most recent compromise attempt, as well as in the debate over renaming the article in the interest of making it clear that the list includes those who made notable conversions to Christianity, even if they are no longer Christian. His input has largely consisted of repetitively insisting that ex-Christians cannot be included in the list (as if his preferred parameters for the list are the only ones that can legitimately exist), or that Dylan only had a brief flirtation with Christianity (a claim clearly contradicted by multiple reliable sources), or that the people who want to include Dylan have a pro-Christian, antisemitic agenda. His latest reversions excising Dylan from this article, made within 10 minutes of each other, have edit summaries claiming that Dylan is not presently a Christian (irrelevant, according to the agreed-upon parameters of this list, since Dylan did make a conversion), and stating that "antisemitism should be avoided," a thinly veiled accusation which constitutes a personal attack, and which has been repeated by him countless times before. In his latest reversion, Bus stop invites us to "use the Talk page to discuss" the issue of including ex-Christians and Dylan, as if the issue has not already been talked to death for weeks and weeks already. His latest contribution to the talk page includes profanity and the accusation that those who wish to include Dylan are members of a "hate group." While I agreed with Bus stop that former converts should not be listed on lists of converts, it is clear that consensus goes against this preference, and there is no evidence that such consensus is counter to policy. Bus stop's recent reversions to the article constitute disruptive editing, even if he has not technically violated the 3RR. Given Bus stop's long history of reversions and disregarding consensus on this article, I believe intervention is required to prevent interminable and counter-productive dispute. Nick Graves 18:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Moralis

I haven't been terribly involved in the dispute itself, but came into the picture as the second of two mediators. While mediating, any point ceded to the inclusionist side of the debate was responded to by Bus stop with allegations of antisemitism, bias, and contrivance. The first thing I noticed was that he seemed to be repeating himself- he stuck with the same catch phrases and made the same tired point in response to everything anybody else said. It made mediating the discussion frustrating, but we generally just kept talking around him. Eventually, I dropped the mediation, because it seemed that all of the users involved had come to something of a compromise, save for Bus stop and Cleo123. Bus stop's input seemed to be a filibuster, which left Cleo as the only dissenting editor who could be taken seriously.

Since then, the editors involved have taken it upon themselves to set up a series of straw polls and demonstrate consensus. It was only during the last poll that I became an actual party to the discussion: having dropped the mediation, and in the interests of ending the debate, I cast a vote.

So that's my involvement. Most of it's just frustration with the user. I'm not really sure what can be asked of ArbCom in this case, but I'll gladly help in any way I can.

It should be noted, in case it hasn't already, that the result of the final poll (which narrowed it down to two options) was (if I recall) 9 to 4 in favor of moving the page, including the disputed persons on the list, and utilizing footnotes to explain their situation. Of the four users voting for the other option, three have agreed to respect consensus, as it's been clearly established. Neither Bus stop nor Cleo voted.

I think the biggest issue here is Bus stop's apparent obsession with this dispute, and his refusal to budge even so far as to choose new wording for his oft-repeated "rebuttals." It's just gotten out of hand. --Moralis (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:T. Anthony

I am going to try to give up Misplaced Pages, but as my presence was requested I'll say a few things here. As long as it is understood that this will likely be the limit of my involvement.

Most of my involvement with him was on the List of notable converts to Christianity. In some areas I have similar criticisms on conversion lists as User:Bus stop. There is a tendency to add names of people whose conversions were simply rumored or were of a brief and questionable nature. I think this dilutes the lists' purposes and I think can be avoided. However he is obviously coming from a very different perspective in other ways.

I think he has core principles that might be admirable in other situations, but they apparently made it almost impossible for him to compromise or discuss matters on lists like these. I found him generally unresponsive and unwilling to get involved in the process of trying to build a consensus. Instead his principles and understanding of logic remained absolute and unbending. I am not entirely unsympathetic with a person like that, but it apparently means he just can not abide by the consensus reached on that article for moral or other reasons. Judging by his most recent actions not getting his way has also made him increasingly strident, insulting, and disruptive. I am not going to say what kind of editor or person he is on the whole, he might be a fine one overall, but for this article I think he has become disruptive and unwilling to obey policy. Whatever is decided I hope he stops editing the list as I intend to do the same. (Probably not the kind of response wanted, but that's my statement)

Statement by User:Sefringle

First, I would like to say the problem here doesn't seem to be so much with User:Bus stop so much as it is with the fact that we cannot come to a consensus to whether or not to include former converts on the article List of notable converts to Christianity. My personal opinion is that we need to be consistent with all other "list of converts to religion X" articles, where only the Christianity one has former christians on it. As most of the editors on the article are Christians, I believe they want to turn the article into pro-Christian ad-populum religous propaganda by making the list longer, and they have outnumbered the opposition; the straw polls show that, and because of that, they have self-declared victory, by saying there is a rough consensus to include former Christians on the list. It is not consensus to simply outnumber us.

As for User:Bus stop. My experience with him/her as an editor goes as far as this article. He is on my side over this issue. I came in between mediations 1 and 2, after Bus Stop put the article up for an Afd. While I am opposed to the deletion of the article, I still see many of the things done to the article as pro-Christian propaganda. Prehaps this case to try to remove User:Bus Stop from wikipedia is to tilt the balance in their favor. He has long attempted to argue this point, as have I and User:Cleo123. There have been everything from accusations of antisemitism to questioning what a "Christian" is and what a "convert" is. Much of this occured while I was on wikibreak or was busy editing other articles, so I have taken a back seat to the mediation. In my doing so, it was assumed by one editor that I made consensus to agree to allow former Christians on the list. There doesn't seem to be much compromise on either side. So my opinion is that Bus Stop hasn't done anything wrong; that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not to include former christians on the article List of notable converts to Christianity.--Sefringle 04:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


Statement by User:Tendancer

The List of notable converts to Christianity is at least the second time I have witnessed Bus Stop committing disruptive behavior. The first time was on the Michael Richards page, where he likewise continuously made edits over the objections of other editors. His m.o. back then was always saying "use talk page" and revert other people's edits, then ignore everyone else's discussion on the talk page even if e.g. it was 5 vs 1 against him--in short, it seems like "use talk page" was just being used as a shield/weapon to revert other users' contributions back to his changes, which often are the very definition of original research. We had content conflicts back then, and he continuously accused me as a sockpuppet including in edit summaries: , and WP:STALKed me to another page I frequently edit to revert my changes (in the process reverting a spam link) again using "use talk page" as a false reason: .

I participated on the List of notable converts to Christianity after noticing he got blocked twice for 3RR violations on Bob Dylan. . His disruptive behavior seems to have gotten worse, especially now as User:Cleo123 (another disruptive editor whose m.o. is accusing others of "libel" in a very disrespectful tone) whom he befriended from the Michael Richards days) was often prodding and encouraging him, including advising him to refuse moderation and twice attacking mediators ad hominem. His m.o. now seems to have changed from "use talk page" to "anti-semitic" as his reason for discrediting all other's input whom he disagrees with.

In my opinion, Bus Stop is a disruptive editor who fits all criteria in WP:DE to a tee. I do believe he edits in "good faith"--in the sense that he probably doesn't consider himself disruptive and thinks he is making positive contributions to articles--however over the past 6 months his behavior has not changed: he continues to be unable to listen to and work with others, he continues to ignore sources (unless they support his opinions) and insist on committing original research, he does not care about how WP works and treats all articles as a blog for him to voice his own opinions (alarmingly even rhetoric-ed rules should be ignored and it's opinions that matters , and when others disagree with his opinions then basically he'll stay there to disrupt--for months if necessary, come hell or high water. I had been thinking that with time, his conduct would become more civil and less original research/soapboxing as there had been occasions where he made positivie contributions on other pages; however consider the rarity of those occasions and the sheer disruption he caused on the Michael Richards and especially List of notable converts to Christianity: we're talking months and hours/day at least half a dozen editors having to address his edits, till eventually even more editors and mediators had to be pulled in...I have to say I think this user may just be irredeemable--he will never believe in WP policies, he'll never believe that WP is for replicating what verifiable sources say and not for him to treat as his blog of his views on the world, and he's better off not editing wikipedia. He just needs his own blog.

I also want to note: Cleo123 and Bus Stop talks to each other offline , where I suspect they've been devising strategy on how to filibuster the page. Everytime Cleo is noted an RFC/admin notice is to be submitted against him, he disappears (last time for a week) till the RFC/admin incident fizzles because the user in question seems to have left wikipedia. I wouldn't be surprised is Bus Stop is committing the same ploy on Cleo's advise currently--and even if not he seems to have made sure he shot off several last WP:NPA-violating salvos. I believe whether he's still here or not, wikipedia is better off making sure editors like this cannot ever disrupt and personally attack other users again. Tendancer 15:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

I have offered to lift the indefinite block on Bus stop if the editor pledges to enter WP:ADOPT and avoid the problematic article for three months. In my evaluation this is straightforward example of disruptive editing rather than a content dispute: particular elements that lead to this conclusion are the editor's combative tone, argumentum ad nauseam comments, multiple policy violations, and two failed mediations. It is my understanding that he or she has edited productively on other topics so the ball's in Bus stop's court about whether to return. Per User:Durova/Recusal I could have headed down a similar path myself so I hope this solution is a fair middle ground. Durova 19:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Question from Anynobody

Has anyone tried addressing the fundamental mistake Bus stop is making from a purely logical perspective?
Clearly he/she has exhausted the patience of numerous editors, and since this debate appears to be over a month old I can certainly understand why patience is probably a scarce commodity on both sides.

There is a slight chance that this whole situation is a big misunderstanding as a direct result of a simple mistake. The arguments I've read seem to assume Bus stop understands the list is of notable people who at any time in their life converted to Christianity for any period of time. He/she appears to think the list is of current notable Christians, either they are genuinely confused or it's a "dumb" like a fox type tactic. The latter is easy to expose in circumstances like this with some pointed questions, which could be deemed impolite or condescending. In some discussions I've tried to point out such basic flaws in a round about way so as to avoid pointing out the intellectual equivalent of "your fly is open" to another editor and thus any unnecessary conflict. This seems to have had the opposite effect in my experience, the round about points simply frustrate the other editor into repeating themselves while saying I'm repeating myself, by the time I make the basic point they probably think I'm being sarcastic or have tuned me out. I'm wondering if something like that is happening here; editors too polite to say "It's not a list of current notable Christian converts..." Anynobody 08:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not such a case of misunderstanding, but rather a refusal to understand or acknowledge. The text of the page's intro has been clarified in order to avoid any ambiguity, the name of the article has been changed for improved clarity, several debates have occured on the talk page specifically on the subject of how to handle people whose faith may have changed since conversion, and Bus Stop has been told repeatedly, directly, by many editors, that the page is a list of people who have converted at some time in the past, regardless of current status. His canned response is to repost the same rant about how this "is" a list of Christians, and any opposition to this point of view is evidence of anti-semitism and Christian prosylitizing. This reposted comment has hardly varied over the last couple of months, and generally does not address nor recognize the comments that preceed it.
I can see how it might appear to be a simple misunderstanding, as each of his posts proceeds from an assumption that directly contradicts the actual contents of the page, and overlooks a major point of the talk page. It seems to be a "misunderstanding" that he plans to stand by. Thanks, though, for trying to temper the debate and offering a voice of reason. zadignose 01:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: It appears there is no further need to arbitrate. The disruptive editor has been blocked and the community is most likely able to handle the resolution of any lingering disputes regarding the article content. zadignose 14:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


Clerk notes

FWIW, there is also a discussion of this user underway at WP:CN. Newyorkbrad 05:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
As of June 26, Bus Stop has been blocked indefinitely. Newyorkbrad 16:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. Place new requests at the top.

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO

Per this ruling, is this good-faith edit grounds for blocking? Is it acceptable to use said ruling as the justification for this? Kamryn Matika 00:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the link in question contains no personal information or attacks. Kamryn Matika 00:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

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


Archives

Categories: