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 14:30, 24 June 2005 view source168.150.251.36 (talk) rv vandalism by Susvolan this is a nonviolent protest of the ArbCom's abuse of power← Previous edit Revision as of 14:32, 24 June 2005 view source Calton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users78,494 editsm rv Enviroknot sockvandal - buy a dictionary, okay?Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
'''The Arbitration Committee is seeking feedback - ]'''
Motions and requests by the parties


{{shortcut|], ], or ]}}
Place those on the discussion page WHERE WE WILL NEVER BOTHER LOOKING AND IF ANYTHING ACTAULLY GOES THERE WE'LL JUST BLANK IT.


The last step of ] is a request for 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 ].
<b>RAUL654 the ArbCom VANDAL HAS BLANKED THE DISCUSSION PAGE.</b>


{{ArbComOpenTasks}}
HE REFUSES TO ANSWER GOOD-FAITH QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS BULLSHIT, BAD-FAITH RFAr.
{{dispute-resolution}}


The procedure for accepting requests is described in the ]. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.
THIS WHOLE THING IS A SHAM.


'''0/0/0/0''' corresponds to Arb Com member votes to '''accept/reject/recuse/other'''.
IT'S AN RFAR AGAINST KAINTHESCION/ELKABONG. ENVIROKNOT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM YET YOU ARBCOM BAD FAITH MORONS ARE SIGNING JUDGEMENTS ONLY ON ENVIROKNOT.


This is not a page for discussion, and arbitrators may summarily remove discussion without comment.
THIS IS BEYOND FUCKING STUPID AND INTO THE REALM OF COMPLETE ABUSE OF POWER. I HOPE YOU FUCKERS ARE HAPPY YOU'RE DRIVING SO MANY EDITORS AWAY.


*]
EVERY TIME I SEE A NEW USER I'M GOING TO POINT THEM TO THIS CASE AND WARN THEM THAT IT'S JUST NOT WORTH RISKING HAVING TO DEAL WITH WIKIPEDIA'S INCESTUOUS RULERS IN ADMINSHIP AND ARBCOM.
*] (shortcut ])
*]
*]
*]

==Current requests==
==Template==
===Involved parties===
<!--provide links to the user page of each party and to all accounts they have edited with. Briefly summarize case. No details. -->

*

====Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request====
<!--provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration. -->

====Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried====
''If not, then explain why that would be fruitless''

===Statement by party 1===
Please limit your statement to 500 words

===Statement by party 2===
Please limit your statement to 500 words

===Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)===

==]==
===Involved parties===
The parties currently involved in this issue are ], myself ] and ]

The pages where disputes have been occuring are ], ], and the now redirected ]

AndyL has been hijacking articles related to Canada's constitutional monarchy to bully and push his republican POV, at times possibly abusing his administrator status.

*

====Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request====
See ] and ]

====Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried====
See and .

As well, see

No response was heard from either source.

===Statement by ] (initiating party)===

For some weeks now AndyL has been forcefully editing pages related to Canada's constitutional monarchy. The articles are edited to reflect his POV on a particular matter (especially his opinion that the Crown in Canada is "British"), and when challenged on this he ignores factual argument, with provided examples to back them up, in favour of his personal arguments based on nothing but opinion. When asked to provide supporting references he presents none, and when the articles are therefore corrected to remove his POV arguments he threatens reporting for valdalism and then reverts again.

He has so far challenged the ], which I do not object to, but in the ensuing VfD discussion accused me of creating the page as POV promotion, and then further accused me of "fishing for votes" from the Monarchist League of Canada. Explinations were ignored. This is recorded here: . AndyL then attempted to delete the article, which clearly violates Misplaced Pages policy (])

As well he has been causing hassle on the ] page, as seen here: and is currently being abusive on the ] article, as illustrated here: , here: , here: , and here: .

I do not wish to see anyone banned, but I do believe AndyL needs to be reigned in somewhat. His attitude is offensive and bullying, and a browse of his talk page will reveal that he has incited arguments elsewhere before. I ask for assistance in this matter. Thank you, --] 00:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:I would also like to bring your attention to a smaller dispute which occured on the ] article, which can be seen on the related history between 12:46, 6 Jun 2005 and 13:55, 12 Jun 2005, and on my Talk page: . --] 01:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

===Statement by party 2===
It would be helpful if gbambino could offer some specifics on what I'm supposed to have done wrong, other than disagree with his opinions (which he seems to confuse with fact). I see no actual complaint here and nothing to respond to. gbambino is a member of the ] and has succeeded in bringing a few of his comrades onto wikipedia in an attempt to enforce the particular POV of his organization (see ). He seems to be somewhat frustrated at his failure in getting his way and has concluded that those who disagree with him or are frustrating his efforts must be doing something wrong. The argument at present is simply over whether a sentence in the Monarchist League of Canada article which, to my mind, asserts as fact that the "Canadian monarchy" (ie the "Crown in right in Canada") is "distinctly Canadian". To my mind this is a contestable POV as many, if not most, Canadians would disagree with such an assertion. I have attempted to persuade gbambino and his friends that this statement should be modified with words that make it clear it is the MLC's opinion that the Crown is distinctly Canadian. He and his friend have resisted any attempt at compromise. As a result, I have added an NPOV tag to the article and disputed its factual accuracy. This seems to be a crime in gbambino's books. Pity. Hopefully, with experience, he will learn that just because he believe something doesn't make it a fact and can't be stated on wikipedia as such. ] 03:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for his claims that I attempted to "delete" ], the deletion logs show that no such attempt occured. ] 03:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am concerned that much of what gbambino has contributed to the ] article seems to have been lifted directly from the Monarchist League of Canada website. See ] for comparisons. gbambino did this once before with his attempt to create a "chronology" of the MLC that ended up being an almost word for word copy of the MLC's published chronology. ] 04:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

===Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)===

==Zen-master==
===Involved parties===
<!--provide links to the user page of each party and to all accounts they have edited with. Briefly summarize case. No details. -->

Patrick0Moran, the most quite and patient of contributors, advised me that, "A relatively new contributor, Zen-master, has taken an interest in the article on ] and has decided to attack Rikurzhen, calling him a racist and a Nazi. I've tried to reason with him regarding the main point of contention, but he ignores anything that anybody says to him and comes back with a personal attack. His latest was, essentially, "Only a Nazi would say what you just said." ] ] 04:00, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

:A deep analysis of the issue will indicate it is not as simple nor as one sided as Ed Poor describes it, in my opinion. I labeled patrick and rikurzhen's actions, not them personally. My offer, made in good faith, to withdraw my interpretation of their actions remains on the table if they explain why they used repetition combined with language misuse so frequently. The prime directive of wikipedia is neutrality and they seemingly, to me at least, appear to be trying to maintain a status quo of psychologically misdirecting language. Framing the article ] entirely in terms of "race" seems to me to be an attempt at confusing effect with cause. They can certainly choose to ignore my challenge for a logical explanation if they want to. Also note my username is "Zen-master", T is for talk. ] ] 04:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack on me. Any reason not to block immediately, considering that he's been warned repeatedly? ] ] 21:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

:How is that a personal attack? It is a question, you can choose not to respond to it as I gathered from you removing it from your talk page. ] ] 22:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Zen-master's contention that he "labeled patrick and rikurzhen's actions, not them personally, please read the following exchange, which I have copied directly from the talk page:

:The sooner you explain how language neutrality is original research the sooner you diminish the plausibility of my theory that you are a nazi. If someone was just a random interested researcher of this subject (even if they dubiously concluded race is a cause) I don't believe they would defend and deflect away from the current misuse of language to the degree you have. zen master T 02:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::So now I am being accused of being a Nazi too? Let's be clear about what you are saying. P0M 02:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:You two do seem to be working together to misdirect third parties away from doing any sort of mental analysis on the neutrality of language used in the article. So yes, I am accusing you both of being neo-nazis based on your posts on this talk page and based on the way you repeatedly defend or ignore the misuse of language. I will withdraw my accusations after you explain how striving for language neutrality is original research and/or after you explain how needlessly commingling cause and effect is scientific? zen master T 02:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In short, he expressed a "theory" that "you are a nazi." I asked him whether he meant I am a Nazi. He said, "So yes, I am acusing you both of being neo-nazis." The fact that he considers actions of mine to support "the plausibility of my theory" as he puts it, and that he bases his accusations "on your posts on this talk page and based on the way you repeatedly defend or ignore the use of language" does not make his accusation less problematical. People generally have '''some''' kind of reason for the accusations they make. The question is whether we tolerate ''ad hominem'' attacks, and attacks that are groundless at that. ] 23:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

====Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request====
<!--provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration. -->

Does his post above count as "awareness"?


====Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried====
''If not, then explain why that would be fruitless''

I spoke with Zen Master T about this, but he just accused me of "accusing him".

"Adhere or be blocked." ] ] 03:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Distinguished between <u>objecting to article edits</u> and <u>calling someone names</u>.

:Ed Poor, is this evidence of "dispute resolution"? Those URLs do not convey the full context, it can be found at ]. ] ] 17:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

===Statement by party 1===
Please limit your statement to 500 words

===Statement by party 2===
Please limit your statement to 500 words

<!--Add additional statements if necessary, for each directly involved user. Comments by users outside the dispute go on the talk page.-->

===Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (1/0/0/0)===
* Accept ] 13:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) Based on Zen Master T's continuing violation as expressed in his response.
* Accept ] ] 13:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* Reject. This looks somewhat tame to me, and I'm reluctant to become involved just yet. Please make some attempt at seriously working out the dispute between yourselves. If it does get worse, feel free to come back at a later stage, but Zen Master's replies, for the most part, seem quite reasonable. ] 16:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==]==
===Involved parties===
<!--provide links to the user page of each party and to all accounts they have edited with. Briefly summarize case. No details. -->

* ] ] ] ] ]. Defending user; accused of intentionally disruptive activity as well as total disregard of attempts to communicate problem to said user (including talk page and RFC).
* ] ]. Initiating administrator; attempted to communicate concerns with accused party. Created RFC against the accused.
* ] ]. Initiating administrator; attempted on multiple occasions to communicate concerns with accused party. Certified RFC against said user.
* ] ]. Initiating administrator; attempted to communicate concerns with accused party. Certified RFC against said user.
* {{user|Tony Sidaway}} Bewildered bystander.

====Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request====
<!--provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration. -->

====Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried====
''If not, then explain why that would be fruitless''
*
*
* ]
*
* ]

===Statement by ] (accused party)===

"In the interest of solving this dispute, I will go on IRC in the next 15-30 minutes (the current time is 21:00 GMT). I'm a reasonable man, but I do not appreciate threats or sanctions that can so easily be circumvented."

Good edits I have made:

]
] <small>Unsigned statement made by ], 16:05, Jun 20, 2005</small>

=== An attempt at compromise ===


Session Ident: Linuxbeak (~aschenck@#########.ri.cox.net)

<Linuxbeak> hm?

<Linuxbeak> are you looking for me?

<Forbes> I'm here to resolve the problem

<Linuxbeak> Are you MARMOT?

<Forbes> Guilty.

<Forbes> What is the problem?

<Forbes> I have never disrespected you...

<Linuxbeak> Okay. I'm going to be honest, first off. I don't carry grudges or anything, so if I say something, it's not because I want to pound you into the ground.

<Linuxbeak> The most glaring question that we've been trying to get an answer from you is why you're acting the way you are.

<Forbes> You're playing a clever game

<Linuxbeak> Now, don't start.

<Forbes> but I have made many good edits

<Forbes> under my ip address

<Linuxbeak> I'll let you have your say if you hear me out.

<Forbes> go ahead...

<Linuxbeak> There is no "game". The edits that you have made are textbook examples of disruptive trollish behavior. You haven't disrespected *me* directly, but you have erased comments in your user talk page that have directly addressed our concerns.

<Linuxbeak> You are obviously an intellegent person, and I can tell that from your edits. So, let's be open and honest with each other.

<Linuxbeak> Have you had an account before?

<Forbes> no comment

<Linuxbeak> Alright. Is there an issue with the way that Misplaced Pages works that you have a problem with?

<Forbes> true...

<Forbes> I have seen many people denied justice

<Linuxbeak> Okay. Can you give examples?

<Linuxbeak> Expand upon this.

<Forbes> the unaccountability of administrators is appalling

<Forbes> you sysops can do virtually whatever you like

<Forbes> and there is no recourse available

<Forbes> I have opened the debate, nothing more

<Linuxbeak> Alright. Give an example..

<Linuxbeak> Can you cite a time in which this has happened?

<Forbes> let me see...

<Forbes> http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/RickK

<Linuxbeak> Okay; so what specifically is your concern? We have a process to deal with admins that are a bit off.

<Forbes> haha

<Forbes> I think I have made my position abundantly clear

<Forbes> I wanted to know what I have supposedly done wrong

<Forbes> to resolve the issue, to put the matter to rest

<Linuxbeak> alright.

<Linuxbeak> Your activities on Misplaced Pages have been very dubious.

<Linuxbeak> I'm convinced you've been on Misplaced Pages for a while

<Linuxbeak> You chased Weyes around for a little while, for starters

<Linuxbeak> You created an RFC against Raul654, saying that he blocked you unfairly

<Linuxbeak> You created that Admins can't vote thing, which you seem to have been using as an experiment

<Linuxbeak> You fanned a flame war concerning said policy

<Linuxbeak> (with the Animal Farm picture)

<Linuxbeak> But the most glaring things are these:

<Linuxbeak> You have removed the comments made by myself and Taxman

<Linuxbeak> when we were trying to talk to you about this stuff

<Linuxbeak> And second: your response to RFC, which was really an attempt to stay away from RFAr, was at the very best unacceptable

<Forbes> Steven knows me.

<Forbes> Raul attempted to block me for removing an image that is up for deletion

<Linuxbeak> Steven being who? And what has this got to do with the issue at hand?

<Forbes> The animal farm image was an apt deliniation

<Forbes> You mean Weyes?

<Linuxbeak> Do I mean Weyes what?

<Forbes> you mentioned something about steven

<Forbes> anyway, I believe I have explained myself

<Linuxbeak> Oh, yes. Steven = Weyes, I presume

<Linuxbeak> Yes, Weyes. And I don't think you've explained yourself. I'm still not convinced that there isn't more to this story.

<Forbes> It is within my rights to define policy proposal

<Linuxbeak> Correct, but the policy you proposed was hotly contested.

<Linuxbeak> And your previous edits precluding that policy proposal were not exactly smiled upon by others, either


<Forbes> I refrained from participation in that discussion

<Linuxbeak> Why?

<Linuxbeak> If that policy was supposed to be serious, then as the creator, you should have been answering comments left and right.

<Forbes> that is not within my remit

<Forbes> an author does not review his own work

<Linuxbeak> your logic is flawed, then, because the proposal would potentially be "everyone's" and not your own. Plus, I review my own work on Misplaced Pages, so what says you can't?

<Linuxbeak> Okay, let me ask YOU a question, then

<Forbes> yes?

<Linuxbeak> Why did you give that response on RFC? Why didn't you give something that made more sense and of higher quality?

<Linuxbeak> It was that response that nailed you, quite frankly. That is called being a troll.

<Forbes> No surprises?

<Linuxbeak> ..what do you mean?

<Forbes> It was never going to be popular among that croud

<Forbes> crowd

<Linuxbeak> But the least that you could have done was to give a proper reply.

<Linuxbeak> That way, there would have been understanding.

<Linuxbeak> However, the reply you gave was totally worthless towards helping you.

<Forbes> I never going to agree with what RickK does in private

<Forbes> I'm sorry, but it's just not ethical

<Linuxbeak> ...huh? Wait, what?

<Forbes> *away for 15

<Forbes> I have tried to explain things

<Linuxbeak> Well, honestly, you haven't done that great of a job. Your edits to Misplaced Pages have been rather disruptive.


<Linuxbeak> You can't use Misplaced Pages as a soapbox; it's one of the policies

<Linuxbeak> also, Misplaced Pages is not a social experiment, as you have used it as such

<Linuxbeak> your experiment, while there's a time and a place for such, is not appropriate on Misplaced Pages. It isn't helping out Misplaced Pages or it's editors.

<Linuxbeak> So, it really comes down to this.

<Linuxbeak> You need to change your ways.

<Forbes> what do you want me to do?

<Forbes> you want me to leave, despite my many positive and valued contributions

<Forbes> ?

<Linuxbeak> I want you to stop using Misplaced Pages like it's a playpen.

<Linuxbeak> We have given you warnings before; we gave you the chance to defend yourself on the RFC.

<Forbes> people had already voted before I placed the comment

<Forbes> thus there would have been no point

<Linuxbeak> People can and have changed votes.

<Linuxbeak> Plus, the evidence given is very damning.

<Linuxbeak> In fact, you still have yet to explain yourself on all of the counts described in your RFC.

<Forbes> speculation

<Linuxbeak> What about speculation?

<Linuxbeak> well?

<Forbes> I explain nothing.

<Forbes> you appear to have a vendetta

<Forbes> for some reason

<Linuxbeak> now, why would i have a vendetta?

<Linuxbeak> I'm asking that you explain your actions.

<Forbes> in the event the marmot account is deleted, that will hardly prevent me posting

<Linuxbeak> Accounts aren't deleted.

<Linuxbeak> I'm not trying to prevent you from posting, either.

<Linuxbeak> What I am doing is trying to stop you from trolling.

<Linuxbeak> I, along with Taxman and Mel, have tried to communicate with you without anything "formal"

<Forbes> by your own admission, you wanted to block me, but couldn't find a legit reason

<Forbes> which is why you go to arb

<Linuxbeak> Oh, see, I have a legit reason.

<Linuxbeak> However, I didn't block you.

<Linuxbeak> Everyone on IRC has been telling me to, you know. "Don't waste the time of the ArbCom".

<Linuxbeak> If anything, I have been giving you "one more chance".

<Forbes> you cannot be blocked without violation of 3rr or vandalism

<Linuxbeak> That's incorrect.

<Forbes> No.

<Linuxbeak> I can block for vandalism, excessive reverts (3RR), enforcement of bans, the usage of anonymous and open proxies, disruption (which is what you have been slated as), inappropriate usernames, impersonation, the usage of "Public" accounts, the usage of bots, Bots, and personal attacks

<Linuxbeak> I generally only block for vandalism. Your behavior has been disruptive, and theoretically I can block you for that.

<Linuxbeak> However, I have been giving you the option of defending yourself, and you have not taken that opportunity.

<Linuxbeak> By handing you over to the ArbCom after not only several failed attempts at communication but a failed RFC as well, I do not have to be the one who passes judgement on you.

<Linuxbeak> You don't seem to understand that it is *you* who has shot yourself in the foot

<Linuxbeak> Anyway, I must go. I suggest you answer the ArbCom spot, because you haven't convinced me that you aren't a troll.

<Linuxbeak> It's out of my hands; if you want to talk to Taxman, now is the time to do so.

<Forbes> I don't even know who that is

Session Close: Mon Jun 20 23:44:06 2005

===Statement by ] (initiating party)===
All attempts at communication with MARMOT have generally ended in total disregard and contempt for those attempting to initiate said communication. I myself tried to communicate my concerns, but my comment was removed by MARMOT with the edit summary "vandalism". I have watched MARMOT's actions on Misplaced Pages, and I was not liking what I was seeing. Admitingly, MARMOT has made some meaningful contributions, but the vast majority of them are pointing to a former Wikipedian. Since my attempt to communicate with MARMOT failed, I have taken a bit of a back-seat in directly dealing with MARMOT and let other users try their own hand. The only major actions that I have taken since then has been the creation of ] as well as this ArbCom case. Seeing that the RFC only confirmed that MARMOT was a troll, it has come time to introduce this to the ArbCom. I personally would have blocked MARMOT, but I feel like there is more to this story than him being a simple troll. I feel like this will be a quick and simple case for ArbCom, seeing that the evidence is overwhelmingly pointing towards disruption. ] | ] | ] 19:06, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

===Statement by ] (initiating party)===

This should be a relatively painless and quick process. The user hasn't made a really large number of edits, so it won't be too hard to review of the edit history to reveal an overwhelming proportion of unhelpful edits. The history will also show a very low proportion of edits to actual articles, instead focusing on arguments on talk pages. The nail in the coffin was the response to the RFC . If MARMOT has an interest in making productive contributions, I would suggest relinquishing the user account, starting a new one, and following the spirit of all Misplaced Pages policies. Even better, would be in addition to following policy, simply make an effort to improve the place instead of causing discord. I think it is clear that has not been done so far. - ] <sup><small>]</sup></small> 19:50, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

===Statement by ] (initiating party)===
(Sorry &mdash; I've just realised that my statement failed to make it through. The College system collapsed on the day that I was editing, but I thought that this one had saved OK. I'll try to reconstruct it.)

This user seems to be here for only one purpose: to disrupt, apparently because he has some sort of axe to grind from previous experiences here (as another registered user or an anon I don't know). I'm not sure that arbitration is the best way forward; on the other hand, I don't know what else can be done. His attitude to the RfC on him suggests that any attempt at mediation is pointless. His contributions history indicates very little useful, but a lot of minor (and occasionally major) disruptive editing; even if, individually, they don't seem important, together they add to the increasing stress and aggravation of editing (see recent discussion of this at ]). 22:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

===Statement by ] (outside view) ===
I can't see the point of taking this to arbitration. If he's only ever a disruptive troll, block him. If he's an occasional troll, block him when he's disruptive. Don't waste valuable arbitration time. --]|] 11:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

*Reject. This doesn't need to come to us IMO. If you see him do something to disrupt Misplaced Pages just block him ''"Sysops may also block new user accounts that make lots of disruptive edits, for any length of time or permanently, at their discretion."'' from the ] ] 15:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
**The reason this was brought here is that section also says: ''"However, blocks should not be used ... against user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits."'' and ''"Blocks under this provision are almost always controversial."'' ArbCom has the ability to end the issue quickly, and with a minimum of controversy. MARMOT has made a couple of useful edits. - ] <sup><small>]</sup></small> 15:52, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
*Reject; block now. If the Troll Defence League chooses to whinge about this exceptionally obvious case, feel free to use this rejection as evidence for having reason to block him. ] 15:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*Recuse, since one of Marmot's first things was to file an RFC against me (which I promptly ignored); on the other hand, I agree with the above comments that you can block without the need for an arbitration case. ] 00:50, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
**Very well, clear this one off as needed. I'll just keep the diffs to these comments. So far he's a little better, so maybe it works after all. - ] <sup><small>]</sup></small> 21:45, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
*Reject for now. Having spoken to MARMOT on IRC, he may well be sincere and not merely trolling, but severely out of step with Misplaced Pages &mdash; and that's not really good enough. I strongly urge him to try to accept others' concerns better (and not reject as "vandalism"), discuss edits on talk pages more, ] and so forth. Also, MARMOT appears to have created a sockpuppet, ], to vote against Weyes' RFA; this sort of thing is unacceptable; please do not do anything of the sort again, out of frustration or any other reason - ] 22:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==]==
* ]
* ] ]

Reason: A campaign of personal harrassment, stalking personal abuse and attempts at bullying directed against me and which, while I was writing this, I was informed that he has directed in part against others also, who have stood up to him on his behaviour on Misplaced Pages.

====Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request====
*

Other users aware of his behaviour:
*
*

====Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried====
Given the experience with ], Skyring has shown himself unwilling to listen to anyone else, convinced of his own correctness, and sure that everyone who disagrees with him is a "bully", "ignorant", etc.

===Statement by party 1===
As the arbitrators are aware, ] has been the subject of a POV dispute on ]. You are currently dealing with this. I was one of the users who challenged him. Since then he has engaged in constant harassment of me. In one period 100 of 102 edits he did were of pages I had edited either immediately before or within a short space of time, accompanied by personally abusive edit summaries. He placed messages abusing me on among others the talk pages of ] and ]. Tonight I edited the page a two year old article, ] to add in some images and do some minor textual changes. 42 minutes later he went to the page and added in a deletion notice.

His most recent act on a page I had edited was, as mentioned to propose deletion, which he categorised in the edit summary thus:

04:56, 19 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Vicarius Filii Dei (Kick it off)

His appearance at the article was as follows:

* (cur) (last) 04:53, 19 Jun 2005 Skyring (VfD. Trivial material covered elsewhere.)
* (cur) (last) 04:11, 19 Jun 2005 Jtdirl

Among the comments he added to people's talk pages were

He described his comment on Adam Carr's page thus:
* 14:33, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Adam Carr (Low quality of Irish editor)

Throughout the period he appeared on pages he had never paid any attention to, simply because I edited it. He suddenly developed an interest in Irish local government , a member of Ronald Reagan's cabinet, the ] , ]s
, ] where he announced his intention of deleting a template I had added to an article I had written from scratch (a user who has been waging a campaign against templates had just been voted down in his attempt to delete another template I had created. Suddenly Skyring was ''in'' to templates too!). Whether it was the residence of the President of Ireland or ]s, ] or the ], templates or even a temp page, if I went near it, he followed and then in many cases was publicly abusive.

I outlined more details at . ] also outlines what is described as the "personal harrassment of User:jtdirl". (Other users have emailed me over his behaviour using extremely strong language about Skyring and his antics, and urged me to raise it here.)

Finally, I note that in the discussion on the proposed one year ban from editing any articles relating to the Government of Australia, Skyring made the following threat
"Nor will it stop me from finding some other editor(s) to present the same facts." In other words he is openly admitting that he will get around the ban by "finding some other editor(s)" to force his patiently incorrect opinion. Given that he is already under investigation by you, this request here should receive priority and be dealt with in tandem with the other, with one injection given for both. Otherwise, going by his past performance he will simply use the excuse of his ban on writing on Australian government topics, while simultaneously breaking it, to harass and bully others who have in the past stood in his way.

''Since I started typing this, Petaholmes has contacted to inform me that "he briefly tried wikistalking me too after I put up the harassment evidence." Clearly this campaign of harrassment is not a once off and won't be a once off. This user needs severe dealing with, possibly even the ultimate sanction, for his behaviour. ''

===Statement by ]===

I feel bad since I should have been keeping an eye on this. I warned Skyring against making personal attcks in edit summaries () and taking pains in upsetting Jtdirl. I consider Pete Skyring's VfD nomination & participation alone to have been made in extremely bad faith, undoubtedly as part of a campaign of harrasment targetting jtdirl &mdash; and I could not care less that Pete Skyring fixes some grammatical errors in the course of this, to ] his ]. His contempt towards ], which a cursory glance reveals to be one of Misplaced Pages's foremost experts on Catholicism, only further underscores Pete Skyring's contempt for Misplaced Pages and its editors. I excerpt the unfortunate exchange, thusly:

<code> I've been a Catholic scholar for years, and I couldn't tell you know how many times I've heard this myth, in and outside class. ] · Talk 05:29, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)</code>

<code>Snopes doesn't list it. It may well be a longstanding myth but it's pure crap. Who really cares? Crackpots. As for jtdirl's edits - check out my contributions and you'll see what I was correcting. ] 06:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)</code>

I did not realize snops.com was exhaustive. This is symptomatic of how editors get treated when in the way of Pete Skyring's agenda. Since when did "''who'' really cares" become a criteria for deletion/notability? The use of the word "crackpot" is telling, noting Pete Skyring's most infemous edit: <font size="+2">***</font> This editor has been nothing but discourteous to me, personally (recently, on this matter ), on ], where he had edited my comments, lengthening a two sentence quote to a whole paragraph, thereby he is seen to be suppressing my point () &mdash;as seen in the following two diffs, more than once&mdash; and with a most discreditable impunity despite all protests (, and a 2nd time: ). And in the realm of content, extremely eliptical, agenda-driven and intellectually dishonest. This latest ''stunt'', while his current Arbitration on "crackpot" Republicanism in Govt. of Australia remains ongoing, is a mockery of Misplaced Pages, its editors, and this committee. I offer Jtdirl's my apologies for my oversight in neglecting to watch over Pete Skyring's ''proofreading'' (I have been rather preoccupied elsehwhere), and I call on this committee to put a stop to Pete Skyring's abuse of Misplaced Pages policy, starting with an immediate injunction. ] 11:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

===Statement by Skyring===
] makes his hypocrisy plain. A glance at his contributions shows that he repeatedly abuses me both publicly and privately. As he does again in this RfA. That's one reason for me to keep tabs on his contributions.
(] attempts to justify his harrassment of me.) "his hilariously ridiculous comprehension of constitutional law", "his dodgy claims"
"Pete's ridiculous, uninformed constitutionally illiterate rambles","Pete's ridiculous dillusions about Australian constitutional law"
"'Alice in Wonderland' contibutor"
"But then, when you have spent 6 archives making ludicrous claims it would be a bit much to expect you to understand the rules of wikipedia when you don't ''even'' understand your own constitution"
(list of edits to follow. Long list)

Checking out my contributions reveals one obvious point. I like hunting down errors and fixing them. I like this more than creating new articles or adding material to existing articles. I noticed from ]'s contributions when he weighed into the ] debate that his material was full of errors (for instance, he was unaware of Australian monarchist spokesmen and what their public statements had been, and he claimed two Governors-General had commented on events in 1999, not knowing that they had died in 1991 and 1993 respectively).

So after patrolling RC for a while I thought that I might go and check out ]'s edits as a more fruitful source of errors, and I found the mother-lode! My edits speak for themselves. Spelling mistakes, syntax reconstruction, grammar and style fixes galore, but also corrections of some really ludicrous errors. Several times jtdirl reverted my corrections, thereby reintroducing the same old errors.

] is worth following around to tidy up her spelling mistakes, but she's not in the same league.
(list of edits to follow. Short list)

(I must say that I take my hat off to ]! She complains that '''I'm''' stalking her, but if you read her statement below, she's busy trawling through '''my''' LiveJournal blog for stuff to use here! Way to steal the moral high ground, nixie!)

And yes, I looked at ], read through it and was unimpressed. It's pure crackpottery and doesn't belong in WP. Snopes.com covers a multitude of myths, but doesn't bother with this one. So I created a VfD for VFD and yes, I made the comment "Kick it off". As I had done with other new articles such as or . I had imagined that the reference to "kicking-off" a football game was plain.

I am not surprised that ] is moaning about "harrassment". He thinks he is, like the pope, incapable of error, and having his mistakes pointed out in public must really make him grip his steering wheel and pound on his horn. Tough. Everything we do here is open to scrutiny, and I'm not one to leave errors in Misplaced Pages if I can correct them. It gives me a warm glow of virtue.
------
'''Comment:'''

<code>He thinks he is, like the pope, incapable of error, and having his mistakes pointed out in public must really make him grip his steering wheel and pound on his horn. Tough. Everything we do here is open to scrutiny, and I'm not one to leave errors in Misplaced Pages if I can correct them. It gives me a warm glow of virtue.</code>

''A warm glow of virtue'' ?(!) The contempt and instransigence of Pete Skyring truly begs belief. He is not satisfied with ] Jtdirl in his statement, but also feels compelled to add a snide, disparaging remark against Catholics. I charge that he is out of order and out of line. This is an insult to the Misplaced Pages community, a mockery of this procedure, its participants, and the committee. ] 13:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:I "feel compelled", do I? What interesting terminology. How very ]. I personally do not feel "compelled", despite your projections.

:Misplaced Pages is described by its founder Jimmy Wales as "''an effort to create and distribute a 💕 of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language.''"

:That's the bottom line. The aim is '''not''' to create a bureaucracy. The aim is '''not''' to create a clubby community where everyone agrees with everyone else. My edits speak for themselves - they are directed towards correcting errors and thereby improving the quality of the Misplaced Pages.

:And I'd like to point out that charging me with attacking other editors whilst making an abusive and insulting attack against me is the height of hypocrisy. Look to the log in your own eye, brother! ] 14:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Huh? That was rather insane. You sure seem compelled to me. Quite the ] you got there, btw. ] 21:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:That's the point. It's '''your''' perception. Don't tell me what I "feel", because it's your feeling, not mine.

:As for VFD VfD, if people want to keep it that's fine, and I'm pleased to see the system working as it should. Looks like I misjudged the genuine interest of people in mythbusting. To my mind the whole crackpot myth can be exploded by simply pointing out that the papal tiaras don't have any inscription. Plain common sense, but hey, if people '''really''' want a whole article with pictures instead of two lines in the ] article, that's OK. My apologies to all the keen mythbusters and I've changed my vote there to make it a unanimous '''Keep'''. ] 21:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Snuh? I did no such thing. As I said, <code>ou sure seem compelled <u>to me</u></code>. ] 22:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Read what again. Please. ] 23:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:And I was not telling ''you'' anything, I was addressing the committee, which I suggest that, henceforth, you limit yourself to doing. ] 22:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::May I point out to the committee the blatant hypocrisy of El C's comment above? ] 23:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Boasting of your contempt for other Wikipedians in a public forum (which you link to from your user page so I can only assume that you want people to go there) seems like very relevant information, and speaks to your general contempt for the norms of behaviour here.--] 00:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Judging by the behaviour of you, jtdirl and El_C, one might imagine that breathtaking hypocrisy is the norm. Sure, my LiveJournal is open to the public. So are Misplaced Pages contributions, and really, you can hardly complain that I am stalking you by looking at your official contributions here when you go offsite and not only hunt back through my personal blog but you also quote bits out of it. Be reasonable, please! ] 01:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:Tired rhetoric, shallow innuendo, trivial diversions; the facts speak clearly, and they have been thoroughly documented above & elsewhere. ] 02:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Just step into my shoes for a moment, brother. From my point of view, you're doing the exact same things you accuse me of doing. You want me somehow wikipunished but I'll bet if I kick off three more RfAs for the above three clear hypocrisies, you'll complain that it's all terribly unfair. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I say. Look into your own heart and ask yourself if the hatred you are directing my way is something '''you'd''' care to be on the receiving end of? ] 04:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:I'm not directing any hatred your way, I take exception to that accusation. You are free to take any action you see fit against me. ] 12:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no intention of engaging in any discussion with Skyring, who has shown himself to all who have dealt with him to be arrogant, obnoxious and incapable of recognising that when everyone who has dealt with him points out that there is a problem with his behaviour, there may well be a problem with his behaviour. I will however point out three facts:

* He sees nothing wrong in targeting 'enemies' of his, attacking them, and following them around from page to page harrassing them. If he did that in person he would be reported to the police for stalking.
* While seeing nothing wrong with his behaviour of targeting his critics personally, Skyring regards it as unacceptable when El-C reads something he had written about Wikipedians in a public forum that ''he'' himself has advertised on his ''own'' user page, with a link provided by ''him'' to enable Wikipedians to read his page.

::'''''Another person, a young lady who may or may not have dyslexia, thinks that when I cast an eye over her edits and correct her spelling, I'm stalking and harrassing her. She just quoted an extract from this very LiveJournal blog as evidence against me. Huh? Who's doing the stalking?''''''

* In two places, when debating the proposed sanction against him for his conduct on Australian government pages, and in the external page he himself links to his own Misplaced Pages page, he points out that he can get one or more other 'users' (ie, himself as someone else) to push his editing agenda, or that he can also sign on anonymously and do exactly as he wants, irrespective of what sanction is imposed on him here.

::'''''His aim in life is to get me booted off Misplaced Pages so I don't embarrass him any further. Yeah, like that would work. Misplaced Pages allows anonymous efforts, so all I would have to do would be to hop on my bike, trundle down Constitution Avenue to Civic where there are any number of hotspots, and enjoy a cup of coffee while I fixed up his latest idiocies. A different IP address every day. What could he do? Complain that some bastard was making him look like an idiot?'''''

::'''''Nor will it stop me from finding some other editor(s) to present the same facts.'''''

Clearly, having shown contempt for other users and contempt of NPOV he has also demonstrated clear contempt for the rule-making and rule-enforcing standards on Misplaced Pages. As a result one can but question whether a partial ban, either from certain types of edits or certain pages, would be effective. DW and Lir showed similar contempt for other users and Misplaced Pages rules. Should Skyring, on the basis of his threats to get around any sanctions imposed, be treated like the above two individuals, and so have a longterm ban imposed, coupled with an instruction to revert any edits by him under assumed identities on sight? <font color="#006666">'''Fear'''<font color="#FF6600">'''''ÉIREANN''''']\<font color=blue><sup>]</sup><font color=black> 01:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

===Statement by ]===
After adding harassment evidence to Skrings other RfAr, he proceeded to edit four other pages that I had worked on that day, including one I was still actively working on and was yet to spell check. Previously he and I only have one page that we both edit. Since he didn't barrage with with the same personal attacks that he did Jtdirl I was unsure If I should add it to the evidence. The wikistalking did concern me, first for the irrational reason that I was being followed (though I think most resonable wikipedians would feel the same way); second for the reason that I was being targeted and scrutinized unfairly due to involvement in the preceeding ArbCom case; and thirdly these behaviours certainly point to deficiencies in expected behaviour including ]. I also find it quite odd that Skyring thinks he is doing the project a service by ''policing'' and enforcing his Wikijustice on good users, it would seem to go against the spirit of the Wiki. This quote from his LJ is rather telling ''As you know, I'm a frequent contributor to Misplaced Pages, where my tastes lie more in the direction of stamping on errors and egos than in adding to the body of knowledge,'' . The personal attacks on Jtdirl are unacceptable.--] 09:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

<!--Add additional statements if necessary, for each directly involved user. Comments by users outside the dispute go on the talk page.-->

===Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)===
*Merge into existing case. This may require a temporary injunction. ] 10:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* Accept but don't merge. ] 11:37, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
** Why do we need two cases on the same user for the same dispute with the same people? The only difference is that things have gotten more aggravated. ] 11:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Merge'''. -- ]] ] 21:32, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
* Merge ] 20:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==]/]==
===Involved parties===
*{{user|OldRight}}/{{user|Old Right}}
*Several dozen others

====Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request====
See ].

====Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried====
See ].

===Statement by ]===
I have been fortunate enough not to have significant dealings with ]/]. However, I have noticed some stunningly disruptive behavior from this user. Evidence and a full request for relief may be read at ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:10, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

===Statement by ]===
I have dealt with ], on one occasion, after the RFC started for the ] article. We have asked for his input on why he constantly wants to revert this article, and has yet to make a statement. Given his history in the past, especially with his instigation of an edit war on this article, and violation of the 3RR policy, I feel that ] needs to be instructed that this isn't a soapbox, this is an encyclopedia. ] 06:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

===Statement by ]===
Any hearing should also look into ], an account that seem to exist only to backup OldRight in VfD debates. - ] 16:30, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
*No it doesn't. Crevaner is a friend of mine and actually is the person who told me about Misplaced Pages. We used to collaborate on VfD, but stopped doing that a long time ago after some people wrote about having a problem with that. -- ] 19:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
**The double voting did mostly cease some months ago, and if Old Right admits that it wasn't appropriate then I don't think any further action is necessary on this issue. - ] 21:34, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

===Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/1/0)===
*'''Recuse'''. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:10, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
*Accept. ] 03:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* Accept ] 13:04, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Accept'''<s>; could this be a sockpuppet? I'm thinking mostly of ]/] of whom OldRight's userpage seems strikingly similar</s>. -- ]] ] 14:47, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
* Accept ] 00:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

===OldRight's response===
I don't know what the big deal is. First of all I'm not a sockpuppet. As I wrote on ] talk page, all I try to do is add usefull editions to articles to make them more specific. Nor am I using wikipedia as a soapbox, I'm simply trying to make articles more encyclopedic by making them more specific. Believe me when I tell you there is no political agenda on my part when editing articles. And as for the Joe Scarborough article, I believe ] is referring information about the death of one of Scarborough's aides in 2001. I simply don't think that info is relevant and needed in the article. From now on I'll try and leave a lot more edit summaries, OK. This entire situation seems to be a big misunderstanding. -- ] 15:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==]==
===Involved parties===
<!--provide links to the user page of each party and to all accounts they have edited with. Briefly summarize case. No details. -->

* {{user|JuliusThyssen}} aka {{User|195.64.95.116}} and {{user|jult}}
* {{user|Rhobite}}

====Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request====
Message on ]:

====Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried====
I have asked this user several times to refrain from using personal attacks. He responded by calling me an asshole. I don't feel that any other dispute resolution would matter to such a rude person. ] 20:10, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

===Statement by ]===
JuliusThyssen, who previously edited from 195.64.95.116, has long been an argumentative and uncivil user on ] and ]. He has also gotten into arguments after he advanced POV political theories on ] . People who disagree with his opinions are quickly called "stupid" , "Idiot" , "you people suck" , "smartass" , "edgy stubborn nazi type" . Edit summaries include "deleted sheer nonsense of incapable people" , "ok, that's what you idiots asked for" , "you are a fool" , and "Rhobite is an ASSHOLE, how's that for a personal attack?"

Also userpage vandalism:

Julius removed my comment asking him to refrain from personal attacks:

I think a personal attack parole would be an adequate response to this user's incivility. ] 20:10, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

:I note in the 'edgy stubborn nazi type' diff , he also states that "''If you'd rather have it this way, then I will make it my life's task to change that line from each and every library and internet-café I can find.''"-] 10:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

===Statement by party 2===
] has been disfiguring the ] with non-disco additions (which don't fit standard scientific definitions of disco as a form of music), plus deletions of well-known valid disco hit songs like "Take Me Home" by Cher (1979).
::'''This is just plain bullshit. First of all, there IS no scientific definition of disco as a form of music. This nameless idiot just couldn't handle the fact that I was right and he/she was wrong about many of the tracks he/she decided to put in that list. This goes for all cases mentioned here; Pathetic assholes assuming they are right, when they KNOW they're not. I'm not prepared to behave 'politely' towards such idiotic display of stubbornness, and I refuse to take part in this wanna-be court-like nonsense you call arbitration or rulings on wikipedia. It's obvious you want this to be a medium full of incorrect data, so be it, not my funeral. It ends up being just another silly forum of numbed down stupid and robotic crapologists with big mouths and ego's that are way beyond where they should be. That is the reason I have stopped believing this wikipedia will ever be worth something, it's being ruled by idiots and non-experts. It's even worse in the Dutch version, where tolerance levels are further down the line of toes sticking out miles in front of their delusions of grandeur, where they behave like terrorists (they threaten to send abuses to your internet provider just because some nobody who thinks he is an important part of human history since he 'contributes to wikipedia' was corrected by me). I hereby acknowledge to love to further annoy the likes of you by using proxy-servers and terminals in libraries and gas-stations etc. And no, I'm not the one in need of psychological help here, and you all know it. You people have no lives. In fact, if some rightfully placed insult on some stupid wikipedia website (it's terribly slow, by the way) is enough for you to spend so much time on it, you must be completely insane. Good luck trying to fight the forces of chaos, you know you don't stand a chance against them.''' ] 09:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


He further has insulted me with ageist remarks like "you weren't there when it hit the clubs" and claims to know more than I do about music.
::'''Well it's been quite obvious that I do!'''
He did not make rational responses to my points to him. He also removes users' criticisms of him from ] - when he deleted my comment to him he wrote "deleted sheer nonsense of incapable people". One of my pieces of advice to him was: "Please learn how to technically analyze music. This is not an exercise in nostalgic remembrances of what played in your club but in creating a reference work." On May 22, 2005 he actually removed something that was supposed to be removed ('Nightshift' by the Commodores) but when he did so he wrote "you fool" directed to the person who had added that song.

===Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)===
* Accept ] 12:30, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
* Accept, though I wonder if we really need to go through arbitration - this seems too obvious. ] 12:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* Accept ] 00:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*'''Accept''' as Ambi. -- ]] ] 17:27, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
*'''Accept''' ] ] 10:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==]==

===Involved parties===
],],],] vs. ]

====Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request====
I, ] have personally contacted each user in the dispute and have left a notice on Emico's RfC page.

:Notice should be on ] ] 20:09, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
:: ], informally though. --]] 20:37, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

====Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried====
Please consult ] for full listings. Emico has consistently insulted and baited Wikipedians who contribute information contrary to his own personal viewpoint. When other users try to intervene, Emico accuses them of taking the sides of other people and goes on to insult and bait them even further. A RfC was started, in hopes of him stopping this behavior, and after repeated warnings, the other three users and I felt that he must be reported to the arbitrators to decide in this matter.

===Statement by Onlytofind===
Emico's contributions are personally biased opinions, extremely favorable towards the ] and anyone associated with it, while he forces unfavorable edits to any organization opposed to the Iglesia ni Cristo, such as ] (sic). He also becomes vocal and abusive when an INC-related article is not completely favorable to either the Church, or one of the Manalo family members who administer it, and insists that all information about the INC must come from sources disseminated by the Iglesia ni Cristo and if not, that "''The writer of this article is not authorized by the subject, and the intention for this article is suspicious. Be wary of misinformation." '' which shows blatant disregard for Misplaced Pages rules and the NPOV. I am a former member of the ] religious sect, who has been contributing information about that organization, and about its administrators, ], ] and ].I have contributed information favorable and non-favorable about the organization and Emico has consistently made personal attacks against me, calling me "]," "]" and "]" as well as accusing me of having a vendetta against the Iglesia ni Cristo, which I do not. He has insulted and baited me as well as the three other users on numerous occasions for the past month, and tries to fabricate accusations about me, claiming that I am involved in a religion opposed to the Iglesia ni Cristo, which I am not, and have consistently stated so. He has also claimed that ],],] and I are the exact same person, a member of the Philippine Bereans who wants to get revenge on him (paraphrasing his words) which makes no sense. I exchanged personal insults with him on a few occasions due to his incessant baiting, but in good faith and in an attempt to solve this dispute, I apologized and pledged to stop exchanging insults on my part, in hopes that he would stop his baiting and insults, but he has taken to consistently bold one of my previous comments on the ] page in hopes of trying to bait me once again. When I left the arbitration notice on his userpage, he has once again tried to bait me by saying "Please make this your last post on my talk page." I believe that the other three users and I have tried in good faith to work with Emico, but unfortunately, Emico still insists on playing by "his rules" and wants everyone else to play by them too. He has also been accused of impersonating a blogger who writes articles critical of the INC and has tried to attain the identities of the administrators of INC-related forums elsewhere on the Internet, which leads me to believe that he is not interested in constructively contributing to the Misplaced Pages, but wants to spread his own personal opinions and by seeking the identities of known INC critics, I'm afraid he might, and I place emphasis on might, do something to them. On June 15, 2005, I read a statement from Emico on DJ Clayworth's talk page, "there was a section in ] about why creationists are idiots (which they are, but still should be NPOV)." He's starting flames once again.

Emico tried baiting me after this on the ] page. I think I can rest my case that Emico wants to push his theocratic, pro-Iglesia ni Cristo, and anti-Trinitarian agenda on the Misplaced Pages and, I restate my suggestion that Emico and all associated IP addresses be permanently banned. (Edited for brevity)

He has started it again, with a post dated 10 June 2005 on the ] page where he accused me of being a Berean once again. Now, he has started again, on 13 June 2005 with a racist statement "All foreign missionaries are bigots" and that I'm trying to manipulate the system, when I tried to reason with Glenn Cessor, another INC apologist. I would also like to point out that I did not write the claim of Eduardo Manalo taking part in EDSA, I only reverted the article to its previous state after Emico edited it, because I have never seen him edit in a way consistent with NPOV.

Glenn Cessor, is an INC apologist who has consistently stated his intention to have the article written to "his standards" and has quoted any source critical of the INC as "...trying to deceive us before God." I completely question his neutrality in this matter, and his intentions toward this article, as well as if he is taking Emico's side only due to the fact that they are both members of the Iglesia ni Cristo. He has also used statements which imply insult against myself, and other religions which he disagrees with, and has claimed that all users who disagree with him and try to protect the Misplaced Pages rules are the same person through his inflammatory and baiting statement "It's funny how these 'new users' are appearing, how familiar their writing styles are..." I have taken his bait in the past and have exchanged insults with him as well, but I apologized a few weeks ago, on more than one separate occasion while he has not. Even though, he has hypocritically tried to make light of my insults while I have told him to stop his baiting and inflammatory statements, which have started once again around Sunday, to no avail, not to mention the fact that he has never told Emico the same, even though he flagrantly violates the rules. I believe that his only aim here at Misplaced Pages is to turn the Iglesia ni Cristo article into an article consistent with his viewpoint and beliefs, completely disregarding the Misplaced Pages rules.

===Statement by Lbmixpro===
My invlovement originates from a reversion of the Bereans article. While looking through the edit history of the ] (INC) article, I noticed an which relates to an edit he made to the ]. Out of curiosity, , in order to repair what I percieved as damage to the article's structure. He deleted the majority of External links, references and the complete category listings. This edit was also nearing 3RR status. Soon after, . , but he took it as . Soon after, based on his conduct with other wikipedians as well as myself, I planned on issuing an RfC. Throughout this dispute, I've been met with many personal attacks (preferrably "loser"), as well as all people involved. One which caught my attention is an attack at ]. . ] tried to intervine and failed. Recently, in an attempt to resolve this issue, I assumed failure to comply to ], apologized to Emico if he considered my edit as "reckless" and considered the ] issue resolved as far as I'm involved. ] was ''"The arrogance of these people! You don't tell me what to do. You won't tell me that face to face, so why do it here?"'' At this point, I do not recommend a ban, as his behavior has improved at an unstable rate. But he's stated that he may continue his previous actions. In the event his conduct worsens in both edit wars or personal attacks, I'll suggest him be banned to the fullest extent of ArbCon. He needs to know and respect the importance of the 3RR, NPOV, and NPA rules.

References: ], ], ], ] ].

I support the statements from DJ_Clayworth, Onlytofind and Raygirvan. To clarify one of Emico's statements here, I did not ''revert'' his edit of the ] article. See the diff between of Onlytofind's and of Emico's thereafter. Onlytofind presented an allegation to the article as fact, Emico deleted it. I presented the information as an allegation. stating the linked reference cannot be verified, since the link is only a summary of the book. . and have in an since.

===Statement by DJ_Clayworth===

I encountered Emico first at the ] page, to which he had added his own personal assessment of the Phillipine organisation (then the only one mentioned). Since then he insisted on adding his own personal (and derogatory) opinion, and some theological statements which were demonstrably false. At other times he insisted that his own refutation of the Berean's theology be included, on a matter which 98% of other Christians agree. I have found him to be invariably insulting when he is disagreed with, though perfectly polite when agred with. I was personally accused of being a "member of the Berean cult". When an outside viewpoint was requested he accused those who nobly offered their views of 'teaming up' on him. Having been repeatedly challenged to cite sources for his views, he responded by insisting that sources be cited by every single editor for every single word they added to the article. He made anonymous edits to try to get round the Three Revert Rule. He seems to be still insisting that only information approved by that church should be included in the article ], despite his own attempts to add disparaging information to ].

Some of his problems may be due to unfamiliarity with English. He has very fixed theological ideas, and little idea of which other organisations share them. He has not, to my knowledge, engaged in vandalism for the sake of vandalism. He has also been substantially less disruptive (to my areas of interest) in the last few days. However he needs to understand the value of cooperation and the difference between a fact and an opinion. ] 23:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, I did tell Emico that his interaction with me "did not make <nowiki></nowiki> seem attractive". Since by then he had already called me a liar and accused me of "propagating lies", "covering up for liars", being "a member of the berean cult" and suggested that I might have sent him a virus, I'm not going to retract that. ] 20:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

===Statement by Raygirvan===
I support the asessement of the situation as described by Onlytofind and Lbmixpro.

I entered this dispute via ] for 24 May, "for a dispute over factual accuracy in the page. Outside view requested" on the article ], and pursued it as a consequence of Emico's behaviour in relation to this article (see also ] and the ).

The ] article is about a Scottish historical religous sect and a group of modern evangelical churches of the same name. It's now mostly stable. But this was achieved by giving in to Emico's repeated edits to expunge reference to a significant (in my view) Phillipines branch that campaigns against other religions in the Phillippines, including the ].

Emico has continued to promote, belligerently, edits that appear to come from a religious agenda rather than a NPOV assessment of the available material (for instance, removal of reference to one modern Berean group's stated anti-Catholic stance; to insert superfluous detail about the ], and to remove reference to the historical Bereans' founder's disaffection from the Church of Scotland).

I'm not directly involved with the ] disputes, but a study of the Talk pages suggests Emico's continuing failure to abide by the guidelines for ] or ]. He doesn't accept the validity of secondary sources such as newspaper accounts, and in the Talk pages of three articles about prominent INC members (see ], ] and ]) has shown a bias toward INC sources by stating that "the absolute authority ... is the subject of the article".

I do support a ban. Emico's bias is unlikely to have changed. The strength of his view is evidenced by his setting up a repeating his preferred edit of ], footnoted ''This was the entry I made at wikipedia.org until it was vandalized by members of the Bereans''. ] 23:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'''Addendum 21 Jun 2005''' ''(revised version of 15 Jun addendum)'' I have since become involved in editing the ] page. On this front, hopeful progress has been made toward a concensus with other editors, including those supporting this church.

Emico, however, remains a major problem. ''The crux of the matter is that he is a believer in this church, and persists in applying a POV stance to make the article solely reflect - against ] - his religious views of the subject''.

This includes accusing other users of trolling; behaving as if he is sole arbiter of content of such pages (eg repeatedly putting a Factual Content Dispute tag on the page when he, personally, dislikes an edit - see ); and posting bogus reports of ] about edits he dislikes.

He is also currently repeating in ] the behaviour reported above by DJ Clayworth: of demanding source citations for trivial edits by others (professing to be intensely concerned about citation, but providing none for his own) and objecting to well-sourced details of historical context and external description (such as the widespread use of "unitarian" in mainstream reference works). Contrary to his claims, I have provided citations for my own edits: for example, .''

He is in addition applying this religious agenda to the ] and ] articles, deleting Iglesa ni Cristo references (see and ) from these useful descriptive categories generally used for the INC by external NPOV sources such as ''Encyclopaedia Britannica''. ] 17:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

===Statement by Emico===

In my statement, I'll let their post do the talking:

Onlytofind: When asked to cite sources, he responded with:

:''In short, you're some deranged INC fanboy who's depressed because he's unable to cover his bias with a cloak of legitimacy. Have a nice day. --Onlytofind 22:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I did not rspond to this, but his insults, threats of banning and arbitration continued.''

:''Emico, I wish that I could reply to your comment, except that I can't understand your atrocious grammar.--Onlytofind 02:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)''

Which prompted one poster to say:

:''Emico, I think Onlytofind's "strongly implying" that you are illiterate!--gcessor71.32.86.239 13:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)''

I did not respond to his insult.

LBmixpro: When asked why he reverted my edits without explanations, he replied:

:''I don't know what you are talking about. Nor do I care. I made the revert so that Onlytofind won't get the Bereans article locked''

I believed this was getting around wikipedia rules, the same way raygirvan and dj clayworth were doing. After a few post, I believe we settled the dispute. Although I resented their post because I felt they were presenting themselves as Misplaced Pages authority, when they are not.

Raygirvan and dj clayworth: I questioned why they used the word 'disaffected' when it could not be found in the sources. I pointed out that since this was not in the sources, of even an indication of it, that it is a personal opinion and should be taken out. I believe they were inserting words which cannot be found in the sources provided, and is detrimental to the character of the subject. See exchanges in ]

Dj clayworth's objectivity is suspect. He seems so biased, that if a personal opinion suits him, then to him it is a fact. To cite one example: In one of the talk pages, he asked for the meaning of an acronym. I'm not really sure if he was baiting, or genuinely interested to know. When both I and Onlytofind responded, he copied Onlytofind's post verbatim and added it to the article without verifying facts. We had some post exchanges on the talk pages, and at one point he addressed me and posted this: '''"... my ''experience interacting with you'' does not make this organisation seem attractive."'''. Please see exchanges in the talk page ]

If possible, I would also like to know if any of the involved belong to networks 203.176.2.* and 202.176.2.*. During the exchanges, I was sent a virus via email. --] 16:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add here that we are again in a revert war. Onlytofind and lbmixpro are taking turns reverting my edits. I questioned the lack of verifiable source. Onlytofind and lbmixpro are making allegations that the subject of the article was engaged in rebellion, a very serious accusation. --] 20:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Onlytofind started another revert war. The contributors decided to vote to balance links on the article. Onlytofind wanted to get around the decision by adding another link. I suggested to replace one of the current links so as to maintain the balance but he will not negotiate and started insulting me and another user. --] 03:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On creationist: I never posted on that article. Please check the poster dates thoroughly.

On foreign missionaries, here's my actual comment:''One thing I got from this essay is the fact that foreign missionaries are bigots. --Emico 13:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)''. I was commenting on this account in the essay:''"He(Missionary Bruce Kessner) believed that Filipinos were “defective” in “thought power."''.

On Onlytofind being a berean: I asked him is religion and got a vague answer. I posted berean in a reply and explain that it was a guess. I asked him again his religion and got no reply.

On Onlytofind manipulating the system and users: Whenever he gets into exchanges that he loses, he baits users into supporting him. He's currently aligning support for an RFC on another user. If you watch the talk pages of the users, you'll see the pattern.

On lbmixpro: He started out explaining the accusation was just an ''allegation''. That was not my point. My point was the link to the source was deficient because it was a booksellers catalog! He obviously did not verify the link. Plus, Onlytofind was making serious allegations of '''rebellion''' which he cannot substantiate. lbmixpro did a second look and found this out himself, and agreed with me.

On Raygirvan's accusation of obstructing edits of the Unitarianism page: He added claims that the INC is a ''biblical unitarian'' church. I corrected him saying a unitarian is a protestant sect, which the INC is certainly not. He seem to resent being corrected. Note that Raygirvan is one of people who started this arbitration because of exchanges similar to this. --] 00:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response to Raygirvan addendum: Raygirvan and Onlytofind overun the article with new additions, but did not cite sources. When I asked them for the sources, they would'nt hear of it and complained that I was obstructing them. Because I could not verify their addition, I added the dispute tag and a ''cite sources'' section in the talk page asking them to provide a source for a specific item. After much complaining and reverting, they removed the item. I am guessing that they do not have a source and have fabricated the statement they added to the article. It is events like this that I am moved to question their contributions. I have a suspicion that they are pushing an agenda. I am asking them for source on the rest of their additions. --] 23:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Concerning trolling, here are the post that I did not respond to:

*Look at the statements that Glenn and Emico have made, claiming ''foolishly'' ... The ''hypocrisy of the INC members'' ... ''with theirbias!'' --Onlytofind 01:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*''You(gcessor) lie, insult (yes, I said it) and manipulate'' this article to your own blatantly biased POV. ''You're a hypocrite, pure and simple.'' (sniff) .--Onlytofind 19:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Emico graciously used some of his precious time to vandalize this article once again, (sniff)--Onlytofind 04:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*You(emico) can run from the truth, but you can't hide the fact that you're guilty of bias and hypocrisy. Onlytofind 21:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And raygirvan, after I asked to cite sources said:''And I add: we are not obliged to treat Emico as arbiter of content here. Any factual doubts (and I agree that there are some) are the province of all editors here, and I trust Glenn and Ealva far more. RayGirvan 23:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)''

===Statement By Glenn Cessor===

Before you make any rulings, please consider these: Carefully read the Iglesia ni Cristo talk page, and you will see that Onlytofind throws insults around as readily as anyone else...and accuses others of insulting him at every turn. For instance, look on the Iglesia ni Cristo's talk page section "Discussion forums" wherein he says that I "have to insult every INC detractor". I have challenged him to back that up with proof (Onlytofind has access to hundreds of my posts on two forums), but has yet to present any. Furthermore, look at my comments that I've made on the Misplaced Pages to see if I've even insulted anyone ONCE. Rebuked, yes. Insulted NO. Yet, if you listen to Onlytofind, I insult EVERY INC detractor...and then he continues to insult as he will.

Furthermore, we're in the process of an edit war on the Iglesia ni Cristo site. Onlytofind lost a previous vote on the number of 'con' sites allowed versus the number of 'pro' sites allowed, and he has since decided that an article published by an Ann Harper, whose article has the stated purpose of helping Evangelicals be more effective in missionizing - drawing people away from - the Iglesia ni Cristo. The language she uses is obviously 'con' INC, but Onlytofind insists on having the link in the "Other INC-related links" instead of the 'con' section where it belongs. This is obviously an attempt to bypass the already agreed-upon limit of three 'con' sites.

What's the point? You have an accusation by Onlytofind - but consider Onlytofind's actions as well. I can't speak of the matter concerning the Bereans' page, but when it comes to him accusing anyone of insults, it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black (and he still has a long way to go proving that I've insulted anyone). Please bear this in mind in your decisions.--] 06:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

===Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)===
* Accept ] 21:00, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
* Accept. ] 22:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
* Although I can't really make sense of what's going on, I can tell there's something horribly wrong going on here, so '''accept'''. -- ]] ] 20:06, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
* Accept ] 00:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)



==Requests for Clarification==

If you need to clarify the precise meaning of a previous decision of the Arbitration Committee, your request should go here.

=== Forgotten and Hidden sockpuppets of Baku Ibne/LIGerasimova etc. ===
Dear ArbCom,

Following my brief communication with Fred (), I ask you to immediately block and ban two sockpuppet accounts of previously banned anon 84.154.xx.xx. aka Baku Ibne/LIGreasimova/Osmanoglou etc. (]). These sockpuppets are '''{{User|Twinkletoes}}''' and, as I '''just''' found out to my surprise, '''{{User|Deli-Eshek}}'''.

I was aware about Twinkletoes being a sockpuppet long ago (e.g. see, , or ). The anon 84.154.xx.xx (Baku Ibne et al anon IP) when vandalizing ] page constantly added nonsense to the entry and one of the words that he often referred to was "Twinkletoes". (see, e.g. , .) Moreover, the similar behavior and edit pattern of this vandal, leaves no question that this "user" is indeed a sock. Pls, review his contrib log for details: everything, from edited pages, to time of edits, and lengths and volume of activity points to the fact that this is indeed a vandal sock, which was overlooked.

The most surprising discovery I just made concerns ''']'s real identity'''. I was rather surprised that this guy is also actually a sockpuppet of Baku Ibne (I was similarly surprised in the past to learn out from Tony that LIGerasimova, whom I thought to be different person, was actually the same person as 84.154.xx/Baku Ibne/Osmanoglou ).

'''Here is the proof of Deli-Eshek being a sockpuppet:''' . You can see that this person is actually the same as 84.154.xx.xx (see, ) aka Baku Ibne/LIGerasimova/Osmanoglou etc etc. Actually, '''similarly''' ] has found in the past that LIGerasimova was in fact same person as Baku/Ibne/Osmanoglou (, fixed in evidences presented by Tony )).

This "user" has in the past actually "supported" me in ]. He pretended to be an "ethnic Turk" who "agrees" with me on my argument that Safavids were a Turkic-speaking dynasty of Iran, but he was kind of dark horse whose actions did not correspond to his deeds. Thus for example, I couldn't understand his actions, when he attacked various Azeri users (e.g. (in which he allegedly "supports" me) (or , which provoked me to carefully approach him and ask him not to wage personal discussions. Then I thought that this guy is realy an ordinary good-faith editor, and all I cared is to advise him not to play into hands of my opponents in ] by waging unnecessary personal discussions).

Besides these two sockpuppets, there are some more e.g. {{User|Luba-Gerasimova}} (which as seen from the name, is same as LIGerasimova (pretending to be a Russian female Luba Ivanovna Gerasimova). The other socks are {{User|Kiramtu_Kunettabib}} and {{User|StuffedTurkey}}. I dont have solid evidences against the last two, but I am sure you can easily clarify the issue with those "mock users" as well.--] 14:23, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

=== ] ===
I missed that. . TIA. ] 10:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:The case was closed - Wareware hadn't edited since before the case had started, and there wasn't much point then banning him when there was a whole bunch of new, more important cases to deal with. ] 22:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Right, but we knew he wasn't coming back at the time of issuing the request. I suppose I expected some sort of statement to go along with the unexpected closure which followed the evidence submission (''i.e'' it serving some purpose). Any thoughts? ] 00:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:It was obvious that he was a nasty piece of work, and he was dealt with accordingly. When we got that onslaught of new cases concerning ongoing issues with potential problem users, it was the lowest priority of our cases, and seeing as there was no issue with stopping anything from happening, there seemed to be no point continuing on with the case. ] 16:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The case, then, wasn't "closed following Wareware's departure from Misplaced Pages," that happned the month before (following the RFC), the case was closed due to the "onslaught of new cases." <font size="+2">***</font> Now, I realize that ] is cold & techncial, still, a sentence qualifying this, taking 20 seconds to formulate, might have been prudent; and perhaps a brief statement as a precedence. Am I just too to persecution (my ]) ? Certainly, I still feel very uneasy that it could happen right under my nose. Thanks for reading. ] 20:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::This can be removed, I suppose. Since DC is not particularly upset with the unexpected closure, I see no reason why I should be. ] 00:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==Archive==
*]
*] ''(unofficial)''
]

Revision as of 14:32, 24 June 2005

The Arbitration Committee is seeking feedback - Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/RFC

Shortcut
  • ]

The last step of dispute resolution is a request for 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.


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
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes

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. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arb Com member votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

This is not a page for discussion, and arbitrators may summarily remove discussion without comment.

Current requests

Template

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

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

User:AndyL

Involved parties

The parties currently involved in this issue are User:AndyL, myself User:Gbambino and User:Peter Grey

The pages where disputes have been occuring are Monarchy in Canada, Monarchist League of Canada, and the now redirected Elizabeth II of Canada

AndyL has been hijacking articles related to Canada's constitutional monarchy to bully and push his republican POV, at times possibly abusing his administrator status.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

See User talk:AndyL and User talk:Peter Grey

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

See Misplaced Pages:AMA Requests for Assistance, "Biased Administrator" and Misplaced Pages:AMA Requests for Assistance, "Serious assistance needed at Monarchist League of Canada".

As well, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation, "Monarchist League of Canada and Monarchy in Canada"

No response was heard from either source.

Statement by Gbambino (initiating party)

For some weeks now AndyL has been forcefully editing pages related to Canada's constitutional monarchy. The articles are edited to reflect his POV on a particular matter (especially his opinion that the Crown in Canada is "British"), and when challenged on this he ignores factual argument, with provided examples to back them up, in favour of his personal arguments based on nothing but opinion. When asked to provide supporting references he presents none, and when the articles are therefore corrected to remove his POV arguments he threatens reporting for valdalism and then reverts again.

He has so far challenged the Elizabeth II of Canada, which I do not object to, but in the ensuing VfD discussion accused me of creating the page as POV promotion, and then further accused me of "fishing for votes" from the Monarchist League of Canada. Explinations were ignored. This is recorded here: Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Elizabeth II of Canada. AndyL then attempted to delete the article, which clearly violates Misplaced Pages policy (Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy)

As well he has been causing hassle on the Monarchy in Canada page, as seen here: Talk:Monarchy in Canada, "One Crown or Several" and is currently being abusive on the Monarchist League of Canada article, as illustrated here: Talk:Monarcist League of Canada, "Crown", here: Talk:Monarchist League of Canada, "More on the Tony O’Donohue Petition", here: Talk:Monarchist League of Canada, "NPOV", and here: Talk:Monarchist League of Canada, "Factual Accuracy Dispute".

I do not wish to see anyone banned, but I do believe AndyL needs to be reigned in somewhat. His attitude is offensive and bullying, and a browse of his talk page will reveal that he has incited arguments elsewhere before. I ask for assistance in this matter. Thank you, --gbambino 00:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to bring your attention to a smaller dispute which occured on the Governor General of Canada article, which can be seen on the related history Governor General of Canada History between 12:46, 6 Jun 2005 and 13:55, 12 Jun 2005, and on my Talk page: User Talk:Gbambino, "eventual". --gbambino 01:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

It would be helpful if gbambino could offer some specifics on what I'm supposed to have done wrong, other than disagree with his opinions (which he seems to confuse with fact). I see no actual complaint here and nothing to respond to. gbambino is a member of the Monarchist League of Canada and has succeeded in bringing a few of his comrades onto wikipedia in an attempt to enforce the particular POV of his organization (see the Monarchist League Message Board). He seems to be somewhat frustrated at his failure in getting his way and has concluded that those who disagree with him or are frustrating his efforts must be doing something wrong. The argument at present is simply over whether a sentence in the Monarchist League of Canada article which, to my mind, asserts as fact that the "Canadian monarchy" (ie the "Crown in right in Canada") is "distinctly Canadian". To my mind this is a contestable POV as many, if not most, Canadians would disagree with such an assertion. I have attempted to persuade gbambino and his friends that this statement should be modified with words that make it clear it is the MLC's opinion that the Crown is distinctly Canadian. He and his friend have resisted any attempt at compromise. As a result, I have added an NPOV tag to the article and disputed its factual accuracy. This seems to be a crime in gbambino's books. Pity. Hopefully, with experience, he will learn that just because he believe something doesn't make it a fact and can't be stated on wikipedia as such. AndyL 03:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for his claims that I attempted to "delete" Elizabeth II of Canada, the deletion logs show that no such attempt occured. AndyL 03:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am concerned that much of what gbambino has contributed to the Monarchist League of Canada article seems to have been lifted directly from the Monarchist League of Canada website. See Talk:Monarchist League of Canada for comparisons. gbambino did this once before with his attempt to create a "chronology" of the MLC that ended up being an almost word for word copy of the MLC's published chronology. AndyL 04:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Zen-master

Involved parties

Patrick0Moran, the most quite and patient of contributors, advised me that, "A relatively new contributor, Zen-master, has taken an interest in the article on Race_and_intelligence and has decided to attack Rikurzhen, calling him a racist and a Nazi. I've tried to reason with him regarding the main point of contention, but he ignores anything that anybody says to him and comes back with a personal attack. His latest was, essentially, "Only a Nazi would say what you just said." -- Uncle Ed (talk) 04:00, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

A deep analysis of the issue will indicate it is not as simple nor as one sided as Ed Poor describes it, in my opinion. I labeled patrick and rikurzhen's actions, not them personally. My offer, made in good faith, to withdraw my interpretation of their actions remains on the table if they explain why they used repetition combined with language misuse so frequently. The prime directive of wikipedia is neutrality and they seemingly, to me at least, appear to be trying to maintain a status quo of psychologically misdirecting language. Framing the article Race and intelligence entirely in terms of "race" seems to me to be an attempt at confusing effect with cause. They can certainly choose to ignore my challenge for a logical explanation if they want to. Also note my username is "Zen-master", T is for talk. zen master T 04:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack on me. Any reason not to block immediately, considering that he's been warned repeatedly? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

How is that a personal attack? It is a question, you can choose not to respond to it as I gathered from you removing it from your talk page. zen master T 22:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Zen-master's contention that he "labeled patrick and rikurzhen's actions, not them personally, please read the following exchange, which I have copied directly from the talk page:

The sooner you explain how language neutrality is original research the sooner you diminish the plausibility of my theory that you are a nazi. If someone was just a random interested researcher of this subject (even if they dubiously concluded race is a cause) I don't believe they would defend and deflect away from the current misuse of language to the degree you have. zen master T 02:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So now I am being accused of being a Nazi too? Let's be clear about what you are saying. P0M 02:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You two do seem to be working together to misdirect third parties away from doing any sort of mental analysis on the neutrality of language used in the article. So yes, I am accusing you both of being neo-nazis based on your posts on this talk page and based on the way you repeatedly defend or ignore the misuse of language. I will withdraw my accusations after you explain how striving for language neutrality is original research and/or after you explain how needlessly commingling cause and effect is scientific? zen master T 02:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In short, he expressed a "theory" that "you are a nazi." I asked him whether he meant I am a Nazi. He said, "So yes, I am acusing you both of being neo-nazis." The fact that he considers actions of mine to support "the plausibility of my theory" as he puts it, and that he bases his accusations "on your posts on this talk page and based on the way you repeatedly defend or ignore the use of language" does not make his accusation less problematical. People generally have some kind of reason for the accusations they make. The question is whether we tolerate ad hominem attacks, and attacks that are groundless at that. P0M 23:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Does his post above count as "awareness"?


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

I spoke with Zen Master T about this, but he just accused me of "accusing him".

"Adhere or be blocked." -- Uncle Ed (talk) 03:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Distinguished between objecting to article edits and calling someone names.

Ed Poor, is this evidence of "dispute resolution"? Those URLs do not convey the full context, it can be found at Talk:Race and intelligence. zen master T 17:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words


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

  • Accept Fred Bauder 13:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) Based on Zen Master T's continuing violation as expressed in his response.
  • Accept Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 13:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject. This looks somewhat tame to me, and I'm reluctant to become involved just yet. Please make some attempt at seriously working out the dispute between yourselves. If it does get worse, feel free to come back at a later stage, but Zen Master's replies, for the most part, seem quite reasonable. Ambi 16:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:MARMOT

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Accused party informed.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

Statement by User:MARMOT (accused party)

"In the interest of solving this dispute, I will go on IRC in the next 15-30 minutes (the current time is 21:00 GMT). I'm a reasonable man, but I do not appreciate threats or sanctions that can so easily be circumvented."

Good edits I have made:

] ] Unsigned statement made by User:MARMOT, 16:05, Jun 20, 2005

An attempt at compromise

Session Ident: Linuxbeak (~aschenck@#########.ri.cox.net)

<Linuxbeak> hm?

<Linuxbeak> are you looking for me?

<Forbes> I'm here to resolve the problem

<Linuxbeak> Are you MARMOT?

<Forbes> Guilty.

<Forbes> What is the problem?

<Forbes> I have never disrespected you...

<Linuxbeak> Okay. I'm going to be honest, first off. I don't carry grudges or anything, so if I say something, it's not because I want to pound you into the ground.

<Linuxbeak> The most glaring question that we've been trying to get an answer from you is why you're acting the way you are.

<Forbes> You're playing a clever game

<Linuxbeak> Now, don't start.

<Forbes> but I have made many good edits

<Forbes> under my ip address

<Linuxbeak> I'll let you have your say if you hear me out.

<Forbes> go ahead...

<Linuxbeak> There is no "game". The edits that you have made are textbook examples of disruptive trollish behavior. You haven't disrespected *me* directly, but you have erased comments in your user talk page that have directly addressed our concerns.

<Linuxbeak> You are obviously an intellegent person, and I can tell that from your edits. So, let's be open and honest with each other.

<Linuxbeak> Have you had an account before?

<Forbes> no comment

<Linuxbeak> Alright. Is there an issue with the way that Misplaced Pages works that you have a problem with?

<Forbes> true...

<Forbes> I have seen many people denied justice

<Linuxbeak> Okay. Can you give examples?

<Linuxbeak> Expand upon this.

<Forbes> the unaccountability of administrators is appalling

<Forbes> you sysops can do virtually whatever you like

<Forbes> and there is no recourse available

<Forbes> I have opened the debate, nothing more

<Linuxbeak> Alright. Give an example..

<Linuxbeak> Can you cite a time in which this has happened?

<Forbes> let me see...

<Forbes> http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/RickK

<Linuxbeak> Okay; so what specifically is your concern? We have a process to deal with admins that are a bit off.

<Forbes> haha

<Forbes> I think I have made my position abundantly clear

<Forbes> I wanted to know what I have supposedly done wrong

<Forbes> to resolve the issue, to put the matter to rest

<Linuxbeak> alright.

<Linuxbeak> Your activities on Misplaced Pages have been very dubious.

<Linuxbeak> I'm convinced you've been on Misplaced Pages for a while

<Linuxbeak> You chased Weyes around for a little while, for starters

<Linuxbeak> You created an RFC against Raul654, saying that he blocked you unfairly

<Linuxbeak> You created that Admins can't vote thing, which you seem to have been using as an experiment

<Linuxbeak> You fanned a flame war concerning said policy

<Linuxbeak> (with the Animal Farm picture)

<Linuxbeak> But the most glaring things are these:

<Linuxbeak> You have removed the comments made by myself and Taxman

<Linuxbeak> when we were trying to talk to you about this stuff

<Linuxbeak> And second: your response to RFC, which was really an attempt to stay away from RFAr, was at the very best unacceptable

<Forbes> Steven knows me.

<Forbes> Raul attempted to block me for removing an image that is up for deletion

<Linuxbeak> Steven being who? And what has this got to do with the issue at hand?

<Forbes> The animal farm image was an apt deliniation

<Forbes> You mean Weyes?

<Linuxbeak> Do I mean Weyes what?

<Forbes> you mentioned something about steven

<Forbes> anyway, I believe I have explained myself

<Linuxbeak> Oh, yes. Steven = Weyes, I presume

<Linuxbeak> Yes, Weyes. And I don't think you've explained yourself. I'm still not convinced that there isn't more to this story.

<Forbes> It is within my rights to define policy proposal

<Linuxbeak> Correct, but the policy you proposed was hotly contested.

<Linuxbeak> And your previous edits precluding that policy proposal were not exactly smiled upon by others, either


<Forbes> I refrained from participation in that discussion

<Linuxbeak> Why?

<Linuxbeak> If that policy was supposed to be serious, then as the creator, you should have been answering comments left and right.

<Forbes> that is not within my remit

<Forbes> an author does not review his own work

<Linuxbeak> your logic is flawed, then, because the proposal would potentially be "everyone's" and not your own. Plus, I review my own work on Misplaced Pages, so what says you can't?

<Linuxbeak> Okay, let me ask YOU a question, then

<Forbes> yes?

<Linuxbeak> Why did you give that response on RFC? Why didn't you give something that made more sense and of higher quality?

<Linuxbeak> It was that response that nailed you, quite frankly. That is called being a troll.

<Forbes> No surprises?

<Linuxbeak> ..what do you mean?

<Forbes> It was never going to be popular among that croud

<Forbes> crowd

<Linuxbeak> But the least that you could have done was to give a proper reply.

<Linuxbeak> That way, there would have been understanding.

<Linuxbeak> However, the reply you gave was totally worthless towards helping you.

<Forbes> I never going to agree with what RickK does in private

<Forbes> I'm sorry, but it's just not ethical

<Linuxbeak> ...huh? Wait, what?

<Forbes> *away for 15

<Forbes> I have tried to explain things

<Linuxbeak> Well, honestly, you haven't done that great of a job. Your edits to Misplaced Pages have been rather disruptive.


<Linuxbeak> You can't use Misplaced Pages as a soapbox; it's one of the policies

<Linuxbeak> also, Misplaced Pages is not a social experiment, as you have used it as such

<Linuxbeak> your experiment, while there's a time and a place for such, is not appropriate on Misplaced Pages. It isn't helping out Misplaced Pages or it's editors.

<Linuxbeak> So, it really comes down to this.

<Linuxbeak> You need to change your ways.

<Forbes> what do you want me to do?

<Forbes> you want me to leave, despite my many positive and valued contributions

<Forbes> ?

<Linuxbeak> I want you to stop using Misplaced Pages like it's a playpen.

<Linuxbeak> We have given you warnings before; we gave you the chance to defend yourself on the RFC.

<Forbes> people had already voted before I placed the comment

<Forbes> thus there would have been no point

<Linuxbeak> People can and have changed votes.

<Linuxbeak> Plus, the evidence given is very damning.

<Linuxbeak> In fact, you still have yet to explain yourself on all of the counts described in your RFC.

<Forbes> speculation

<Linuxbeak> What about speculation?

<Linuxbeak> well?

<Forbes> I explain nothing.

<Forbes> you appear to have a vendetta

<Forbes> for some reason

<Linuxbeak> now, why would i have a vendetta?

<Linuxbeak> I'm asking that you explain your actions.

<Forbes> in the event the marmot account is deleted, that will hardly prevent me posting

<Linuxbeak> Accounts aren't deleted.

<Linuxbeak> I'm not trying to prevent you from posting, either.

<Linuxbeak> What I am doing is trying to stop you from trolling.

<Linuxbeak> I, along with Taxman and Mel, have tried to communicate with you without anything "formal"

<Forbes> by your own admission, you wanted to block me, but couldn't find a legit reason

<Forbes> which is why you go to arb

<Linuxbeak> Oh, see, I have a legit reason.

<Linuxbeak> However, I didn't block you.

<Linuxbeak> Everyone on IRC has been telling me to, you know. "Don't waste the time of the ArbCom".

<Linuxbeak> If anything, I have been giving you "one more chance".

<Forbes> you cannot be blocked without violation of 3rr or vandalism

<Linuxbeak> That's incorrect.

<Forbes> No.

<Linuxbeak> I can block for vandalism, excessive reverts (3RR), enforcement of bans, the usage of anonymous and open proxies, disruption (which is what you have been slated as), inappropriate usernames, impersonation, the usage of "Public" accounts, the usage of bots, Bots, and personal attacks

<Linuxbeak> I generally only block for vandalism. Your behavior has been disruptive, and theoretically I can block you for that.

<Linuxbeak> However, I have been giving you the option of defending yourself, and you have not taken that opportunity.

<Linuxbeak> By handing you over to the ArbCom after not only several failed attempts at communication but a failed RFC as well, I do not have to be the one who passes judgement on you.

<Linuxbeak> You don't seem to understand that it is *you* who has shot yourself in the foot

<Linuxbeak> Anyway, I must go. I suggest you answer the ArbCom spot, because you haven't convinced me that you aren't a troll.

<Linuxbeak> It's out of my hands; if you want to talk to Taxman, now is the time to do so.

<Forbes> I don't even know who that is

Session Close: Mon Jun 20 23:44:06 2005

Statement by User:Linuxbeak (initiating party)

All attempts at communication with MARMOT have generally ended in total disregard and contempt for those attempting to initiate said communication. I myself tried to communicate my concerns, but my comment was removed by MARMOT with the edit summary "vandalism". I have watched MARMOT's actions on Misplaced Pages, and I was not liking what I was seeing. Admitingly, MARMOT has made some meaningful contributions, but the vast majority of them are pointing to a former Wikipedian. Since my attempt to communicate with MARMOT failed, I have taken a bit of a back-seat in directly dealing with MARMOT and let other users try their own hand. The only major actions that I have taken since then has been the creation of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/MARMOT as well as this ArbCom case. Seeing that the RFC only confirmed that MARMOT was a troll, it has come time to introduce this to the ArbCom. I personally would have blocked MARMOT, but I feel like there is more to this story than him being a simple troll. I feel like this will be a quick and simple case for ArbCom, seeing that the evidence is overwhelmingly pointing towards disruption. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:06, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Taxman (initiating party)

This should be a relatively painless and quick process. The user hasn't made a really large number of edits, so it won't be too hard to review of the edit history to reveal an overwhelming proportion of unhelpful edits. The history will also show a very low proportion of edits to actual articles, instead focusing on arguments on talk pages. The nail in the coffin was the response to the RFC here. If MARMOT has an interest in making productive contributions, I would suggest relinquishing the user account, starting a new one, and following the spirit of all Misplaced Pages policies. Even better, would be in addition to following policy, simply make an effort to improve the place instead of causing discord. I think it is clear that has not been done so far. - Taxman 19:50, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Mel Etitis (initiating party)

(Sorry — I've just realised that my statement failed to make it through. The College system collapsed on the day that I was editing, but I thought that this one had saved OK. I'll try to reconstruct it.)

This user seems to be here for only one purpose: to disrupt, apparently because he has some sort of axe to grind from previous experiences here (as another registered user or an anon I don't know). I'm not sure that arbitration is the best way forward; on the other hand, I don't know what else can be done. His attitude to the RfC on him suggests that any attempt at mediation is pointless. His contributions history indicates very little useful, but a lot of minor (and occasionally major) disruptive editing; even if, individually, they don't seem important, together they add to the increasing stress and aggravation of editing (see recent discussion of this at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#What are we doing wrong here?). 22:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Tony Sidaway (outside view)

I can't see the point of taking this to arbitration. If he's only ever a disruptive troll, block him. If he's an occasional troll, block him when he's disruptive. Don't waste valuable arbitration time. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

  • Reject. This doesn't need to come to us IMO. If you see him do something to disrupt Misplaced Pages just block him "Sysops may also block new user accounts that make lots of disruptive edits, for any length of time or permanently, at their discretion." from theblocking policy Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 15:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The reason this was brought here is that section also says: "However, blocks should not be used ... against user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits." and "Blocks under this provision are almost always controversial." ArbCom has the ability to end the issue quickly, and with a minimum of controversy. MARMOT has made a couple of useful edits. - Taxman 15:52, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject; block now. If the Troll Defence League chooses to whinge about this exceptionally obvious case, feel free to use this rejection as evidence for having reason to block him. Ambi 15:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Recuse, since one of Marmot's first things was to file an RFC against me (which I promptly ignored); on the other hand, I agree with the above comments that you can block without the need for an arbitration case. →Raul654 00:50, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Very well, clear this one off as needed. I'll just keep the diffs to these comments. So far he's a little better, so maybe it works after all. - Taxman 21:45, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject for now. Having spoken to MARMOT on IRC, he may well be sincere and not merely trolling, but severely out of step with Misplaced Pages — and that's not really good enough. I strongly urge him to try to accept others' concerns better (and not reject as "vandalism"), discuss edits on talk pages more, assume good faith and so forth. Also, MARMOT appears to have created a sockpuppet, User:Master Shredder, to vote against Weyes' RFA; this sort of thing is unacceptable; please do not do anything of the sort again, out of frustration or any other reason - David Gerard 22:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User: Skyring

Reason: A campaign of personal harrassment, stalking personal abuse and attempts at bullying directed against me and which, while I was writing this, I was informed that he has directed in part against others also, who have stood up to him on his behaviour on Misplaced Pages.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Other users aware of his behaviour:

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Given the experience with Government of Australia, Skyring has shown himself unwilling to listen to anyone else, convinced of his own correctness, and sure that everyone who disagrees with him is a "bully", "ignorant", etc.

Statement by party 1

As the arbitrators are aware, Skyring has been the subject of a POV dispute on Talk:Government of Australia. You are currently dealing with this. I was one of the users who challenged him. Since then he has engaged in constant harassment of me. In one period 100 of 102 edits he did were of pages I had edited either immediately before or within a short space of time, accompanied by personally abusive edit summaries. He placed messages abusing me on among others the talk pages of User:Adam Carr and User:Djegan. Tonight I edited the page a two year old article, Vicarius Filii Dei to add in some images and do some minor textual changes. 42 minutes later he went to the page and added in a deletion notice.

His most recent act on a page I had edited was, as mentioned to propose deletion, which he categorised in the edit summary thus:

04:56, 19 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Vicarius Filii Dei (Kick it off)

His appearance at the article was as follows:

  • (cur) (last) 04:53, 19 Jun 2005 Skyring (VfD. Trivial material covered elsewhere.)
  • (cur) (last) 04:11, 19 Jun 2005 Jtdirl

Among the comments he added to people's talk pages were

He described his comment on Adam Carr's page thus:

  • 14:33, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Adam Carr (Low quality of Irish editor)

Throughout the period he appeared on pages he had never paid any attention to, simply because I edited it. He suddenly developed an interest in Irish local government , a member of Ronald Reagan's cabinet, the Irish referendum on the European Constitution , News Anchors , Viceregal thrones where he announced his intention of deleting a template I had added to an article I had written from scratch (a user who has been waging a campaign against templates had just been voted down in his attempt to delete another template I had created. Suddenly Skyring was in to templates too!). Whether it was the residence of the President of Ireland or Papal Tiaras, Mary Robinson or the State Crown of George I, templates or even a temp page, if I went near it, he followed and then in many cases was publicly abusive.

I outlined more details at . Petaholmes also outlines what is described as the "personal harrassment of User:jtdirl". (Other users have emailed me over his behaviour using extremely strong language about Skyring and his antics, and urged me to raise it here.)

Finally, I note that in the discussion on the proposed one year ban from editing any articles relating to the Government of Australia, Skyring made the following threat "Nor will it stop me from finding some other editor(s) to present the same facts." In other words he is openly admitting that he will get around the ban by "finding some other editor(s)" to force his patiently incorrect opinion. Given that he is already under investigation by you, this request here should receive priority and be dealt with in tandem with the other, with one injection given for both. Otherwise, going by his past performance he will simply use the excuse of his ban on writing on Australian government topics, while simultaneously breaking it, to harass and bully others who have in the past stood in his way.

Since I started typing this, Petaholmes has contacted to inform me that "he briefly tried wikistalking me too after I put up the harassment evidence." Clearly this campaign of harrassment is not a once off and won't be a once off. This user needs severe dealing with, possibly even the ultimate sanction, for his behaviour.

Statement by El_C

I feel bad since I should have been keeping an eye on this. I warned Skyring against making personal attcks in edit summaries (diff) and taking pains in upsetting Jtdirl. I consider Pete Skyring's VfD nomination & participation alone to have been made in extremely bad faith, undoubtedly as part of a campaign of harrasment targetting jtdirl — and I could not care less that Pete Skyring fixes some grammatical errors in the course of this, to prove his point. His contempt towards Essjay, which a cursory glance reveals to be one of Misplaced Pages's foremost experts on Catholicism, only further underscores Pete Skyring's contempt for Misplaced Pages and its editors. I excerpt the unfortunate exchange, thusly:

I've been a Catholic scholar for years, and I couldn't tell you know how many times I've heard this myth, in and outside class. Essjay · Talk 05:29, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Snopes doesn't list it. It may well be a longstanding myth but it's pure crap. Who really cares? Crackpots. As for jtdirl's edits - check out my contributions and you'll see what I was correcting. Pete 06:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did not realize snops.com was exhaustive. This is symptomatic of how editors get treated when in the way of Pete Skyring's agenda. Since when did "who really cares" become a criteria for deletion/notability? The use of the word "crackpot" is telling, noting Pete Skyring's most infemous edit: Australia is a republic *** This editor has been nothing but discourteous to me, personally (recently, on this matter diff), on Talk:Government of Australia, where he had edited my comments, lengthening a two sentence quote to a whole paragraph, thereby he is seen to be suppressing my point (diff) —as seen in the following two diffs, more than once— and with a most discreditable impunity despite all protests (diff, and a 2nd time: diff). And in the realm of content, extremely eliptical, agenda-driven and intellectually dishonest. This latest stunt, while his current Arbitration on "crackpot" Republicanism in Govt. of Australia remains ongoing, is a mockery of Misplaced Pages, its editors, and this committee. I offer Jtdirl's my apologies for my oversight in neglecting to watch over Pete Skyring's proofreading (I have been rather preoccupied elsehwhere), and I call on this committee to put a stop to Pete Skyring's abuse of Misplaced Pages policy, starting with an immediate injunction. El_C 11:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Skyring

jtdirl makes his hypocrisy plain. A glance at his contributions shows that he repeatedly abuses me both publicly and privately. As he does again in this RfA. That's one reason for me to keep tabs on his contributions. (jtdirl attempts to justify his harrassment of me.) "his hilariously ridiculous comprehension of constitutional law", "his dodgy claims" "Pete's ridiculous, uninformed constitutionally illiterate rambles","Pete's ridiculous dillusions about Australian constitutional law" "'Alice in Wonderland' contibutor" "But then, when you have spent 6 archives making ludicrous claims it would be a bit much to expect you to understand the rules of wikipedia when you don't even understand your own constitution" (list of edits to follow. Long list)

Checking out my contributions reveals one obvious point. I like hunting down errors and fixing them. I like this more than creating new articles or adding material to existing articles. I noticed from jtdirl's contributions when he weighed into the Government of Australia debate that his material was full of errors (for instance, he was unaware of Australian monarchist spokesmen and what their public statements had been, and he claimed two Governors-General had commented on events in 1999, not knowing that they had died in 1991 and 1993 respectively).

So after patrolling RC for a while I thought that I might go and check out jtdirl's edits as a more fruitful source of errors, and I found the mother-lode! My edits speak for themselves. Spelling mistakes, syntax reconstruction, grammar and style fixes galore, but also corrections of some really ludicrous errors. Several times jtdirl reverted my corrections, thereby reintroducing the same old errors.

Petaholmes is worth following around to tidy up her spelling mistakes, but she's not in the same league. (list of edits to follow. Short list)

(I must say that I take my hat off to Petaholmes! She complains that I'm stalking her, but if you read her statement below, she's busy trawling through my LiveJournal blog for stuff to use here! Way to steal the moral high ground, nixie!)

And yes, I looked at Vicarius Filii Dei, read through it and was unimpressed. It's pure crackpottery and doesn't belong in WP. Snopes.com covers a multitude of myths, but doesn't bother with this one. So I created a VfD for VFD and yes, I made the comment "Kick it off". As I had done with other new articles such as or . I had imagined that the reference to "kicking-off" a football game was plain.

I am not surprised that jtdirl is moaning about "harrassment". He thinks he is, like the pope, incapable of error, and having his mistakes pointed out in public must really make him grip his steering wheel and pound on his horn. Tough. Everything we do here is open to scrutiny, and I'm not one to leave errors in Misplaced Pages if I can correct them. It gives me a warm glow of virtue.

Comment:

He thinks he is, like the pope, incapable of error, and having his mistakes pointed out in public must really make him grip his steering wheel and pound on his horn. Tough. Everything we do here is open to scrutiny, and I'm not one to leave errors in Misplaced Pages if I can correct them. It gives me a warm glow of virtue.

A warm glow of virtue ?(!) The contempt and instransigence of Pete Skyring truly begs belief. He is not satisfied with attacking Jtdirl in his statement, but also feels compelled to add a snide, disparaging remark against Catholics. I charge that he is out of order and out of line. This is an insult to the Misplaced Pages community, a mockery of this procedure, its participants, and the committee. El_C 13:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I "feel compelled", do I? What interesting terminology. How very Freudian. I personally do not feel "compelled", despite your projections.
Misplaced Pages is described by its founder Jimmy Wales as "an effort to create and distribute a 💕 of the highest possible quality to every single person on the planet in their own language."
That's the bottom line. The aim is not to create a bureaucracy. The aim is not to create a clubby community where everyone agrees with everyone else. My edits speak for themselves - they are directed towards correcting errors and thereby improving the quality of the Misplaced Pages.
And I'd like to point out that charging me with attacking other editors whilst making an abusive and insulting attack against me is the height of hypocrisy. Look to the log in your own eye, brother! Pete 14:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Huh? That was rather insane. You sure seem compelled to me. Quite the VfD you got there, btw. El_C 21:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's the point. It's your perception. Don't tell me what I "feel", because it's your feeling, not mine.
As for VFD VfD, if people want to keep it that's fine, and I'm pleased to see the system working as it should. Looks like I misjudged the genuine interest of people in mythbusting. To my mind the whole crackpot myth can be exploded by simply pointing out that the papal tiaras don't have any inscription. Plain common sense, but hey, if people really want a whole article with pictures instead of two lines in the Papal Tiara article, that's OK. My apologies to all the keen mythbusters and I've changed my vote there to make it a unanimous Keep. Pete 21:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Snuh? I did no such thing. As I said, ou sure seem compelled to me. El_C 22:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Read what you wrote again. Please. Pete 23:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And I was not telling you anything, I was addressing the committee, which I suggest that, henceforth, you limit yourself to doing. El_C 22:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
May I point out to the committee the blatant hypocrisy of El C's comment above? Pete 23:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Boasting of your contempt for other Wikipedians in a public forum (which you link to from your user page so I can only assume that you want people to go there) seems like very relevant information, and speaks to your general contempt for the norms of behaviour here.--nixie 00:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Judging by the behaviour of you, jtdirl and El_C, one might imagine that breathtaking hypocrisy is the norm. Sure, my LiveJournal is open to the public. So are Misplaced Pages contributions, and really, you can hardly complain that I am stalking you by looking at your official contributions here when you go offsite and not only hunt back through my personal blog but you also quote bits out of it. Be reasonable, please! Pete 01:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tired rhetoric, shallow innuendo, trivial diversions; the facts speak clearly, and they have been thoroughly documented above & elsewhere. El_C 02:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just step into my shoes for a moment, brother. From my point of view, you're doing the exact same things you accuse me of doing. You want me somehow wikipunished but I'll bet if I kick off three more RfAs for the above three clear hypocrisies, you'll complain that it's all terribly unfair. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I say. Look into your own heart and ask yourself if the hatred you are directing my way is something you'd care to be on the receiving end of? Pete 04:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not directing any hatred your way, I take exception to that accusation. You are free to take any action you see fit against me. El_C 12:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no intention of engaging in any discussion with Skyring, who has shown himself to all who have dealt with him to be arrogant, obnoxious and incapable of recognising that when everyone who has dealt with him points out that there is a problem with his behaviour, there may well be a problem with his behaviour. I will however point out three facts:

  • He sees nothing wrong in targeting 'enemies' of his, attacking them, and following them around from page to page harrassing them. If he did that in person he would be reported to the police for stalking.
  • While seeing nothing wrong with his behaviour of targeting his critics personally, Skyring regards it as unacceptable when El-C reads something he had written about Wikipedians in a public forum that he himself has advertised on his own user page, with a link provided by him to enable Wikipedians to read his page.
Another person, a young lady who may or may not have dyslexia, thinks that when I cast an eye over her edits and correct her spelling, I'm stalking and harrassing her. She just quoted an extract from this very LiveJournal blog as evidence against me. Huh? Who's doing the stalking?'
  • In two places, when debating the proposed sanction against him for his conduct on Australian government pages, and in the external page he himself links to his own Misplaced Pages page, he points out that he can get one or more other 'users' (ie, himself as someone else) to push his editing agenda, or that he can also sign on anonymously and do exactly as he wants, irrespective of what sanction is imposed on him here.
His aim in life is to get me booted off Misplaced Pages so I don't embarrass him any further. Yeah, like that would work. Misplaced Pages allows anonymous efforts, so all I would have to do would be to hop on my bike, trundle down Constitution Avenue to Civic where there are any number of hotspots, and enjoy a cup of coffee while I fixed up his latest idiocies. A different IP address every day. What could he do? Complain that some bastard was making him look like an idiot?
Nor will it stop me from finding some other editor(s) to present the same facts.

Clearly, having shown contempt for other users and contempt of NPOV he has also demonstrated clear contempt for the rule-making and rule-enforcing standards on Misplaced Pages. As a result one can but question whether a partial ban, either from certain types of edits or certain pages, would be effective. DW and Lir showed similar contempt for other users and Misplaced Pages rules. Should Skyring, on the basis of his threats to get around any sanctions imposed, be treated like the above two individuals, and so have a longterm ban imposed, coupled with an instruction to revert any edits by him under assumed identities on sight? FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\ 01:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Petaholmes

After adding harassment evidence to Skrings other RfAr, he proceeded to edit four other pages that I had worked on that day, including one I was still actively working on and was yet to spell check. Previously he and I only have one page that we both edit. Since he didn't barrage with with the same personal attacks that he did Jtdirl I was unsure If I should add it to the evidence. The wikistalking did concern me, first for the irrational reason that I was being followed (though I think most resonable wikipedians would feel the same way); second for the reason that I was being targeted and scrutinized unfairly due to involvement in the preceeding ArbCom case; and thirdly these behaviours certainly point to deficiencies in expected behaviour including Misplaced Pages:Civility. I also find it quite odd that Skyring thinks he is doing the project a service by policing and enforcing his Wikijustice on good users, it would seem to go against the spirit of the Wiki. This quote from his LJ is rather telling As you know, I'm a frequent contributor to Misplaced Pages, where my tastes lie more in the direction of stamping on errors and egos than in adding to the body of knowledge, June 16. The personal attacks on Jtdirl are unacceptable.--nixie 09:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


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

  • Merge into existing case. This may require a temporary injunction. Ambi 10:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept but don't merge. Fred Bauder 11:37, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Why do we need two cases on the same user for the same dispute with the same people? The only difference is that things have gotten more aggravated. Ambi 11:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:32, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
  • Merge ➥the Epopt 20:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:OldRight/User:Old Right

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

See User talk:OldRight.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

See User talk:Old Right.

Statement by User:Neutrality

I have been fortunate enough not to have significant dealings with Old Right/OldRight. However, I have noticed some stunningly disruptive behavior from this user. Evidence and a full request for relief may be read at User:Neutrality/workshop II. Neutrality 01:10, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Conradrock

I have dealt with User:OldRight, on one occasion, after the RFC started for the Joe Scarborough article. We have asked for his input on why he constantly wants to revert this article, and has yet to make a statement. Given his history in the past, especially with his instigation of an edit war on this article, and violation of the 3RR policy, I feel that User:OldRight needs to be instructed that this isn't a soapbox, this is an encyclopedia. Conradrock 06:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:SimonP

Any hearing should also look into User:Crevaner, an account that seem to exist only to backup OldRight in VfD debates. - SimonP 16:30, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • No it doesn't. Crevaner is a friend of mine and actually is the person who told me about Misplaced Pages. We used to collaborate on VfD, but stopped doing that a long time ago after some people wrote about having a problem with that. -- OldRight 19:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The double voting did mostly cease some months ago, and if Old Right admits that it wasn't appropriate then I don't think any further action is necessary on this issue. - SimonP 21:34, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

  • Recuse. Neutrality 01:10, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept. Ambi 03:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept Fred Bauder 13:04, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept; could this be a sockpuppet? I'm thinking mostly of Libertas/Ollieplatt of whom OldRight's userpage seems strikingly similar. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:47, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
  • Accept ➥the Epopt 00:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OldRight's response

I don't know what the big deal is. First of all I'm not a sockpuppet. As I wrote on Neutrality's talk page, all I try to do is add usefull editions to articles to make them more specific. Nor am I using wikipedia as a soapbox, I'm simply trying to make articles more encyclopedic by making them more specific. Believe me when I tell you there is no political agenda on my part when editing articles. And as for the Joe Scarborough article, I believe Conradrock is referring information about the death of one of Scarborough's aides in 2001. I simply don't think that info is relevant and needed in the article. From now on I'll try and leave a lot more edit summaries, OK. This entire situation seems to be a big misunderstanding. -- OldRight 15:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:JuliusThyssen

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Message on User talk: JuliusThyssen:

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I have asked this user several times to refrain from using personal attacks. He responded by calling me an asshole. I don't feel that any other dispute resolution would matter to such a rude person. Rhobite 20:10, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Rhobite

JuliusThyssen, who previously edited from 195.64.95.116, has long been an argumentative and uncivil user on Talk:MP3 and Talk:MPC (audio compression format). He has also gotten into arguments after he advanced POV political theories on September 11, 2001 attacks . People who disagree with his opinions are quickly called "stupid" , "Idiot" , "you people suck" , "smartass" , "edgy stubborn nazi type" . Edit summaries include "deleted sheer nonsense of incapable people" , "ok, that's what you idiots asked for" , "you are a fool" , and "Rhobite is an ASSHOLE, how's that for a personal attack?"

Also userpage vandalism:

Julius removed my comment asking him to refrain from personal attacks:

I think a personal attack parole would be an adequate response to this user's incivility. Rhobite 20:10, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I note in the 'edgy stubborn nazi type' diff , he also states that "If you'd rather have it this way, then I will make it my life's task to change that line from each and every library and internet-café I can find."-Ashley Pomeroy 10:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

User:JuliusThyssen has been disfiguring the List of disco artists with non-disco additions (which don't fit standard scientific definitions of disco as a form of music), plus deletions of well-known valid disco hit songs like "Take Me Home" by Cher (1979).

This is just plain bullshit. First of all, there IS no scientific definition of disco as a form of music. This nameless idiot just couldn't handle the fact that I was right and he/she was wrong about many of the tracks he/she decided to put in that list. This goes for all cases mentioned here; Pathetic assholes assuming they are right, when they KNOW they're not. I'm not prepared to behave 'politely' towards such idiotic display of stubbornness, and I refuse to take part in this wanna-be court-like nonsense you call arbitration or rulings on wikipedia. It's obvious you want this to be a medium full of incorrect data, so be it, not my funeral. It ends up being just another silly forum of numbed down stupid and robotic crapologists with big mouths and ego's that are way beyond where they should be. That is the reason I have stopped believing this wikipedia will ever be worth something, it's being ruled by idiots and non-experts. It's even worse in the Dutch version, where tolerance levels are further down the line of toes sticking out miles in front of their delusions of grandeur, where they behave like terrorists (they threaten to send abuses to your internet provider just because some nobody who thinks he is an important part of human history since he 'contributes to wikipedia' was corrected by me). I hereby acknowledge to love to further annoy the likes of you by using proxy-servers and terminals in libraries and gas-stations etc. And no, I'm not the one in need of psychological help here, and you all know it. You people have no lives. In fact, if some rightfully placed insult on some stupid wikipedia website (it's terribly slow, by the way) is enough for you to spend so much time on it, you must be completely insane. Good luck trying to fight the forces of chaos, you know you don't stand a chance against them. JuliusThyssen 09:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


He further has insulted me with ageist remarks like "you weren't there when it hit the clubs" and claims to know more than I do about music.

Well it's been quite obvious that I do!

He did not make rational responses to my points to him. He also removes users' criticisms of him from User_talk:JuliusThyssen - when he deleted my comment to him he wrote "deleted sheer nonsense of incapable people". One of my pieces of advice to him was: "Please learn how to technically analyze music. This is not an exercise in nostalgic remembrances of what played in your club but in creating a reference work." On May 22, 2005 he actually removed something that was supposed to be removed ('Nightshift' by the Commodores) but when he did so he wrote "you fool" directed to the person who had added that song.

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

User:Emico

Involved parties

Onlytofind,Raygirvan,LBMixPro,DJ_Clayworth vs. Emico

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I, Onlytofind have personally contacted each user in the dispute and have left a notice on Emico's RfC page.

Notice should be on User talk:Emico Fred Bauder 20:09, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
It's already been noted, informally though. --LBMixPro 20:37, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Please consult Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Emico for full listings. Emico has consistently insulted and baited Wikipedians who contribute information contrary to his own personal viewpoint. When other users try to intervene, Emico accuses them of taking the sides of other people and goes on to insult and bait them even further. A RfC was started, in hopes of him stopping this behavior, and after repeated warnings, the other three users and I felt that he must be reported to the arbitrators to decide in this matter.

Statement by Onlytofind

Emico's contributions are personally biased opinions, extremely favorable towards the Iglesia ni Cristo and anyone associated with it, while he forces unfavorable edits to any organization opposed to the Iglesia ni Cristo, such as The bereans (sic). He also becomes vocal and abusive when an INC-related article is not completely favorable to either the Church, or one of the Manalo family members who administer it, and insists that all information about the INC must come from sources disseminated by the Iglesia ni Cristo and if not, that "The writer of this article is not authorized by the subject, and the intention for this article is suspicious. Be wary of misinformation." which shows blatant disregard for Misplaced Pages rules and the NPOV. I am a former member of the Iglesia ni Cristo religious sect, who has been contributing information about that organization, and about its administrators, Erano Manalo, Felix Manalo and Eduardo Manalo.I have contributed information favorable and non-favorable about the organization and Emico has consistently made personal attacks against me, calling me "gollum," "satan" and "loser" as well as accusing me of having a vendetta against the Iglesia ni Cristo, which I do not. He has insulted and baited me as well as the three other users on numerous occasions for the past month, and tries to fabricate accusations about me, claiming that I am involved in a religion opposed to the Iglesia ni Cristo, which I am not, and have consistently stated so. He has also claimed that Raygirvan,LBMixPro,DJ_Clayworth and I are the exact same person, a member of the Philippine Bereans who wants to get revenge on him (paraphrasing his words) which makes no sense. I exchanged personal insults with him on a few occasions due to his incessant baiting, but in good faith and in an attempt to solve this dispute, I apologized and pledged to stop exchanging insults on my part, in hopes that he would stop his baiting and insults, but he has taken to consistently bold one of my previous comments on the Talk:Erano G. Manalo page in hopes of trying to bait me once again. When I left the arbitration notice on his userpage, he has once again tried to bait me by saying "Please make this your last post on my talk page." I believe that the other three users and I have tried in good faith to work with Emico, but unfortunately, Emico still insists on playing by "his rules" and wants everyone else to play by them too. He has also been accused of impersonating a blogger who writes articles critical of the INC and has tried to attain the identities of the administrators of INC-related forums elsewhere on the Internet, which leads me to believe that he is not interested in constructively contributing to the Misplaced Pages, but wants to spread his own personal opinions and by seeking the identities of known INC critics, I'm afraid he might, and I place emphasis on might, do something to them. On June 15, 2005, I read a statement from Emico on DJ Clayworth's talk page, "there was a section in Creationism about why creationists are idiots (which they are, but still should be NPOV)." He's starting flames once again.

Emico tried baiting me after this on the Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo page. I think I can rest my case that Emico wants to push his theocratic, pro-Iglesia ni Cristo, and anti-Trinitarian agenda on the Misplaced Pages and, I restate my suggestion that Emico and all associated IP addresses be permanently banned. (Edited for brevity)

He has started it again, with a post dated 10 June 2005 on the Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo#GEM page where he accused me of being a Berean once again. Now, he has started again, on 13 June 2005 with a racist statement "All foreign missionaries are bigots" and that I'm trying to manipulate the system, when I tried to reason with Glenn Cessor, another INC apologist. I would also like to point out that I did not write the claim of Eduardo Manalo taking part in EDSA, I only reverted the article to its previous state after Emico edited it, because I have never seen him edit in a way consistent with NPOV.

Glenn Cessor, is an INC apologist who has consistently stated his intention to have the article written to "his standards" and has quoted any source critical of the INC as "...trying to deceive us before God." I completely question his neutrality in this matter, and his intentions toward this article, as well as if he is taking Emico's side only due to the fact that they are both members of the Iglesia ni Cristo. He has also used statements which imply insult against myself, and other religions which he disagrees with, and has claimed that all users who disagree with him and try to protect the Misplaced Pages rules are the same person through his inflammatory and baiting statement "It's funny how these 'new users' are appearing, how familiar their writing styles are..." I have taken his bait in the past and have exchanged insults with him as well, but I apologized a few weeks ago, on more than one separate occasion while he has not. Even though, he has hypocritically tried to make light of my insults while I have told him to stop his baiting and inflammatory statements, which have started once again around Sunday, to no avail, not to mention the fact that he has never told Emico the same, even though he flagrantly violates the rules. I believe that his only aim here at Misplaced Pages is to turn the Iglesia ni Cristo article into an article consistent with his viewpoint and beliefs, completely disregarding the Misplaced Pages rules.

Statement by Lbmixpro

My invlovement originates from a reversion of the Bereans article. While looking through the edit history of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) article, I noticed an edit summary by Emico which relates to an edit he made to the Bereans. Out of curiosity, I looked into his edit and reverted it, in order to repair what I percieved as damage to the article's structure. He deleted the majority of External links, references and the complete category listings. This edit was also nearing 3RR status. Soon after, Emico sends me a message on my talk page confronting/baiting me to prove my NPOV status about the article. I gave him my reason, but he took it as reverting per request of Onlytofind to get around the 3RR. Soon after, based on his conduct with other wikipedians as well as myself, I planned on issuing an RfC. Throughout this dispute, I've been met with many personal attacks (preferrably "loser"), as well as all people involved. One which caught my attention is an attack at User:DJ_Clayworth. Emico accused him of being a Berean himself. User:Raygirvan tried to intervine and failed. Recently, in an attempt to resolve this issue, I assumed failure to comply to WP:AGF, apologized to Emico if he considered my edit as "reckless" and considered the WP:NPA issue resolved as far as I'm involved. His response was "The arrogance of these people! You don't tell me what to do. You won't tell me that face to face, so why do it here?" At this point, I do not recommend a ban, as his behavior has improved at an unstable rate. But he's stated that he may continue his previous actions. In the event his conduct worsens in both edit wars or personal attacks, I'll suggest him be banned to the fullest extent of ArbCon. He needs to know and respect the importance of the 3RR, NPOV, and NPA rules.

References: talk:Bereans, talk:Iglesia ni Cristo, User talk:Emico, User talk:Lbmixpro Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Emico#Evidence of disputed behavior.

I support the statements from DJ_Clayworth, Onlytofind and Raygirvan. To clarify one of Emico's statements here, I did not revert his edit of the Eduardo Manalo article. See the diff between Emico's edit of Onlytofind's and my edit of Emico's thereafter. Onlytofind presented an allegation to the article as fact, Emico deleted it. I presented the information as an allegation. Emico once again deleted it stating the linked reference cannot be verified, since the link is only a summary of the book. I agreed. Onlytofind and Emico have engaged in an edit war since.

Statement by DJ_Clayworth

I encountered Emico first at the Bereans page, to which he had added his own personal assessment of the Phillipine organisation (then the only one mentioned). Since then he insisted on adding his own personal (and derogatory) opinion, and some theological statements which were demonstrably false. At other times he insisted that his own refutation of the Berean's theology be included, on a matter which 98% of other Christians agree. I have found him to be invariably insulting when he is disagreed with, though perfectly polite when agred with. I was personally accused of being a "member of the Berean cult". When an outside viewpoint was requested he accused those who nobly offered their views of 'teaming up' on him. Having been repeatedly challenged to cite sources for his views, he responded by insisting that sources be cited by every single editor for every single word they added to the article. He made anonymous edits to try to get round the Three Revert Rule. He seems to be still insisting that only information approved by that church should be included in the article Iglesia ni Cristo, despite his own attempts to add disparaging information to Bereans.

Some of his problems may be due to unfamiliarity with English. He has very fixed theological ideas, and little idea of which other organisations share them. He has not, to my knowledge, engaged in vandalism for the sake of vandalism. He has also been substantially less disruptive (to my areas of interest) in the last few days. However he needs to understand the value of cooperation and the difference between a fact and an opinion. DJ Clayworth 23:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, I did tell Emico that his interaction with me "did not make seem attractive". Since by then he had already called me a liar and accused me of "propagating lies", "covering up for liars", being "a member of the berean cult" and suggested that I might have sent him a virus, I'm not going to retract that. DJ Clayworth 20:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Raygirvan

I support the asessement of the situation as described by Onlytofind and Lbmixpro.

I entered this dispute via Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts for 24 May, "for a dispute over factual accuracy in the page. Outside view requested" on the article Bereans, and pursued it as a consequence of Emico's behaviour in relation to this article (see also Talk:Bereans and the Bereans edit history).

The Bereans article is about a Scottish historical religous sect and a group of modern evangelical churches of the same name. It's now mostly stable. But this was achieved by giving in to Emico's repeated edits to expunge reference to a significant (in my view) Phillipines branch that campaigns against other religions in the Phillippines, including the Iglesia ni Cristo.

Emico has continued to promote, belligerently, edits that appear to come from a religious agenda rather than a NPOV assessment of the available material (for instance, removal of reference to one modern Berean group's stated anti-Catholic stance; to insert superfluous detail about the Trinity, and to remove reference to the historical Bereans' founder's disaffection from the Church of Scotland).

I'm not directly involved with the Iglesia ni Cristo disputes, but a study of the Talk pages suggests Emico's continuing failure to abide by the guidelines for Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view#Religion or Misplaced Pages:Cite sources. He doesn't accept the validity of secondary sources such as newspaper accounts, and in the Talk pages of three articles about prominent INC members (see Talk:Felix_Manalo, Talk:Erano_G._Manalo and Talk:Eduardo V. Manalo) has shown a bias toward INC sources by stating that "the absolute authority ... is the subject of the article".

I do support a ban. Emico's bias is unlikely to have changed. The strength of his view is evidenced by his setting up a blog repeating his preferred edit of Bereans, footnoted This was the entry I made at wikipedia.org until it was vandalized by members of the Bereans. RayGirvan 23:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Addendum 21 Jun 2005 (revised version of 15 Jun addendum) I have since become involved in editing the Iglesia ni Cristo page. On this front, hopeful progress has been made toward a concensus with other editors, including those supporting this church.

Emico, however, remains a major problem. The crux of the matter is that he is a believer in this church, and persists in applying a POV stance to make the article solely reflect - against NPOV#Religion - his religious views of the subject.

This includes accusing other users of trolling; behaving as if he is sole arbiter of content of such pages (eg repeatedly putting a Factual Content Dispute tag on the page when he, personally, dislikes an edit - see ); and posting bogus reports of Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in progress about edits he dislikes.

He is also currently repeating in Iglesia ni Cristo the behaviour reported above by DJ Clayworth: of demanding source citations for trivial edits by others (professing to be intensely concerned about citation, but providing none for his own) and objecting to well-sourced details of historical context and external description (such as the widespread use of "unitarian" in mainstream reference works). Contrary to his claims, I have provided citations for my own edits: for example, .

He is in addition applying this religious agenda to the nontrinitarianism and Unitarianism articles, deleting Iglesa ni Cristo references (see and ) from these useful descriptive categories generally used for the INC by external NPOV sources such as Encyclopaedia Britannica. RayGirvan 17:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Emico

In my statement, I'll let their post do the talking:

Onlytofind: When asked to cite sources, he responded with:

In short, you're some deranged INC fanboy who's depressed because he's unable to cover his bias with a cloak of legitimacy. Have a nice day. --Onlytofind 22:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I did not rspond to this, but his insults, threats of banning and arbitration continued.

Emico, I wish that I could reply to your comment, except that I can't understand your atrocious grammar.--Onlytofind 02:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Which prompted one poster to say:

Emico, I think Onlytofind's "strongly implying" that you are illiterate!--gcessor71.32.86.239 13:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I did not respond to his insult.

LBmixpro: When asked why he reverted my edits without explanations, he replied:

I don't know what you are talking about. Nor do I care. I made the revert so that Onlytofind won't get the Bereans article locked

I believed this was getting around wikipedia rules, the same way raygirvan and dj clayworth were doing. After a few post, I believe we settled the dispute. Although I resented their post because I felt they were presenting themselves as Misplaced Pages authority, when they are not.

Raygirvan and dj clayworth: I questioned why they used the word 'disaffected' when it could not be found in the sources. I pointed out that since this was not in the sources, of even an indication of it, that it is a personal opinion and should be taken out. I believe they were inserting words which cannot be found in the sources provided, and is detrimental to the character of the subject. See exchanges in

Dj clayworth's objectivity is suspect. He seems so biased, that if a personal opinion suits him, then to him it is a fact. To cite one example: In one of the talk pages, he asked for the meaning of an acronym. I'm not really sure if he was baiting, or genuinely interested to know. When both I and Onlytofind responded, he copied Onlytofind's post verbatim and added it to the article without verifying facts. We had some post exchanges on the talk pages, and at one point he addressed me and posted this: "... my experience interacting with you does not make this organisation seem attractive.". Please see exchanges in the talk page

If possible, I would also like to know if any of the involved belong to networks 203.176.2.* and 202.176.2.*. During the exchanges, I was sent a virus via email. --Emico 16:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add here that we are again in a revert war. Onlytofind and lbmixpro are taking turns reverting my edits. I questioned the lack of verifiable source. Onlytofind and lbmixpro are making allegations that the subject of the article was engaged in rebellion, a very serious accusation. --Emico 20:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Onlytofind started another revert war. The contributors decided to vote to balance links on the article. Onlytofind wanted to get around the decision by adding another link. I suggested to replace one of the current links so as to maintain the balance but he will not negotiate and started insulting me and another user. --Emico 03:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On creationist: I never posted on that article. Please check the poster dates thoroughly.

On foreign missionaries, here's my actual comment:One thing I got from this essay is the fact that foreign missionaries are bigots. --Emico 13:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC). I was commenting on this account in the essay:"He(Missionary Bruce Kessner) believed that Filipinos were “defective” in “thought power.".

On Onlytofind being a berean: I asked him is religion and got a vague answer. I posted berean in a reply and explain that it was a guess. I asked him again his religion and got no reply.

On Onlytofind manipulating the system and users: Whenever he gets into exchanges that he loses, he baits users into supporting him. He's currently aligning support for an RFC on another user. If you watch the talk pages of the users, you'll see the pattern.

On lbmixpro: He started out explaining the accusation was just an allegation. That was not my point. My point was the link to the source was deficient because it was a booksellers catalog! He obviously did not verify the link. Plus, Onlytofind was making serious allegations of rebellion which he cannot substantiate. lbmixpro did a second look and found this out himself, and agreed with me.

On Raygirvan's accusation of obstructing edits of the Unitarianism page: He added claims that the INC is a biblical unitarian church. I corrected him saying a unitarian is a protestant sect, which the INC is certainly not. He seem to resent being corrected. Note that Raygirvan is one of people who started this arbitration because of exchanges similar to this. --Emico 00:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response to Raygirvan addendum: Raygirvan and Onlytofind overun the article with new additions, but did not cite sources. When I asked them for the sources, they would'nt hear of it and complained that I was obstructing them. Because I could not verify their addition, I added the dispute tag and a cite sources section in the talk page asking them to provide a source for a specific item. After much complaining and reverting, they removed the item. I am guessing that they do not have a source and have fabricated the statement they added to the article. It is events like this that I am moved to question their contributions. I have a suspicion that they are pushing an agenda. I am asking them for source on the rest of their additions. --Emico 23:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Concerning trolling, here are the post that I did not respond to:

  • Look at the statements that Glenn and Emico have made, claiming foolishly ... The hypocrisy of the INC members ... with theirbias! --Onlytofind 01:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You(gcessor) lie, insult (yes, I said it) and manipulate this article to your own blatantly biased POV. You're a hypocrite, pure and simple. (sniff) .--Onlytofind 19:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Emico graciously used some of his precious time to vandalize this article once again, (sniff)--Onlytofind 04:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You(emico) can run from the truth, but you can't hide the fact that you're guilty of bias and hypocrisy. Onlytofind 21:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And raygirvan, after I asked to cite sources said:And I add: we are not obliged to treat Emico as arbiter of content here. Any factual doubts (and I agree that there are some) are the province of all editors here, and I trust Glenn and Ealva far more. RayGirvan 23:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement By Glenn Cessor

Before you make any rulings, please consider these: Carefully read the Iglesia ni Cristo talk page, and you will see that Onlytofind throws insults around as readily as anyone else...and accuses others of insulting him at every turn. For instance, look on the Iglesia ni Cristo's talk page section "Discussion forums" wherein he says that I "have to insult every INC detractor". I have challenged him to back that up with proof (Onlytofind has access to hundreds of my posts on two forums), but has yet to present any. Furthermore, look at my comments that I've made on the Misplaced Pages to see if I've even insulted anyone ONCE. Rebuked, yes. Insulted NO. Yet, if you listen to Onlytofind, I insult EVERY INC detractor...and then he continues to insult as he will.

Furthermore, we're in the process of an edit war on the Iglesia ni Cristo site. Onlytofind lost a previous vote on the number of 'con' sites allowed versus the number of 'pro' sites allowed, and he has since decided that an article published by an Ann Harper, whose article has the stated purpose of helping Evangelicals be more effective in missionizing - drawing people away from - the Iglesia ni Cristo. The language she uses is obviously 'con' INC, but Onlytofind insists on having the link in the "Other INC-related links" instead of the 'con' section where it belongs. This is obviously an attempt to bypass the already agreed-upon limit of three 'con' sites.

What's the point? You have an accusation by Onlytofind - but consider Onlytofind's actions as well. I can't speak of the matter concerning the Bereans' page, but when it comes to him accusing anyone of insults, it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black (and he still has a long way to go proving that I've insulted anyone). Please bear this in mind in your decisions.--gcessor 06:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

  • Accept Fred Bauder 21:00, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept. Ambi 22:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Although I can't really make sense of what's going on, I can tell there's something horribly wrong going on here, so accept. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:06, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
  • Accept ➥the Epopt 00:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Requests for Clarification

If you need to clarify the precise meaning of a previous decision of the Arbitration Committee, your request should go here.

Forgotten and Hidden sockpuppets of Baku Ibne/LIGerasimova etc.

Dear ArbCom,

Following my brief communication with Fred (), I ask you to immediately block and ban two sockpuppet accounts of previously banned anon 84.154.xx.xx. aka Baku Ibne/LIGreasimova/Osmanoglou etc. (Baku Ibne et al. Case). These sockpuppets are Twinkletoes (talk · contribs) and, as I just found out to my surprise, Deli-Eshek (talk · contribs).

I was aware about Twinkletoes being a sockpuppet long ago (e.g. see, my post in , .) Moreover, the similar behavior and edit pattern of this vandal, leaves no question that this "user" is indeed a sock. Pls, review his contrib log for details: everything, from edited pages, to time of edits, and lengths and volume of activity points to the fact that this is indeed a vandal sock, which was overlooked.

The most surprising discovery I just made concerns User:Deli-Eshek's real identity. I was rather surprised that this guy is also actually a sockpuppet of Baku Ibne (I was similarly surprised in the past to learn out from Tony that LIGerasimova, whom I thought to be different person, was actually the same person as 84.154.xx/Baku Ibne/Osmanoglou ).

Here is the proof of Deli-Eshek being a sockpuppet: . You can see that this person is actually the same as 84.154.xx.xx (see, ) aka Baku Ibne/LIGerasimova/Osmanoglou etc etc. Actually, similarly User:Tony Sidaway has found in the past that LIGerasimova was in fact same person as Baku/Ibne/Osmanoglou (, fixed in evidences presented by Tony )).

This "user" has in the past actually "supported" me in Talk:Safavids. He pretended to be an "ethnic Turk" who "agrees" with me on my argument that Safavids were a Turkic-speaking dynasty of Iran, but he was kind of dark horse whose actions did not correspond to his deeds. Thus for example, I couldn't understand his actions, when he attacked various Azeri users (e.g. (in which he allegedly "supports" me) (or this post, which provoked me to carefully approach him and ask him not to wage personal discussions. Then I thought that this guy is realy an ordinary good-faith editor, and all I cared is to advise him not to play into hands of my opponents in Talk:Safavids by waging unnecessary personal discussions).

Besides these two sockpuppets, there are some more e.g. Luba-Gerasimova (talk · contribs) (which as seen from the name, is same as LIGerasimova (pretending to be a Russian female Luba Ivanovna Gerasimova). The other socks are Kiramtu_Kunettabib (talk · contribs) and StuffedTurkey (talk · contribs). I dont have solid evidences against the last two, but I am sure you can easily clarify the issue with those "mock users" as well.--Tabib 14:23, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

User:Wareware

I missed that. What?. TIA. El_C 10:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The case was closed - Wareware hadn't edited since before the case had started, and there wasn't much point then banning him when there was a whole bunch of new, more important cases to deal with. Ambi 22:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right, but we knew he wasn't coming back at the time of issuing the request. I suppose I expected some sort of statement to go along with the unexpected closure which followed the evidence submission (i.e it serving some purpose). Any thoughts? El_C 00:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was obvious that he was a nasty piece of work, and he was dealt with accordingly. When we got that onslaught of new cases concerning ongoing issues with potential problem users, it was the lowest priority of our cases, and seeing as there was no issue with stopping anything from happening, there seemed to be no point continuing on with the case. Ambi 16:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The case, then, wasn't "closed following Wareware's departure from Misplaced Pages," that happned the month before (following the RFC), the case was closed due to the "onslaught of new cases." *** Now, I realize that legalism is cold & techncial, still, a sentence qualifying this, taking 20 seconds to formulate, might have been prudent; and perhaps a brief statement as a precedence. Am I just too sensitive to persecution (my pov) ? Certainly, I still feel very uneasy that it could happen right under my nose. Thanks for reading. 70.28.160.144 20:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This can be removed, I suppose. Since DC is not particularly upset with the unexpected closure, I see no reason why I should be. El_C 00:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Archive

 Category: