Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:29, 23 December 2005

• ]

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

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

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 Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

• Arbitration policy
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Precedents

How to list cases

Under the below Current requests section:

• Click "";
• Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), ommitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
• Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
• Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
• Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

Freestylefrappe

Involved parties

• Freestylefrappe (defendant)
• SCZenz (filing RfA)
• Bunchofgrapes (another admin involved)
• karmafist (another admin involved)

Freestylefrappe has misused his administrator powers, threatened to use his administrator powers in efforts to intimidate other users, and behaved in violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:BITE. He treats with contempt the attempts of others to explain Misplaced Pages policy, the role of Misplaced Pages administrators, or the problems of his own actions.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Users identified as part of the case by Freestylefrappe:
  • Freestylefrappe (defendant)
  • SCZenz (filing RfA)
  • Bunchofgrapes (another admin involved)
  • karmafist (another admin involved)
  • Asbestos (another admin involved)
  • Flcelloguy (another admin involved)
  • Redwolf24 (another admin involved)
  • Creidieki
  • Macedon5
  • Bitola
  • Glenn Willen
  • Ral315
  • Zocky
  • Locke Cole
  • Akamad

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Attempts to discuss these issues: , ,

See also: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Freestylefrappe, where he continued to make inappropriate comments

Statement by SCZenz

This case is necessary because I, and several other administrators, believe that Freestylefrappe has exhibited a pattern of actions inappropriate for a Misplaced Pages administrator. There is currently an RfC on the subject, but it is quite muddled at this point, and has been treated with contempt by Freestylefrappe. I finally became convinced that continuing the RfC process was useless when, after I made a suggestion that he take the RfC as constructive criticism rather than Wikilawyering , he responded with an inappropriate (not to mention rude) use of a vandalism template .

Problems I see with Freestylefrappe's conduct include:

• Biting the newbies by blocking new user without warning , even though that user had been trying to make constructive edits - see Special:Contributions/Stephenj
• Misrepresentation of policy and disinterest in following it , (note incomplete quote),
• Assumptions of bad faith
• Removing comments from talk page with rude remark , and putting up a generally hostile notice afterwards
• Threatening to refactor his own RfC and block other users involved in it
• Actually removing a Misplaced Pages policy from his own RfC
• Other threats with his admin powers, and assertion of the right to use them in conflicts he's involved in

Since Freestylefrappe is unwilling to consider the comments made on his RfC , it's either ArbCom or dropping the matter completely. I think Misplaced Pages administrators should be held to a high standard, and Freestylefrappe's recent behavior falls far short of that. If he has no interest in listening to the comments of others, some other action has to be taken.

Comment on Freestylefrappe's modification of the case

I would like to object to Freestylefrappe's efforts to make this case about the edit conflict in Kumanovo. I have no beef with his actions as an editor; this complaint is with his behavior as an administrator (and his inability to separate it from his actions as an editor). Leaving off his 3RR violation was deliberate; I think the problems started afterward.

Statement by Freestylefrappe

I'll add more to this later, but right off the bat, I'm really getting tired of the harassment by users like SCZenz, BunchofGrapes, Karmafist, Redwolf, etc. I freely admit I dont take my RFC seriously at all. My RFA voting style is listed as an "outside view" on a meaningless dispute I had with a sockpuppet wielding vandal. All that the RFC is, is a bunch of users I annoyed 'cause I voted against their/their friends RFAs. I was blocked and accused of violating 3RR by Karmafist - which curiously is not listed as one of the policies I broke here - after I reverted what was clearly vandalism. This entire "dispute" is utter nonsense. freestylefrappe 17:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

All parties are not aware of this...or maybe they are..I'm not sure...they have a tendency to talk behind my back on obsure pages. freestylefrappe 18:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Time to disect the above mischaracterization.

• If you click on you'll see why I blocked StephenJ-which was a short block-and if he really was being constructive-which I seriously doubt, he could have contacted me through email and I would have unblocked him.
• Number is my opinion and since I rarely block anyone (maybe 20 or so anonymous users usually with short blocks since I've become an admin) you really need to get off my back about it
• Number is a quote from Misplaced Pages policy that I have discussed at length with Flcelloguy so I hardly see your point
• Number is once again my opinion whether you like it or not
• Number is number again...perhaps you posted the wrong diff?
• Number ....hahahah..SCZenz...please review Misplaced Pages policy...its not me who's embarassed by this diff and accusation
• Number was quite humorous and technically doesn't violate any Misplaced Pages policy
• Figuring out the accusation associated with number is a conundrum for me...perhaps he once again posted the wrong diff..?..:)
• Number pointed out that SCZenz violated WP:CIVIL. Then I explained how RFCs worked...I assumed good faith here though now I realize he was just violating policy. I believe later on he called that policy something along the lines of "laughable."
• Number was reverting a personal attack against me.
• As for number 19...You all seem to still be in this fantasy land in which reverting is the only tactic I could have used to get the page version I wanted. Has it occured to any of you that I could have just protected the page after the first edit by Bitola? Why dont you just concede the block was wrong? By the way, Glenn, as noble a statement as that may be, its not a user's responsibility to go back and see if another user modified an RFC. So I really should revert all edits on the RFC to my last version. Ill refrain though. Its a testament to your misunderstanding of how an RFC and an Request for Arbitration works. freestylefrappe 18:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Response to subsection recently added by SCZenz

The problems did not start after the Kumanovo incident. This whole dispute was going on long before the Kumanovo reversions. What SCZenz doesnt seem to understand is that its not that I'm not open to constructive criticism and other administrators helpful suggestions. I just dont want to listen to him... or Karmafist...or BunchofGrapes....freestylefrappe 18:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Karmafist

I stopped updating FSF's rfc awhile ago in the hope that he'd realize that he's his own worst enemy in this. Apparently he hasn't.
At this point, I don't think any of the admins care about his content in regards to Kumanovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which have been fine, but rather the way he has acted towards others in regards to that article and the following Rfc regarding him. He did violate 3RR awhile back, but as SCSenz said, that was piddling compared to what came afterwards, and ultimately it's a tragic case because unlike many of the cases you see where the defenders are just habitual trolls contributing nothing to the project, FSF is fine when he's isolated from everybody else. I think the best solution for FSF is no WP:RFA (his votes are Boothy-esque to say the least), no Kumanovo (he has serious Ownership issues there) and no talk pages other than his own for a certain period of time. karmafist 18:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Phroziac and karmafist

Involved parties

• Phroziac (talk · contribs)
• Karmafist (talk · contribs)
• NicholasTurnbull (talk · contribs) (whom I have no complaint with)
• Probably Rchamberlain whom I long left alone, but was where this stupid thing began.
• Rbj (talk · contribs), complainant

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

All above named parties have been notified. I guarantee it. r b-j 05:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Phroziac, Karmafist,

NicholasTurnbull, Rchamberlain

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

 (If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)

I do not know what else to do when I let Phroziac "win" and elected not to take her up on her challenge to "WP:RFAr --Phroziac _. o º 23:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)" yet 3 hours later i get this: "==Harrassing Phroziac== Phroziac said you've been harrassing her. Stop it. You can disagree with her if you like, but you will be civil to other users. karmafist 02:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)" from karmafist.

What do these people want? For me to commit Hari-Kari for the sin of questioning their judgement? For not capitulating to their judgement? For telling Phroziac (repectfully but uncompromisingly) that she was wrong? For walking away from this?

Statement by User:Rbj

This began a couple of days ago when I began to notice some bad edits made in very high quantity by Rchamberlain (notably regarding references to the Roman Catholic Church) On December 19 I left a friendly worded note ( "please be more careful with your editing") in which Rchamberlain's response was to blank it and ignore it (I think the meaning of that is clear). So I reverted the blanking (to make sure he understood that there is a complaint he should at least pay some attention to), and he again blanked it. This was repeated a couple more times until I finally got his attention and he left at my talk page the note in which he said: what the hell is your problem? got a hardon for me or something? once there's something worth leaving on my talk page i'll do it... until then stop vandalising my fucking talk page. Rchamberlain 03:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I was not vandalizing his page. One could argue he was vandalizing his own talk page and was certainly insulting anyone leaving a comment by his blanking. On Talk_page#Etiquette, it says that "Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings." Nonetheless, I reverted the critique and added another asking him to choose between being a jerk or dealing with this "i was trying to be polite" because it was pretty obvious asking nice was not getting through to him.

On December 22, I reverted his page blanking a total of 4 times and, evidently Rchamberlain went crying to some admin (I could not find a record of this on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard or any other page, so I do not know precisely how this was done) and just before I was going to get an admin to talk to this obviously closed-minded and POV editor, Phroziac blocked me, for no defined time, for no reason communicated to me (as the history of my talk page will tell). She did not come to me (via any form of communication) in advance to inquire what was going on. She did not come to me with a complaint about what I had done. No warning. No nothing. Suddenly I was blocked from Misplaced Pages with no explanation. When I figured out who did it (it's not real clear) I asked why and when I was getting unblocked and there was no response.

Eventually after several attempts to communicate with someone, Phroziac emailed me a note ending with "I just didn't think about leaving a notice. Sorry." yet I was still blocked with no prospect of being unblocked. So, for the first time since September 2004, when I created account User:Rbj, I reset my DSL modem (to get a different IP) and I went to NicholasTurnbull (whom I've known and respected from the infamous Bogdanov Affair) page as an anonymous IP (I know I'm not supposed to do that when I'm blocked, but I still maintain that this block was a bad rap), and asked for help. Reasonably soon, I was unblocked and I confronted Phroziac regarding her reasons and justification for:

• Blocking me without first contacting me about the problem.
• Blocking me without first warning me about such a block impending.
• Not bothering to look into the root of the issue (did Rchamberlain have a legit case? was I continuing to "edit war" with him, if I was at all?)
• Examining uncivil behavior of Rchamberlain. Examining his edit history and his deleted talk page history. What have people been saying to him and how has he reacted?
• Showing a clear endorsement of Rchamberlain (she denies it) by summarily blocking me and doing nothing about Rchamberlain.
• Expecting me to reduce her wikistress level, yet showing no concern for mine. Blocking a user is a very uncivil action and should be done only for the most necessary and justified reasons.

Her response was to flippantly say " Let's agree to disagree and turn our attention to improving Misplaced Pages in other ways. Cheers!"

I did not buy it and made it clear to her that I believed that she acted wrongly and she was just blowing me off. Her response was a simple curt taunt: "WP:RFAr --Phroziac _. o º 23:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)"

The meaning of that is clear and smug ("take it up with the ArbCom") and I had made no communication with her at all about it since. I did not respond to the taunt, I just walked away from it. But that was not good enough for Phroziac. Three hours later I get this message from karmafist: "==Harrassing Phroziac== Phroziac said you've been harrassing her. Stop it. You can disagree with her if you like, but you will be civil to other users. karmafist 02:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)"

Now who is being uncivil?? Can you guys leave it alone??? Can you admins try not to let your authority go to your heads? Must you demand that I capitulate to Phroziac, even though it's pretty clear she was too lazy to try to pick the correct target before shooting?

Karmafist, did you bother to look into this at all before you left your note telling me that I was harrassing her? Name one sentence, or word, where I was harrassing Phroziac. I hope you're not as lazy as her example before you start throwing your authority around. r b-j 05:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

An addendum

Since being notified of this request for arbitration, karmafist has made a thinly veiled threat to block me (this, of course, is not "harrassment"):

You Should Continue Walking Away Then

Your most recent message shows that you don't understand how things work around here. I don't care whether you think whether you think someone is wrong or right, you will be nice to them. Period. I see you're a frequent USENET contributor, which apparently explains your rudeness. That's not the way things work around here. How it works is that users like you are nice to other users, or admins like me block you, repeatedly if necessary until you learn. I suggest you continue walking away from the prior situation and don't get into any future situations because now I and several other admins will be watching your contribs. karmafist 05:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

evidently, being frank is not being "nice", and admins like Karmafist are above reproach. r b-j 06:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Another addendum

This is my last one. This and all others go unanswered. r b-j 06:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This Is Fun

You're absolutely right, I am a bully, only a special kind of bully -- a bully to bullies like Dubya and yourself. You cannot intimidate me with claims of Nobel Prize Winners liking you or that you're the king of trolltown or you'll go cry to the Arbcom (since you don't seem to understand -- the arbcom is a group of good people shackled to the point of near uselessness by a broken system.) I find the arbcom one especially humorous since you couldn't hide behind their apronstrings even if they wanted you to, which is unlikely since they deal with rude trolls such as yourself all the time and they've become jaded to whining such as yours. Oh yeah, you really should check those arbcom motions before you use them as proof, the one your speaking of has about a whole slew of people both on the arbcom and respected elsewhere on here either understanding the reasoning behind my methodology or appluading me for having the guts to take on people such as yourself who try to intimidate others.

Oh, and speaking of the "smelling clean" in regards to the Bogdanov Affair, you're incorrect. For one, anyone who gets involved in an argument (an incivil debate, IME) has debased themselves to the lowest form of communication and must deal with that shame. I'm fortunate here since you seem to be arguing while I continue to be warning. Secondly, being a lesser troll than some of the biggest trolls in Misplaced Pages history isn't something to be particularly proud of. That article has been hit with the Misplaced Pages equivalent of a nuclear bomb in terms of credibility, and since you were involved in it extensively, you share the residue radiation just because you were associated with the dispute.

I don't care about your content dispute with Phroziac, I don't care about any content dispute that you might have. You'll be civil to others. That is not negotiable. I also suggest heading over to Esperanza, they may be able to cure you of your troll affliction. karmafist 06:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Now comes the patronizing

Helping You Out

Now I see that your behavior might be more from inexperience rather than anything else, so here's some advice.

1. The arbcom is too overloaded to listen to anything unless it's gone through the proper channels first or it's an emergency. Your thing is neither. I assumed last night that you were talking about the POTW case.
2. The comment to Jimbo Wales is funny since I guess you've never heard of JamesMLane's Law. That probably helped me more than anything since whining to authorities rarely helps you, often it hurts you. However, since the arbcom selection procedure is still up in the air, your words there might have meant nothing at all.

Seriously, head over to Esperanza. I still think we can still cure you of your personality affliction rehabilitate you into the general community before it's too late. karmafist 17:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Phroziac

This started when Rchamberlain came to me on IRC and told me about the situation. I looked into it, and Rbj had an excessive amount of reverts on Rchamberlain's user talk page (4 in one day). Rchamberlain had been blanking his talk page of *all* comments, including a welcome message. I don't agree with that, but I really do not agree with edit warring over it either. I told Rchamberlain he shouldn't do this. I blocked Rbj for twenty-four hours, without notifying him on his talk page, or talking to him first.

Rbj emailed me, asking me to explain the block, and why I didn't tell him or talk to him first. I told him that it was not cool to revert war on another user's talk page. It's generally considered bad taste for the user to blank his talk page, but that doesn't give Rbj a right to start a nuclear war over it. I told him I did not think about giving him a message, and I was sorry.

My next email from him told me I was way outa line here and should remove the block. I told him I was not out of line, but that I would unblock if he agreed not to edit war on that page again. His next email tells me he's going to take me to arbcom as soon as he gets back on Misplaced Pages. This is the reason behind my talk page message; I would much rather he do something other than constantly complaining to me about it.

Blocking Rchamberlain would not have done anything. Blocking a user still allows them to edit their own talk page. Protection would be neccessary, and protecting a talk page in most cases is rediculous.

--Phroziac _. o º 15:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC) (last edited 15:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC))

Statement by karmafist

Yawn. I figured Rbj meant the POTW reopening case, but I guess I gave him too much credit considering that the arbcom doesn't accept cases without going through the proper procedure. You shouldn't bother listening to rbj's whining, much like Pigsonthewing, he has a USENET mentality, basically just looking for conflict wherever he can find it. Phroziac told me he was harrassing her, I told him to stop, he tries to weasel his way out of that warning, ala Zen-master or Kmweber, and we have an fun little discussion.(Well, for him it was more of an arguement while for me it was more of a warning.)
If anymore Harrassment of Phroziac or anyone else occurs from Rbj, i'll open up an rfc in the next week or so, I'll keep you all informed. karmafist 17:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

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

• Reject, apologies all around and forget it. Fred Bauder 15:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Threats to report anonymous user to his (government) employer by AustinKnight

 AustinKnight

Threats or actions which expose other Misplaced Pages editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time which may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery. Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales of what they have done and why. Cognos 18:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Involved parties

anonymous user at 208.27.111.121 (talk · contribs) and AustinKnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were involved in a small-scale edit war on http://en.wikipedia.org/NSA_surveillance_without_warrants_controversy. User AustinKnight traced anonymous user's IP address to a physical location and made veiled threat on the article's talk page to report anonymous user to his employer (the U.S. government) for abuse of government resources:

Also, if you are a U.S. gov't employee (as indicated by your IP address as being at a U.S. court in Washington, D.C.), I take great umbrage over that fact that you are editing Misplaced Pages on the taxpayer's nickel. Whom should such abuse be reported to...? Never mind...I'll sort that out handily. --AustinKnight 17:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Anonymous user told AustinKnight that he was reporting the matter to arbitration on http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:AustinKnight

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I raised this issue on the user's talk page, his response was to reiterate the threat, indirectly:

Your threats were totally out of line, and you know it. That was pure thuggery. How do you know what my job responsibilities are, or if my wikipedia work isn't consistent with my employer's internet policies? It doesn't, BTW. (anonymous entry by 208.27.111.121)

LOL. Only a lawyer would refer to my comments regarding the exposure of fraud, waste & abuse as a "threat." Grow up. --AustinKnight 17:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What waste of resources? Is the government running short of bandwidth? Is there something on my desk for me to do right now - or perhaps not? Only a wannabee lawyer would call that "fraud". Get a copy of Black's legal dictionary and learn the elements first, player. (anon entry by 208.27.111.121)

The U.S. government has a categorization called "fraud, waste and abuse." It's a collective term...perhaps one you'll grow familiar with. Cheers, --AustinKnight 17:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that mediation would be an appropriate response to such an extreme personal attack, and I think this is totally inconsistent with the spirit of wikipedia, and thus deserving of a ban or probation as a direct result of a RfA. 208.27.111.121 21:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

I would like to personally chime in here endorsing this summary from the anon. Please view AustinKnight's current talk page. He has been approached by two editors (coincidently, both are from Australia). Here is the response we have both received:

Perhaps I have not been flippant enough. You apparently don't get it, so let me make it more clear albeit with less humor: I don't care what you, random person from Australia, thinks on this topic. At all. Nor should I. Moreover, I think that it is repugnant that a taxpayer-insulting employee of the U.S. federal government is able to turn what amounts to a "whistle-blowing" event (against her abuses) into some kind of Wiki-martyrdom, at least amongst the anti-U.S. wiki-forces that she is a subset of. That's idiotic, and ludicrous...but expected from the anti-government ilk. No one has threatened her employment except herself, and every honest person knows that. --AustinKnight 13:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. One can only be "flippant" toward a superior, and you have no such relationship to me. I simply don't buy into your self-aggrandizing fabrications re. the Wiki-social structure...nor should I. --AustinKnight 13:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel that the ArbCom should at least accept this case to investigate further. It's very rare that I see such intimidation on this website. Totally out of control, IMO. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I hardly see why the arbcom needs to get involved here beyond nodding their heads and saying that, yes, this does qualify as a personal attack that puts users in danger, which is good for an insta-ban. Phil Sandifer 06:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hold on, he wasn't putting him in personal danger... he was just threatening to make life difficult for the anon. I didn't think that admins could block on this fact alone... maybe things have chagned without me noticing. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It depends on how you interpret danger I suppose. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by 208.27.111.121 17:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I will decline to make a statement, the facts speak for themselves. 208.27.111.121 17:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Ta bu shi da yu 15:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I am extremely concerned with this development. Since when did we "report" people to the government? I have not heard anything back from AustinKnight. I would at the very least like to see an apology and an undertaking that he won't be doing this. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Willmcw 16:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I am also concerned about this behavior. The initial threat appears to have seriously violated WP:NPA and Misplaced Pages:Harassment. The editors has made rude and dismissive responses to those who've tried to resolve the situation. -Willmcw 16:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Andjam 09:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I added to AustinKnight's talk page another piece of wikipedia policy (WP:NPA) that I considered relevant to the dispute (as AustinKnight disputed the relevancy of "No legal threats"), after seeing the dispute listed on this page. The fact that Ta bu shi da yu and I are Aussies is coincidental: I took an interest in this page after a complaint was lodged against SlimVirgin. Andjam 09:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Cool Cat 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of any details legal threats are completely unnaceptable. We are a community that focus on encyclopedia writing, threatening each other and possibly causing legal penalties will only achieve to distract us from our encyclopedia writing effort. --Cool Cat 16:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by AustinKnight

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

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

1. Reject - you don't need us for this. Threats are not allowed. Warn first then block if it ever happens again. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Reject - Admins can deal with this, doesn't need our time. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Reject - As per Theresa Knott. Jayjg 18:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Accept, a warning is ridiculously lame Fred Bauder 15:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
   1. Then admins can just block. What do we need to get involved for? It looks pretty cut and dry to me. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Reject per Theresa. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Mcfly85 -- Emergency injunction requested

Involved parties

• User:Mcfly85 -- other accounts:
  • User:Petergrif
  • User:Rock09
  • User:Barkman34
  • User:Belligto
  • User:Manyana555
  • User:Sven66
  • User:Salian45
  • User:Capnoh
  • User:Jimcroce1a
  • User:Loolooloo
  • User:Oneandon
  • User:Sigma995
  • User:Tobiasfi
  • User:4benson3
  • User:Ebrockline
• User:Nlu (RfAr bringer)
• User:SWD316
• User:Howcheng

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AMcfly85&diff=31695574&oldid=31694665 (notice to Mcfly85; are notices to all other accounts required at this point given the non-denial by Mcfly85 that those were his accounts as well?)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ASWD316&diff=31695728&oldid=31658820 (notice to SWD316)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ACelestianpower&diff=31696320&oldid=31662393 (notice to Celestianpower)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AHowcheng&diff=31696470&oldid=31691876 (notice to Howcheng)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I've attempted to warn Mcfly85; he disregarded my warning. Given that the admins are genuinely split on this issue (User:Celestianpower believes that Mcfly85's vote should count; User:Howcheng does not and neither do I), I don't think we can get the dispute resolved before Mcfly85's behavior further taints the renewed RfA.

Statement by User:Nlu

Mcfly85's sock puppetry in inflencing SWD316's prior RfA tainted that vote (see WP:AN#Mcfly85 for details), and so I brought the new RfA. Mcfly85 then insisted on injecting himself into this RfA despite his prior behavior. I am requesting an emergency injunction to not allow him to vote or to make any further comments on the RfA. I am not, at this point, asking for any additional sanctions, as I am otherwise unfamiliar with the history between him and SWD316. In the meantime, I blocked Mcfly85 for three hours for disregarding my instruction to backoff SWD316's RfA. Please also review if this was proper action on my part. --Nlu (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: I see User:Fred Bauder's comment that he would like to see Mcfly85 and his sock puppets blocked indefinitely. Obviously, the ArbCom has the power to do what it believes is right, but I (as I explained to Mcfly85 on my talk page) do not want to see this. I think he can become a productive editor, and he has made productive edits before. --Nlu (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Mcfly85

(Copied over from User talk:Mcfly85 by User:Nlu as Mcfly85 is himself unable to do so during the block) OK, I'm just sorry for all of this. Please remove my vote, please block me indefinetly. I'm sorry, please block me, I don't want to cause any more harm. You guys do a fine job with this site. SWD316, I'm very sorry for all of this, I think you will make a good mod. Mcfly85 04:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by SWD316

Where to begin, well he vandalized my user page several times. (see:My User Page for the full listing) Also he creates several accounts strickly used for vandalism. Also signed in as IP addresses, also listed on my user page, to vandalize my user page, my talk page, my RFA, and various areas on Misplaced Pages.

He first got upset when I edited his user page censoring the word "fuckers". I apologize for doing so. Anyways, in the edit summary I misspelled "vulger" and typed "fulger". Months later Mcfly85, under an IP address, vandalized my user page here. I immediately knew it was him. When confronted, he simply blanked his talk page.

In all of this mess, Mcfly85 was determined to prove his innocence to Misplaced Pages as he contacted the Administrators' noticeboard, The Mediation Cabal and other user trying to ruin my name on Misplaced Pages.

I ran fro adminship on December 14 resulting in me getting frustrated and closing the RFA. I closed it because Mcfly85 voted oppose causing major controversy on my RFA. He even signed in under sockpuppet accounts as Rock09 and Sigma995 and voted once again.

Banes found more incriminating evidence today further leading to this RFAr (see: my talk page for evidence). Later that day Fred Bauder ran a CheckUser on Mcfly85 and saw where he created numerous accounts for vandalizing my user page, RFA, etc.

I was renominated today to run for adminship based on Mcfly85's edits to the previous RFA. He interjected himself into this one as well tring to influence the voters to vote oppose saying I was a bad user. Im just glad Mcfly85 has now given up. SWD316 05:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Howcheng

According to a checkuser run by User:Fred Bauder (see ), User:Mcfly85 is a confirmed sockpuppeteer. He voted against SWD316 multiple times with the puppets during SWD316's second RfA attempt (see ) in clear violation of WP:SOCK. As one possible penalty is a permanent block, I believe it should apply retroactively to the time when he wielded his puppets, thus disqualifying his vote on the resubmitted RfA. Even if a block is not applied, at the very least his vote should not count and he should be censured and an injunction prohibiting him from working on the same articles as SWD316 or those articles that SWD316 is likely to touch (i.e., those that fall under the sphere of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Professional wrestling) should be issued. --howcheng 07:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/4/0/0)

• Accept, however I would prefer Mcfly and all his socks were just blocked indefinitely. Fred Bauder 21:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Accept to consider the illegitimate use of socks, not to settle bitter disputes about concensus ➥the Epopt 14:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Accept Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Reject; admins can deal with disruptive sockpuppetry without our assistance. There's no controversy (or shouldn't be) as to how to deal with this idiot, and this RfAr is just about someone wanting his RfA "counted fairly" anyway, which is an issue for the bureaucrats, not for us. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Reject, given that the user in question has said he will leave, making the proposed case moot. James F. (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Reject, per Kelly Martin Raul654 19:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Reject per Kelly. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Robert I + anonymous user(s)

Involved parties

• User:CJCurrie
• User:Homeontherange
• User:Robert I
• anonymous user(s) (*)

(*)Several anonymous edits on the disputed pages (see below) have been made from rotating IPs beginning with 81.131 and 213.122. There are credible grounds to believe that all or most of these anonymous edits were written by the same person using two different ISPs, and equally credible grounds to believe that Robert I and the anonymous editor are acquainted and working in conjunction.

Robert I and the anonymous editor(s) have deliberately misrepresented published texts no fewer than four times at Gregory Lauder-Frost and Conservative Monday Club. On the first occasion, Robert I resorted to personal abuse after being discovered and denied that his edit was misrepresentative. These misrepresentations have continued despite repeated warnings and criticisms.

Robert I and the anonymous editors(s) have also made many biased edits to interrelated pages involving far-right British figures (eg. Harvey Ward, Western Goals Institute and Western Goals (UK), as well as the two already mentioned). They have behaved in a generally uncivil manner toward other contributors, making frequent accusations of left-wing bias and a sinister agenda against GLF and the CMC.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• User talk:Robert I#RFA
• User talk:Homeontherange#RFA2
• Talk:Conservative Monday Club#RFA
• Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost#RFA

Given the difficulties of contacting someone with a rotating IP, is assumed that the anonymous user(s) will learn of this request through the aforementioned article talk pages.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Efforts were made to resolve the matter directly with Robert I and the anonymous editor(s), and several outside observers were brought in. The inappropriate behaviour continues, and there is no reason to believe any step short of arbitration will resolve the matter.

Statement by CJCurrie (complainant)

Please see Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost ("Observations") for the reasons why I believe the anonymous IPs are all the same person, and are working in association with Robert I. Gregory Lauder-Frost has himself written to Misplaced Pages from three of the "rotating IPs", and it appears likely he is the anon. See Talk:Conservative Monday Club ("Accurate quoting", "Winds of Change Speech" and "Observer Retraction(?)") and Talk:GLF ("Accurate quoting (again)") for the specific transgressions.

User:Homeontherange and myself have been the target of frequent and sustained abuse by Robert I and the anon at these and other pages (including legal threats), and I do not believe the situation is likely to change without intervention from ArbComm. CJCurrie 00:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Amended: 00:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: For an indication of what these articles looked like before I discovered them, see this. CJCurrie 23:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Homey (complainant)

I concur with CJCurrie's statement. I also suspect Robert I may, in fact, be GLF as well - it would be helpful if a developer could examine all the IPs involved, including User:Robert I's to see if there is commonality.Homey 18:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Robert I (respondant)

Please note that a request for arbitration on Gregory Lauder-Frost and the Conservative Monday Club had already been made before. User CJ Currie deliberately targetted Gregory Lauder-Frost, the Conservative Monday Club, and anyone associated with them, as well as tracking down every post made by me, in order to demonise the individuals, to smear them, and to make them totally unimportant. Their opinions were paramount throughout the edit war which naturally took place. Comments which gave any credibility were removed.

Mr.Currie deliberately inserted damaging comments to Lauder-Frost in particular which, under Scottish Law, placed Misplaced Pages in a difficult situation. When told this he suggested that the socialist newspaper and the Marxist journalist he was quoting should be the subject of action, not Misplaced Pages/himself. he also stated on his Talk Page that he was aware that the information on Talk Pages was going out over the internet, so even when things were removed from the main article, he made certain they remained on the Talk pages. This is possibly the clearest evidence of spreading disinformation and opinion.

They describe Lauder-Frost as being "on the fring of the fring" yet he was the leading officer in the largest multi-issue political pressure group in the United Kingdom. Another classic smear was that he was just an energetic letter-writer when, in fact, he was mostly delegated to do this by the organisations he belonged to. Whereas Lauder-Frost was first and foremost a Conservative Party activist (and a Patron of an Association of which Alec Douglas-Home had been a previous Patron of) they have placed a slanderous quote from a known left-wing nespaper at the top of the political information on on, and then said "he was also" in the Conservative Party. This is classic left-wing demonisation.

I have relied much on interviews with people, and with paperwork which I have had sight of here. They, instead, rely utterly on newspapers and journalistic opinions. They insist upon "proof" as though this were a court and THEY were judges, and my word is meaningless.

Throughout their re-edits, the objective and agenda has been clear. CJCurrie called in 'helpers' to support him and at least one homey has joined in the attacks wholeheartedly both under the guise of "neutrality". Yet they have deliberately changed "non-European" to "non-white", and people referred to in our history books as "pioneers" in Africa have been changed to the classic Pan African Congress status as "settlers". I wonder how the population of North America would like being referred to as "settlers" in 2005? Presumably thats how the indigenous population see them? Moreover, it becomes obvious that CJCurrie and homey are totally obssessed with apartheid, "white minority rule" etc., the standard obsessions of the Left. Any objective individual will be able to see that the re-editing/neutrality is a poor disguise for standard left-wing activity and demonisation.

I refute utterly their attempts to obfuscate what they haven doing. Their claims of sock-puppets are possibly the prime example, and of 'abuse' it simply amounts to straight talking. Only their OPINION counts. They are so arrogant they see themselves as beyond reproach. I do not accept that I have misquoted. As has already been said I quoted what I believed to be facts. It is standard practice to quote a word, a part-sentence, a paragraph, or whatever.

They are not beyond being told the truth about their activities. We in Britain resent to a large degree being lectured on our politics and our history by those who do not live here and who do not understand the British character and scenario. I for one would not dream of passing the same comments using the same ideological nuances and sentence constructions that they have on Canadian politicians. Please note also that I could have easily retaliated against their Misplaced Pages contributions but I have not done so.

I have never been so disgusted with anything as the manner in which they have been able to entirely rearrange articles to their obvious political satisfaction and complain about others as though their views are utterly supreme.

A well-known socialist journalist (Robin Carmody) here in Britain has made a posting on the CDA forums (under his pseudonym 'Portlander' at http://www.quicktopic.com/15/H/dxVhP9ADUER where he states that the two people attacking me are "over the top".

the last paragraph is instructive of Robert I's method of deliberate misrepresentation and falsification of quotes, a practice that makes his citations on wikipedia chronically unreliable. In fact, "Portlander" refers only to the description of The Guardian as "liberal" (and not our "attacking" of Robert) and does not use the phrase "over the top" - he actually said, in reference to the description of the Guardian as liberal, "Only if you think that Labour are 'hard left', Gregory. That said, I think the two Canadian Wikipedians you mention may be going slightly too far." Somehow, Robert I manages to misquote "slightly too far" as "over the top" and then completely misrepresent the context as being about CJCurrie and my entire argument with Robert I rather than just the description I used for the Guardian. Homey 16:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The last paragraph is just splitting hairs and attempting to gloss over what has been going on. Could I give the Western Goals Institute as a good example of wanton vandalism by homeonetherange after much work was done by me to bring the page into shape. This is what I have been up against. If the Administrators cannot see the clear political agenda by homeontherange and CJCurrie then it really is a sad state of affairs.

Robert I 08:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by 213.122.67.71 (respondant)

The issue here is very clear. It has nothing whatsoever to do with multiple user claims or whatever. (There has never been a problem with anonymous contributors provided they do their work properly). It is to do with DEMONISATION. CJCurrie and friend homeontherange have been flat out deliberately demonising the Conservative Monday Club, Gregory Lauder-Frost, and numerous other pages. They are now attempting to divert adjudicators from the REAL ISSUE HERE - their activities. 213.122.67.71 07:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by 81.131... (respondant)

The issue is very clear demonisation. nothing else. Attempts to obfuscate matters by screaming about sock-puppets are meaningless because he real issue is demonisation. It is ridiculous to suggest that one individual will have, and pay for, two entirely different ISPs from his home. What is the point?

Brief comment by El_C

I urge the Committee to accept this case. I may add some comments and/or evidence later on. El_C 12:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Ground Zero

I have worked extensively with CJCurrie and Homey on numerous articles. While I do not always agre with them, I respect the work that they do and their understanding and acceptance of Misplaced Pages policies. CJCurrie, in particular, is above reproach in his handling of neutrality. While Homey has, on occasion, had dispute over neutrality with other editors, I do not believe that he has any agenda in this case other than neutrality. The respondents in this case have frequently resorted to ad hominem attacks as above. The fact that the complainants are Canadians must not preclude them from editing an article about a British political figure. Robert I and the anonymous editor's edits appear to me to have the goal of making GLF appear to be an important person, and his views to be a part of the mainstream and popular. The suggestion that two Canadian editors would spend so much time to "demonise" a minor British political figure is ludicrous. That they would spend so much time to keep hagiographical biographies from appearing in Misplaced Pages is laudable. Ground Zero | t 15:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Not that it's esp. pertinent, but I do seem to recall (perhaps mistakingly) that GZ is himself a Tory. El_C 01:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Response by defender

I note what GroundZero says. All biographies (at least in the Dictionary of National Biography and even the Encyclopaedia Britannica lean towards the positive, not the negative side of the person they are mentioning, minor or not. At the end of the day it cannot be denied that CJCurrie and homeonetherange have deliberately attacked, for two weeks, numerous connected articles in a defamatory and demonising way. If you examine every connected edit they have made, you will see that they must have spent hours trawling through newspapers etc., with the very clear intention of only flagging up negative comments. If that is not the case, where have they found something positive? Or maybe all these people, including the thousands of members and former members, including MPs, of the Monday Club were simply all bad and/or not "mainstream"? I have asked, to date, six people to look at these and they all concur. Groundzero may well have had a good working relationship on other articles with this couple but every article is different. I am not suggesting that Canadians should not edit things. But caugtion is required when making ABSOLUTE comments on foreign politics if you don't live there, and I am saying that these people had a very clear political agenda, and it continues. Robert I 15:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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

• Accept Fred Bauder 21:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 14:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Jayjg 19:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Deeceevoice

Involved parties

• deeceevoice Deeceevoice is charged with regularly and repeatedly violating wikipedia policies.
• User:justforasecond Author of this request
• Alabamaboy I wish to become an involved party in this. Even though User:justforasecond is the author of this RfA, User:justforasecond is bringing this RfA against deeceevoice despite having NO interactions with deeceevoice since the failed RfC against her. This RfA appears to be part of a pattern of harrassment by User:justforasecond against deeceevoice, as evidenced by the fact that half of User:justforasecond's total edits on Misplaced Pages (and nearly 80-90% in recent weeks) are against or about deeceevoice. Since User:justforasecond appears to have no standing to bring this new RfA, I am also taking part in this.--Alabamaboy 16:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC),I hereby confirm my involvement as Party Four, but I will add the exact same thing I did on the RfC becuase this is repetitive crap from racists in my opinion. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Sure I'll take part, seems like harassment to me. FrancisTyers 19:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

on deeceevoice's talk page (she has now removed this)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Request for comment: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Deeceevoice

• Actually, the RfC failed due to personal attacks. As has been stated before User:justforasecond is a new user with half of User:justforasecond's total edits on Misplaced Pages (and nearly 80-90% in recent weeks) being either against or about deeceevoice. Since the RfC did not achieve consensus or compromise and was ended prematurely due to personal attacks, this RfA is not valid. --Alabamaboy 16:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

deeceevoice refused to take part in the RfC. She also deleted comments on her talk page regarding civility policies, labeling them vandalism. Given this behavior, it would likely be fruitless to pursue any other steps. -Justforasecond 16:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Justforasecond

Deeceevoice has regularly and repeatedly violated wikipedia policies. On Dec 6, 2005, a request for comment was filed, which deeceevoice refused to address, stating:

it amazes me that people have nothing better to do on this website than play Miss Manners with other adults like prissy, pedantic, insufferable, niggling, mealy-mouthed, self-righteous, tattletale brats.

Most editors in the RfC agreed that deeceevoice had broken wikipedia policy, though a significant fraction thought her actions were reasonable. Several editors also mentioned deeceevoice NPOV and NOR violations, but those were not documented extensively in the RfC.

While many of deeceevoice's uncivil comments are directed towards vandals of one sort or another, she has, on numerous occassions, attacked cordial editors. In at least one cases she has described a legitimate request as "vandalism" in an edit summary while removing it from her talk page, though she insists on leaving truly offensive vandalism such as swastikas and photographs of lynchings for all to see.

What follows is from deeceevoice's RfC and is only a portion of her incivil behavior, but I believe it is enough to show a convincing pattern. -Justforasecond 06:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

From conversation with User:Zoe:

What? U want me 2 hold your little, white hand and sing "Kumbaya"? What the hell kinda comment is that? Don't insult my intelligence...

...I can only conclude you wanted to read some reassuring warm-and-fuzzy expression of brotherhood/sisterhood....I got no time, no patience to stroke your psyche. Get a teddy bear.

From conversation with User:Matt Crypto:

When I need a lesson on playing nicey-nice to someone's irksome, naive bullcrap, I'll be sure to look you up. I don't do nice. In the meantime, kindly go to hell.

Do you really think some little twit instructing me in "civility" is going to change me? I find that mildly amusing. Thanks for the comic relief. Okay, I'm done w/you. Now go home. (yawn)

From conversation with User:Matt Crypto:

Do you really think I give a flying ****? .

(With edit comments of "pathetic" and "Deleted annoying clutter from MY talk page" )

To get beneath the 500-word limit, I'll leave out the other quotes that can be found on the RfC page. .

Statement by deeceevoice

I won't dignify this apparent retread of the RfC with a response. I would, however, like to say something to those who have weighed in in support of me. First, sincerely, thank you. But more importantly, this: just ignore JFAS. He seems to have a rather unhealthful fixation with me (and perhaps may be a recycled antagonist with a new user name and ulterior motives -- perhaps not). He seems to crave attention of even the most negative sort. Whatever the case, it is extremely difficult at this point to believe his actions are well-intentioned. Not only do I believe his antics are divisive and counterproductive, I am concerned about the degree to which responding to him has diverted the time and energies of positive contributors to the project away from the business of improving Misplaced Pages. I truly appreciate the support, but, please, go back to your editing. It's what I intend to do -- when I have the time and the tolerance for it.

I have nothing else to say. Period. deeceevoice 10:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Alabamaboy

As stated before, even though User:justforasecond is the author of this RfA, User:justforasecond is bringing this RfA against deeceevoice despite having NO interactions with deeceevoice since the failed RfC against her. This RfA appears to be part of a pattern of harrassment by User:justforasecond against deeceevoice, as evidenced by the fact that nearly 2/3 of User:justforasecond's total edits on Misplaced Pages (see corrected stats below) are against deeceevoice.

Yes, Deeceevoice can be abrupt to users who make racist and other attacking comments to her. However, many of the examples cited above are from her talk page and, by Misplaced Pages standards, users are given more freedom to do what they want with regards to their talk page. Deeceevoice is also an excellent editor of articles, as indicated by a long track record of edits. Finally, this RfA is not valid because the previous RfC failed to achieve consensus and was stopped early due to excessive personal attacks.--Alabamaboy 16:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

As a final note on how I believe that Justforasecond is harassing Deeceevoice, I refer to this instance where Justforasecond removed a comment in support of Deeceevoice from Deeceevoice's personal talk page. This comment was shortly thereafter restored by another editor.--Alabamaboy 02:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Jpgordon

I just feel the need to reiterate what my comment on that RfC:

It must be said that there are many places in discussions on Misplaced Pages where saying "Fuck off" in so many words would save an awful lot of time and energy currently consumed by coming up with long-winded euphemisms and policy discussions that mean exactly "fuck off". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It amazes me too that you have nothing better to do with this website then hassle DC; at this point it appears that well over 3/4 of your Misplaced Pages activity has been furthering your assault upon her. You think any of this is going to make her tell Nazi vandals on her talk page to fuck off more politely? The only outcome that will include that will include her leaving, and her contributions to Misplaced Pages have been extremely valuable. There's an easy solution for you, the filer of this arbitration request: don't read her talk page.

At any rate, she's already announced (prior to the posting of this RfAr) that she'll not be around much, if at all, for the remainder of the holiday season, so I propose that this RfAr be postponed until she return so that she can participate should she choose to. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

But, he-e-ey. One minor point here I feel compelled to mention. Nowhere do I actually spell out the f-word. My momma taught me better. :p deeceevoice 17:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Encyclopedist

Since this is an extended version of the same bullcrap, I will add exactly what I did here

I am a strong friend of Deeceevoice on this site, so I don't know if anyone is going to object to my views as being arbitrary. However, I do know that Deeceevoice, above all arguments, has done much to improve this site, and should be considered one of the valued colloborators here. This has not been the case, one need only look at her talk page to see hate filled vitriol and rascist comments that she has decided to post there (and I am not just talking about obvious vandalism, I am talking about some contributors) as "gratitude" for her hard work here. I am not going to condone any NPA or POV actions that Deeceevoice may have; but I do think that it is important to see firstly that as an African American and as an avid intellectual; she may and does have more to offer in terms of contributions to Afrocentrism articles, and this may seem to be POV to others, as on the talk page I have seen several preconceived, biased and rascists notions against her and her edits. No, it is not right to insult another Wikipedian, however, this argument is inherentently excluding the fault that Deeceevoice's opponents here and outside this RfA have, especially in regards to questionable civility. In Deeceevoice I see a very very strong person; who has convinced me to stay on a site where I am bombarded by hateful racism, along with arrogant and abrasive editors. As a contributor on Misplaced Pages, she has stayed through several cases of attacks against her and insults, but only to contribute more to this site. Her attitudes in my opinion do shed light on the fact that she is trying to give attention to several themes that are ignored and often of poor quality on Misplaced Pages. Black topics here are often ignored, so Deecee's efforts to try to improve such have been criticized as POV. THEY ARE NOT. They are from a different, and interestingly enough, an AFRICAN AMERICAN perspective. Does being African American give here the right to add POV in articles? No. But does being a scholarly intellectual with African descent give her the right to contribute to sites that are often ignored by the monotone community of Misplaced Pages? Yes. Sure, I know that people will probably not endorse or agree with what I am saying; I have been in a number of debates here (i.e. VfDs, RfAs etc.) , and frankly, every one has been like pulling teeth. I predict dissent and naysayers leaving nasty comments under this message; but I do not have time for any arguments. I could sit here and type all day about the excellent contributions Deecee has created for this site; and similarly, write about the rascists and hate filled words directed towards her. Concerning NPA, it is comprehensible that Deecee voice will get angry. The problem here is that the complainants are focusing on bad points when Deeceevoice finally did insult malactors for their insults; but never look into the times when she has brushed off such foolishness. Bottom line, I have no qualms against anyone here (at least not anymore); and I do consider Deeceevoice to be a true friend. My argument stands as it is. I know that no one will agree with it, and I will hear people complaining with little subcaps below, as if I am going to give them the time of day to respond to them. I have a life, I suggest others get the same. And concerning Deeceevoice not resppnding, I wouldn't either: nothing ever comes of it, people here are ready to crucify her since she has been here. It will just be a long argument, but the outcome is the same. Deeceevoice, stay strong. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Above all, I see just as much, if not more, fault in her opponents. There will never be an equal voice in Misplaced Pages as the majority of the contributors here are white; and a person decides to focus in an Afrocentric perspective. Deeceevoice has been shown little respect for her contributions, and I believe that instead of putting this RfC (which is not to the standard of what it should be, neither in format or whatever "evidence" you can find against her) we should commend her. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe this, you lose the RfC, so you pull a stunt like this?? That is so sad. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by DreamGuy

deeceevoice has a long history of extremely harassing statements and extreme POV-pushing on this site. She regularly inserts highly Afrocentric opinions into articles related to Ancient Egypt and calls people racists and other major violations of WP:NPA when the edits are removed, while using racially abusive language herself in response, calling editors "Whitey" for example without knowing anything about their actual race. The RFC was not a "failed" RFC, as a large number of posters agreed that she was extremely abusive - nothing further happened solely because RFCs have no teeth, and deeceevoice was ignoring the entire process, instead having editors with questionable histories show up to try to portray her as an angel and her detractors as racist and etc. etc. I don't know

Statement by Jmabel (not a party to the arbitration)

I suggest that people abide by the rule that this page is not the place for conversation. People are interjecting their comments into each other's statements.

I urge the arbitrators to take into account how active and useful a contributor deeceevoice has been (and continues to be) and how little Justforasecond has participated in Misplaced Pages other than to complain about deeceevoice; that the two other people who have identified themselves as parties to the arbitration have come in to support deeceevoice; and to reject this request for arbitration as a distraction from the work of building an encyclopedia. If a serious participant in Misplaced Pages like Matt Crypto wanted an arbitration with deeceevoice, I'd urge her to consider it, and I'd urge the arbitrators to take it, but that is not what we have here. We have an almost brand new contributor taking more of his/her own time on a grievance about an established contributor than on contributing to articles, and eating up a lot of other people's time in the process.

Full disclosure: for the record, if anyone doesn't know, I am not a neutral party. While I have suggested to deeceevoice that some of her remarks to people are excessive and I think a few have even been somewhat uncivil, it seems pretty obvious to me that with her we get the whole package or we get nothing, and between the two, I'll take the package without hesitation. And I know people will chew me out for this and that I hold a minority view, but I feel that the main issue with racially charged remarks—which deeceevoice has made—is that they can create a generally hostile atmosphere for the people in the group against whom they are directed. I see no prospect of Misplaced Pages becoming a generally hostile environment for white people, so her remarks simply do not distress me to the point that similar remarks about (for example) Blacks, Jews, or Roma would distress me. She has been occasionally uncivil, but most of us are occasionally uncivil. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

About RobChurch's statement

Note: RobChurch just deleted this section, which I am herewith restoring. His edit note stated: "Edit conflict; am withdrawing - this is no longer (as I had hoped) a question of resolution - it's become a brawl from which there is no escape)"

Why am I restoring it? Because whatever damage he has done is done. Lies cannot be retracted. I believe it is useful to keep his comments here, because they are instructive of precisely the kind of, IMO, racism and antagonism that strangles this website. I also have added a response, which did not register because of an edit conflict. deeceevoice 17:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I see this has also completely deleted his slanderous statement at User:Robchurch/deeceevoice, and I can't recover it. If anyone can, please do so and post it here. For those of you who are curious about it, he falsely accused me of calling editors "whities" and "crackers" and of sending a vitriolic, "screaming" retaliatory e-mail after he blocked me for violating a 3RR. Which I, of course, NEVER did. He also said, "I couldn't give a SHIT what she writes in response to this" -- or something very close to it (profanity included). Is this at all credible? I think not! deeceevoice 17:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

One more thing. SURELY there must be some sort of rule against deleting material entered as evidence in an RfA -- including material on a separate page submitted as an addendum! And this is the kind of person entrusted with with administrative (or whatever) authority on this website? And how do I pursue an action against him? Despicable and utterly indefensible. deeceevoice 17:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: This just from my talk page:

I've undeleted Rob Church's user subpage, as I believe it should stick around as long as the Arbitration case is filed. It certainly looks suspect to me, and I imagine to the ArbComm too. — Matt Crypto 17:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: RobChurch has removed it again after an admin restored it. Someone should restore it -- regardless of what he's written since. It was submitted as part of the RfA, and as such, it should be preserved as an important part of the record. People have a right to know and to understand what is being discussed here. deeceevoice 21:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: Because this time, rather than deleting the document, RobChurch merely edited it the relevant passages, I -- a lowly peon with no admin or sysop capabilities :p -- was able to retrieve it. Because Church likely simply will delete it again if I restore it, I've decided to reproduce it below.deeceevoice 10:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

RobChurch's statement

In order to avoid clutter, and while I appreciate ArbCom prefer it on the same page, I've slapped this bit as a subpage of my userspace. All my comments pertaining to the matter will appear on User:Robchurch/deeceevoice over the next week or so.

It's a shame it's come to this. Rob Church 21:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What follows below, bounded by the two horizontal lines, is Church's initial statement which he repeatedly has deleted, as explained above.

Deeceevoice is from apparently African-American descent. I'll state that now, because you'd better not ever forget it; she doesn't ever let it drop. I'm afraid what I have a problem with is her unrelentingly inappropriate style of putting people down. If I started guessing at people's ethnicities, then making rather snide remarks based on them, I think I'd be disposed of quite quickly. She seems to believe that demeaning people as "whities" is acceptable, and will make her comments seem more casual and less irritating. Wrong.

I'm without doubt that some put-down or brush-off to this particular view is coming; I'd stake a hefty sum on it. I'd stake a similarly hefty sum on that it will be offensive, and that it will attempt to nullify my opinions and views as "unsuitable" or "ill-informed."

I blocked User:Deeceevoice about a month ago for violating the three-revert rule. Now, people know I'm quite lenient on that one; I'll block pretty heavily for it, but if people email and explain themselves, I'm quite often inclined to unblock; provided they're trying to improve the quality of the encyclopedia, I don't mind too much.

User:Deeceevoice sent me an email which "screeched" that I was obviously blocking her with pure bias in mind; that I was a vicious sadistic character who despised her, etc. etc. - I'd not even heard of her prior to that event.

I'm afraid it is not acceptable

• For Deeceevoice to make clearly derogatory remarks about people all over the place

• To remove people's polite comments from her talk page while leaving appallingly bad-faith edit summaries

• To brush off all complaints by us "whities" as being of no merit, as we can't possibly understand what "her kind" have been through, and can't possibly be anything but biased and racist

I really couldn't give a shit about what she's going to write under this. I simply urge ArbCom to accept this case, to consider that we have always disposed ourselves of people who have hindered more than helped us, and I hope they will give her the dressing down she actually deserves. She can't go on thinking that she's helping us - even if she is - while leaving a trail of social destruction in her wake. That is not how wikis work, and if ArbCom begin imposing one rule for one, one for another, then I for one will consider all hope at recovering Misplaced Pages to its core goals lost.

Another apparently biased whitey, Rob Church

Note: Since these things always end up being about evidence, here's mine. Visit . View the edit history.

(end of initial statement by RobChurch)

The shame is that you would stoop to such utter fabrication. Just abysmal. deeceevoice 22:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I have never, ever failed to own up to my own words and actions. I stand by them. The words at the above link are complete and utter lies. I don't know who this guy is, what his beef is/issues are -- and I don't give a damn. But this outrageous lie is the last straw. I'm done here. Misplaced Pages can go to hell. deeceevoice 06:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

My response to Robchurch's comments on the above page after he deleted it with a snide edit note saying he didn't want my comments on his page, because I delete the comments of others when they are "trying to help" or some nonsense

A response

Your post is pure fabrication.

I've never called anyone on this website "whitey" or referred to anyone as "whitey." It's not a word I've ever used -- not even in the '70s, when it was the fashion. And reject your characterization of my remarks and opinons as complete fiction.

Again, I challenge you: provide the diffs. I dare you.

Further, I sent you no such e-mail in response to your block. You're simply hallucinating -- our knowingly flatout lying. A "vicious, sadistic character who despised "? WHAT? Playing the victim? Making something personal? That's hardly my style. If you're going to fabricate your comments, at least come up with something credible. The fact that you would stoop to writing such lies is sleazy, despicable and contemptible beyond words. Don't ever, ever, ever contact me again -- about anything. As far as I'm concerned, from this point on, you're lower than low. You don't exist. *x*

Further, if there is any way to trace e-mails through the system, I strongly encourage that this be done. And when the truth comes out, I urge that the author of this despicable lie be dealt with in the harshest possible terms.deeceevoice 22:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Observe, ladies and gentlemen. When anybody posts anything on one of DCV's pages, she used to (and still will, no doubt) delete it, but the moment I give her a little taste of her own, she rants, raves and downright screams. Ludicrous. Absolutely ludicrous. Rob Church 16:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Observe the hyperbole, the lie. This was written (obviously) before Robchurch deleted it (duh). And my response is to the bald-faced lie perpetrated on his page -- to which he has not responded. (Am I the only one who finds that at least a little strange?) Again, if there is any way to trace e-mails through the system, please, someone do it. Now. And expose this despicable entity for what it is. deeceevoice 16:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The evidence is plastered all over the place. This page, and the history of your talk page, and the talk pages of everyone you've ever dealt with. Rob Church 16:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"...the talk pages of everyone you've ever dealt with." More shrill hyperbole. Well, now. Then it shouldn't be too difficult to provide a single, solitary diff to bolster your (bogus) claims about me calling editors "whities" and "crackers" -- yes? It's a simple request. We're waiting. Put up or shut up. deeceevoice 17:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

And still no reaction to being called a liar. Dang. If someone did that to someone else and it was a false accusation, I'd expect the accused to be fightin' mad -- especially someone with your, uh ... temperament. You've just outted yourself. Really sleazy. deeceevoice 17:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Sam Spade

see User:Deeceevoice. Sam Spade 16:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

and User_talk:Deeceevoice#YOU_LIKE_COCK_8.3D.3D.3D.3D.3D.3D.3D.3D.3D.3DD_---_-_-_-_-

Sam Spade 02:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

RE: Statement by Sam Spade

[I thought only arbitrators were allowed to delete comments). Original question read: WTF stands for what the fuck, right? El_C 12:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution