Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:17, 21 March 2006

• ]

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

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

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

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

• Arbitration policy
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Precedents
• User:Snowspinner/Arbcom - Recommended reading: A guide to presenting effective Arbitration cases.

How to list cases

Under the below Current requests section:

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

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

User:Rgulerdem

Involved parties

• User:Rgulerdem (and sock accounts listed on his talk page)
• User:Metta Bubble
• User:Netscott
• User:NSLE (bringing request)
• User:Superm401
• User:Aaron Brenneman and User:Thebainer to minor extents

->Rgulerdem, Metta Bubble and Netscott have been warring recently over, ironically enough, Misplaced Pages talk:Wikiethics. Rgulerdem was blocked a few days back for 3RR, and then had his block extended by myself (with Superm401's support) to 31 hours, then to 50 hours for sockpuppetry. During this time, Rgulerdem was extremely incivil, and Aaron Brenneman and Thebainer had to step in to help mediate. His block has since expired, and he has gone back to warring over the article. He has, also almost in contempt, filed 3RR reports against Netscott andmyself when neither of us broke the 3RR.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Rgulerdem
• Netscott
• Metta Bubble
• Superm401
• Aaron Brenneman
• Thebainer

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

User has previously been blocked for sockpuppuetry, and was extremely incivil. Two admins had to intervene to stop the incivility, and it would be safe to assume that this user would not obey the results of a Request for Comment.

• An Arb-com Case without an RfC for such a trivial thing? Is this how things are now?--Irishpunktom\ 12:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:NSLE

I first got involved in the whole dispute when Rgulerdem started using IPs to circumvent his block, and mass-spam talk pages. Rgulerdem continued to do so, and I extended his block to 50 hours (a checkuser later proved User:ThoMas is Rgulerdem). for some reason, a glitch in the system allowed him to resume editing, and I reblocked him. He then claimed I was biased and had an agenda, claiming I blocked him for no reason, and later claiming that since the glitch unblocked him he should be free to edit.

After his 50-hour block expired, he went back to revert warring at Misplaced Pages talk:Wikiethics. He then accused someone else of vandalism, which violates WP:AGF, and when I reverted his edit, and Netscott his next revert, he listed us both, as well as innocent user User:Rory096, at WP:AN/3RR, and I blocked him 15 minutes on disruption of 3RR vio page as there was no 3RR. The matter has since moved to the main AN.

I beseech the ArbCom to accept this case to finally put an end to this.

Rgulerdem did not spam my talk page at all. He rather informed me about a poll on Misplaced Pages:Wikiethics. NSLE removed that information from my talk page against my will. Raphael1 14:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

Please see my talk page and also my posts on the AN page and on WP:AN/3RR page about User:Metta Bubble. Moreover Misplaced Pages:Wikiethics proposal talk page has some important information to show the root of the dispute: User:Metta Bubble and Netscott are trying to kill a proposal Misplaced Pages:Wikiethics I have started for no reason. They started an approval poll at the very early stage of the proposal. Noone, including me, believe that the proposal can be a policy in this form. It needs to be improved. Especially User:Metta Bubble and Netscott are trying to kill the process. The approval poll is started by a single editor unilaterally without a consensus. I started a poll to ask the opinion of the community if they think the poll is necessary at this stage. The poll I started vandalized by User:Metta Bubble and Netscott. The community was not able to vote if they really want a poll at this early stage. By playing dirty games and trics on me they blocked me from editing two days. During this period they was able to delete the poll I started and provided the community with only one option to get the result they want. This group, especially NSLE, Netscott, User:Metta Bubble are acting together and forcing me to violate 3RR deliberately in order to be able to block me from editing, maybe indefinitely. User NSLE takes discretionary actions and either blocks me or extend the block unfairly. They are acting together against me and someties misusing their previliges. Because of the restriction, I do not want to make further comments here. The pages I refered to has all the details. I can provide you with additional information as necessary. Thanks. Resid Gulerdem 12:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Superm401

I oppose an Arbitration case but would support a RFC. Superm401 - Talk 20:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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

User:Marcosantezana

Involved parties

• User:Marcosantezana
• User:KimvdLinde
• User:Kzollman

Marcosantezana effectively acts as if he owns the Natural selection article.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• User:Marcosantezana

Also informed about filing this case are:

• User:Axel147
• User:Kzollman
• User:Slrubenstein
• User:Pete.Hurd
• User:Samsara

Put also notice at Natural selection page

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• WP:RFC
• Extended discussions at the talk page, with repeated request to join the discussions to find consensus.
• Limited 'discussion' at user talk pages.
• WP:AN under Advise needed.
• WP:RFM Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/Rejected_3#Natural_selection Marcosantezana response

at the Talk:Natural selection page

Statement by User:KimvdLinde

I fill this Request for Arbitration because it is impossible to constructively work on the Natural selection article, due to the behaviour of Marcosantezana. He deals with the page as if he owns it, and single handedly edits everything such that it fits his ideas about natural selection, and his discussion is primarily through the edit summaries . Other editors do not have a say in that. Anybody who disagrees can get a strong, and not always civil response. I and other editors have stopped the revert war because that was not leading towards a solution in this case and has already led to blocking of Marcosantezana, which he tried to evade using two different IP-addresses: Marcosantezana block log IP-one, blocked IP-two, semiprotect NatSel page.

Some quotes to show his attitude:

• In response to 3RR warning User_talk:Marcosantezana#3RR_on_Natural_selection by Kzollman: do you know how to read? then do it below. i've made my point very clear many times beyond what you can read below; and the last time i did not "revert" (how horrible!) but rather eliminated the problem with a new, neutral formulation. it's the others who are truly being obnoxious on top of being wrong and insisting in peddling misleading "scholastic" garbage.
• After being reminded to stay civil by Kzollman, he responded: so in that case you either don't know how to read or don't want to read. in either case you are disqualified from sermoning anybody about being civil. since when it is civil to pontificate to others when you do not know what's been going on? take drugs if you need to feel better at *any* cost. sermoning others gratuituously lets you appear like a fool. warmest regards -- ;)

I and others have repeatedly asked him to join the discussion example. He pretty much does not join in (or dumps some remarks at my user page with my response at his page. He has also been asked to respect consensus, but he has until now refused and kept editing the new lead introduction that was reached after some discussion. (I have not reinserted that version again as to avoid edit warring).

This unworkable situation has to stop. I and others want to work on this page, which for now is impossible due to the actions of a single editor. I want a decision that is wider reaching than this page, but covers all pages he edits, as I can see similar issues with these pages arising as well: Unit of selection and Kin selection. KimvdLinde 06:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Kzollman

Marcosantezana appears to refuse to engage in discussion with other editors on Natural selection. A quick comparision of the number of edits (many of which are reversions) at the history of natural selection with the number of comments at Talk:Natural selection demonstrate his unwillingness to engage in discussion. I am not a party to the content dispute which is occuring there, but I have interacted with Marco when his behavior has violated Misplaced Pages policies. He was brought to my attention for nearly violating the 3rr on Feb. 19 , , , . He avoided directly violating it by performing the last reversion outside of the 24hr period. I have no evidence that this was an intentional skirting of the rule and not just a happy accident. I warned him about the violation (noting that just barely missing the 24hr period is still a violation), to which he responded with the remarks quoted above. Slightly less than a month later, I noticed a second near violation of the 3rr. , , , . As I took this to be an attempt to game the rule, I blocked Marco for 24 hours. He evaded the block twice, and it was extended by User:TexasAndroid. Again, I'm not sure if he was aware that he shouldn't evade the block, although I can't imagine that he thought his behavior was acceptable. Certainly the second evasion was malicious, since he was warned about the first.

Attempts by many editors and by myself, as an administrator, to alter his behavior have been entirely unsuccessful. It was hope that he would emerge from the block realizing that his behavior would not be tolerated. However, it appears this is not the case. I am aware of at least one bonafide evolutionary biologist who has basically given up on the page as a result of this users actions. I hope that action by ArbCom might, if not change his behavior, make the page on Natural selection editible by others. --best, kevin 06:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best if the "bona fide biologist" be named. If you are referring to me (although you could be referring to Pete.Hurd, who has been less active recently due to real life commitments), let me explain that I did not leave because of Marcos' edits particularly, but due to the two parties' inability to communicate effectively. Being an outsider in a debate does not automatically mean that your view is wrong. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm far too busy with professional responsabilities do keep up with the large volume of changes and debates on the Natural selection page. I have enough time to do minor edits, but not enough to deal with Marcosantezana, Axel147, et al. it's not just frustrating, it's really far too time consuming. More constructive discussion from Marcosantezana would only help this page get fixed, and make it more time-worthwhile for others like me to participate. More comments to follow below. Pete.Hurd 15:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to Pete, but since I didn't know if he wanted to be dragged into this mess, I did not mention him by name. Since he drug himself in here, I'll mention it now :) --best, kevin 22:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Samsara

Valid points were being brought to the table by both sides. Overall, I would note that there was a lot of protectionism of various versions favoured by various editors going on. I would encourage the arbitrators to look into the edit history, edit summaries and talk page in some detail to understand more precisely what was happening. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I only started reverting after a consensus lead has been introduced to the article. KimvdLinde 14:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Slrubenstein

There is an extensive record of Marcosantezana's edit warring at this article. It has died down, recently, but I do not see this as evidence that the problem has been resolved, and urge the ArbCom to acknowledge and deal with the problem. The problem is basically this: in early February 2006 Marcosantezana rewrote much of the introduction to the article. I and a couple of other people raised objections to his massive rewrite, and reverted his edits. for the next month, a pattern emerged: People would raise objections to Marcosantezana's rewrite on the talk page, and revert. Marcosantezana sometimes responded aggresively on the talk page, dismissing all objections to his rewrite. Marcosantezana would then make a series of six or seven edits to the article, with detailed but obscure edit summaries; the effect would be to restore his version of the introduction verbatim (in other words, he seldom just reverted. By making several different edits he created an edit history that suggests he was working on the article de novo. However, after several edits all he had done was to restore his version of the intro, that had been reverted). Someone would revert, and the cycle began again.

I would rather not frame this problem in terms of a violation of the 3RR. I am not sure whether Marcosantezana violated this rule or not. But the 3RR is just one mechanism for dealing with edit conflicts - it is the underlying edit conflict that is the problem, not any violation of 3RR. Whether anyone violated 3RR or not, the fact remains that for a month or so, spanning February and March 2006, the introduction to the article simply bounced back and forth between Marcosantezana's version, and the consensus version (meaning, a version all other editors at the page favored). This is obviously an unproductive situation.

Why have several editors begun to revert Marcosantezana's edits automatically? My principal reason, which at least a few other editors share, is simply style: Marcosantezana's English is just horrible. Secondly, editors have also questioned the substance of his edits. I believe that Marcosantezana's poor grasp of English makes it difficult to distinguish between problems in style versus problems in substance - that is, it is hard to say whether Marcosantezana has a valid point to make, because he expresses it so unclearly. Finally, I suspect that Marcosantezana may be violating NOR or NPOV. Specifically, I suspect that he is trying to import his own view of natural selection, or the view of Elliot Sober, a philosopher of science. Again, Marcosantezana's problems with English make it difficult to know which. If the former, he is clearly violating NOR. If the latter, the violation of NPOV lies in his insisting that the article define and explain natural selection according to Sober's view of it, without stating that this is the view of one philosopher of science and is not the only view.

In fact, with regards to another article I once suggested, in good faith, that marcosantezana be careful to make sure his edits comply with NOR and NPOV; his response was typically defensive and aggressive, culminating in his saying, "if you want to worry about something please consider trying to clean up the utter non-sense that is a bit everywhere. you should realize that to do what i am trying to do is is hard work."

Moreover, I believe that everyone who reverted Marcosantezana's edits did so in good faith, explaining their problems with his edits on the talk page. Marcosantezana, on the other hand, only dismisses other people's questions or explanations. This is the fundamental problem: Marcosantezana insists that he is right and refuses any dialogue or compromise. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Pete.Hurd

I'll be surprised if User:Marcosantezana participates in this. If he were to comment, I'd expect him to say something like "Every edit I've made to Natural Selection changed something factually wrong onto something factually right, and all other issues are so trivial in importance compared to the issue of making things right that it's a silly waste of time for me and everyone else to discuss".

Marcosantezana is a problem, he's knowledgeable, but either cannot, or will not, explain his edits to those that do not understand them. I think his violations of WP policies are done in ignorance, he doesn't really care enough for WP policies to inform himself (five months and 500 edits into his presence on wikipedia, and he's still leaving comments for users on their user pages, not their talk pages). I think he views his factual correctness as releasing him from having to abide by rules (I recall a statement to this effect, I may chase down the diff later). He's certainly claimed that he need not explain his edits even in edit summaries, let alone on talk pages, since the correctness of his edits ought to speak for themselves. "that's why even the short comments that accompany edits of the main article should be unnecessary. if they are well done the edits should speak for themselves." in here, some of his edit summaries are helpful, and others not (some examples below)

• (do i need to comment ? read and rejoice ;))
• (removed grammatically and semantically garbled "common" effort; content ueber alles)
• (who cares who "wins"? are we kidding? but it's better hard to read than clear and wrong;)
• (nat.sel is not evol by nat.sel.; read before "improving" darn! the "phenotype" is a term from genetics; where were the editors when this nonsense was added?)
• (causation/fitness vs vapid self-contradicting supposedly didactic though erroneous common places plus history obscured by irrelevant jargon)
• (fitness and its causation. it's what selection is, boys and girls :))

Note Mathbot reports: Edit summary usage for Marcosantezana: 51% for major edits and 2% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 58 minor edits in the article namespace.

His edits have an excellent track record for factual correctness, just as they have a strong tendency to need polishing copyedits (when they are comprehensible at all). To the best of my knowledge, he has never complained in any way about such improvements being made to his text. But merely being correct isn't helpful if he refuses to explain why he's correct. This is not something he makes clear to those he's correcting, who usually just get the insulting tone, and not the pedagogical content. Making such explanations is something he's not interested in providing, and it seems an unrewarding thing to ask anyone else to do.

When Antezana does make editorial comments (less often of late) they often seem motivated more by an intent to insult than inform. Take for example, this remarkable edit, directed not at WP editors, but a string of famous evolutionary theorists Marcosantezana feels aren't as well schooled in philosophy as he, or his hero Sober. To be fair, this sort of behaviour is not uncommon in academics, but most of our peers would normally say such things only behind the veil of anonymity in a referee report.

Marcos' behaviour shouldn't overshadow too much the fact that there is a real debate taking place over whether the article should identify the one true definition (as defined by scientific researchers measuring it vs. philosophers of science more expert in definitions) or address and all commonly held incorrect definitions, etc, whether the article ought to be pitched primarily at correctly informing readers at the level of a high-school or graduate student level. Marcosantezana has strong views, and has explained his position clearly, he just doesn't engage in protracted debate. WP is very frustrating in that such debates are without end, including a rotating cast of debators. This debate is chewing up a lot of effort, from knowledgeable editors, User:KimvdLinde's laudable efforts at implementing WP's policies and guidelines, User:Samsara's effort at implementing some sort of WP:SPR seems motivated by this debate. Editors such as User:Barefootmatt seem to have been effectively chased off, if not by Marcos' insulting behaviour, then by the futility of the debate. Personally, I find User:Axel147 almost as frustrating as Antezana (I've sometimes wondered whether Axel is a clever troll), but in contrast to Antezana he's well behaved (Axel has a valid point in defending his major complaints, I just think he's wrong in spirit even when he's right on detail).

I doubt Marcosantezana will/can change his behaviour, and I think the most helpful thing any editor can do (excluding things like User:KimvdLinde's consensus seeking version writing) is to bring in more clear, cited, material in from outside WP to guide and inform all editors. There are a number of editors on this page with Ph.D.s in the subject matter, a more with an equivalent grasp of the issues. Marcosantezana seems to view his opinions as trumping all others, and really isn't willing to say much more than "go read a book", or "go take a logic class" to those he disagrees with.

In conclusion, WP:CIVIL etc matter a lot, while I agree with Marcosantezana on just about all substantive points, he just ticks me off to the point that Natural selection is a page I'm more than happy to take off my watchlist.

Pete.Hurd 20:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Marcosantezana

(place comment here)

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

User:Deathrocker

Involved parties

• User:Deathrocker
• User:Leyasu
• User:Sceptre

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• User:Sceptre - Initiatior
• User:Deathrocker -
• User:Leyasu -

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Gothic Metal and pages pertaining to the subject.
• User:Leyasu's Request for Arbitration as a ruling against Leyasu
• Deathrocker's numerous blocks] should've got the point across to get a mediation.

Statement by Sceptre

I was first brought to this dispute 5 weeks ago while patrolling The 3RR noticeboard. Both users had violated WP:3RR, so it was a clear-cut case of a block. I extended the block to about 32 hours, listing my reason as 3RR, and to cool down. Stressed with the Userbox debate, I left Misplaced Pages for two weeks.

On Tuesday (14 March, 2006), I had recieved a message from Leyasu while just going to make a change to an article. This was then followed by Deathrocker with accusations of Leyasu "bullshitting" me. I later received diffs of this dispute. Deathrocker was not the only one attacking. Leyasu also made comments about him vandalising my talk page.

After two days, I blocked both users. Leyasu, for Arbcom breach, Deathrocker, for gross 3RR violation.

I admit I may have been biased to Leyasu by asking if there was any chance of baiting by Deathrocker.

Deathrocker, however, was not happy with my block. He continually requested an unblock, stating I was abusing my admin powers for blocking him for more than a day. I've been backed by several prominent users, User:Essjay, who said the block was fair, and User:Tawker after an outburst on IRC.

Still, Deathrocker disrupted on his talk page, and was blocked until after Easter.

Statement by Leyasu

Leyasu would prefer for the subpage on his/her user page for a statement.

Leyasu would also like it to be known, that Deathrocker's personal attacks about the subpage of his/her user page, has been cloned by Deathrocker, who has made replies to each accusation in the forms of personal attacks and failure to supply diffs.

Statement by Deathrocker

My reply to Leyasu's little shrine, which attacks me personally numerous times, is here on a subpage/user page.

Note: I just checked my email and saw Sceptre offered to post this for me, but I'd already done this, so thanks anyway...

Also Sceptre, I noticed in your comment it said something about IRC.... I don't and have never used IRC, just for the record. - DeathrockerComment 08:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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

User:Phr vs. User:Sam_Sloan

Involved parties

• User:Phr
• User:Sam_Sloan
• User:Rook_wave

All Parties are aware of this request

I have made a request for mediation in this dispute. User:Phr refused two days ago.

This dispute has gone on for more than three months since early December, 2005 and it is obvious that User:Phr and User:Rook_wave have no interest in settling this dispute.

Statement by User:Sam_Sloan

For the past 10 or 15 years, Paul Rubin who posts here as User:Phr has made thousands of postings to various chess forums, all of which have said basically the same thing, which is that membership dues of the United States Chess Federation should be reduced to zero or in any case to no more than $5, and that Paul Rubin should be allowed to play USCF rated chess without being required to join the USCF or required to subscribe to Chess Life magazine.

In general, Paul Rubin has been dismissed as a harmless crank, not to be taken seriously, and is often the brunt of jokes.

That is until two days ago when it was discovered that Paul Rubin is the same person as User:Phr who has been going about deleting the biographies of chess politicians he does not like.

Paul Rubin knows Tom Dorsch personally and now that we know who User:Phr is, we understand why User:Phr attacked the biography of Tom Dorsch with such vehemence, because Tom Dorsch was one of the chess politicians who raised the dues to $40.

When the biography of Tom Dorsch was first posted, User:Rook_wave vandalized it by deleting all but the first two lines. When this was reverted, User:Rook_wave then posted a AfD and then voted six times to delete. He was joined by User:Phr who voted five times to delete. More than that, every time a user voted to keep, he was attacked by User:Phr who accused that person of being my sock puppet or my meat puppet, even though he actually knew these people, having posted ten thousand times to Usenet, and knew that they were completely independent of me and not my friends.

As a result of the six votes to delete by User:Rook_wave and the five votes to delete by User:Phr the biography of Tom Dorsch was deleted, even though Tom Dorsch is one of the best known chess politicians in the world. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tom Dorsch

User:Phr is completely different from User:Rook_wave. User:Rook_wave is a German who lives in Germany. He does not seem to know anything about chess. Paul Rubin, a/k/a User:Phr, on the other hand is a very well known Bay Area chess personality, who has obvious animosity towards other Bay Area chess personalities. So, even though User:Phr and User:Rook_wave do not know each other, they team up and attack the same targets, which is in this case me.

User:Phr has substantially deleted or modified in a negative way the biographies of the following Bay Area chess personalities: Tom Dorsch, Batchimeg Tuvshintugs, Eric Schiller, John W. Donaldson and Elena Donaldson. He also substantially deleted the biography of Edward G. Winter who is known for his attacks on Eric Schiller whom User:Phr does not like.

Two days ago, User:Phr posted an AfD for speedy deletion for the biographies of Bessel Kok, Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio Cesar Ingolotti, Panupand Vijjuprabha, and Geoffrey Borg only five minutes after these biographies were first posted. These are all important personalities in their respective countries: Belgium, Turkey, Paraguay, Thailand and Malta. He got these biographies deleted by administrators who obviously did not know who they were, except for the first biography. When he was unable to get an administrator to delete the biography of Bessel Kok, he deleted almost all the content himself except for just a few lines.

In addition, Paul Rubin posted modifications to his own biography, which is a violation of Misplaced Pages rules.

This is a major dispute which has already lasted for more than three months and is not going to end, especially with the World Chess Olympiad starting in Torino, Italy on May 20. Therefore, the arbitration committee should consider this dispute. Sam Sloan 10:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Phr

Sloan goes on at length about Usenet posts and makes mostly-wrong personal allegations about me that are irrelevant to Misplaced Pages. I'll skip most of the non-Misplaced Pages stuff for brevity but will state that I don't know Tom Dorsch in person beyond having met him at chess tournaments once or twice in the early 1990's and spoken to him for a total of maybe one minute. I'm familiar with Dorsch's USCF activities mostly through Usenet. I'll also say that since Sloan posts his Misplaced Pages articles to Usenet, it shouldn't surprise anyone that Usenet readers spot the errors and come to Misplaced Pages to fix them. Also: Rook_wave is an internationally rated chessplayer of equivalent strength to a US national master , so the statement that he knows nothing about chess is absurd.

I declined mediation because Sloan's RFM asked for a "cease and desist" order against Rook_wave and myself, and that's outside the scope of what mediators can do. I'd actually be willing to enter a mediation process that could do that (i.e. one that could result in an agreement binding on Sloan and me and enforceable by admins), but Misplaced Pages does not have such a thing right now. As for the specific charges:

1. Louis Blair (below) linked to the Tom Dorsch DRV which was one of several places where the multiple vote and sockpuppet issue was explained to Sloan. Sloan's earlier RFAR may also be of interest.
2. Sloan recently took it on himself to campaign for Bessel Kok's slate of candidates in the upcoming FIDE election . He put a biography of Panupand Vijjuprabha (one of Kok's team) on Misplaced Pages, that was an obvious campaign piece that included stuff like Vijjuprabha's phone number. I felt this was non-notable so I made an AfD nomination to get community opinion (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Panupand Vijjuprabha). I then noticed the article was pasted verbatim from Kok's group's web site without attribution, so I noted that (and gave the link) in the AfD. The bio was speedied as a copyvio a few minutes later.
3. Sloan copied several more bios from the same source over the next hour. I entered SD requests for these, giving the source links . These too were speedied (Ali Nihat Yazici, Julio César Ingolotti, and Geoffrey Borg). I also briefly put up a SD request for Bessel Kok (mentioning his higher notability), but I then saw that Kok's bio contained a mixture of copied and non-copied material, so I took down my SD request and edited out the copied material. Except for Kok and Yazici, these people are non-notable (a few hundred Google hits at most).
4. Sloan apparently in retaliation for the above deletions then put up a stupid attack bio about me (Paul Rubin) full of incorrect factoids. I entered an SD request (noting that I was the subject of the article) and put db-bio and db-attack tags at the top of the article, but I didn't modify the article text. I felt at the time that this procedure was ok. Sloan removed the tags and I didn't restore them. Another editor (at my request) then looked at the article and put in a db tag, and the article was speedied a few minutes later.
5. My edit to the Eric Schiller article was to briefly explain a term related to Schiller's academic work . That Sloan sees this as a substantial negative modification indicates ownership issues on Sloan's part, WP:OWN. I'll add that I like Schiller just fine.
6. Batchimeg Tuvshintugs is a chess player who placed 27th out of 32 in her section of the recent US championship, but scored several surprising upset victories over grandmasters in the early rounds, possibly because she was unknown and they underestimated her when they sat down to play. She then lost the rest of her games in the later rounds. Sloan wrote a puff-piece promotional bio ("I see no harm in trying to bring some publicity to a new player by saying that her result is 'perhaps' the best result for five games of any woman player in chess history" , i.e. Sloan decided he saw no harm in using Misplaced Pages as an outlet for public relations propaganda). I and another editor worked on the article to bring it closer to neutrality.
7. John W. Donaldson and Elena Akhmilovskaya were (respectively) a US and a then-Soviet player, who met at a series of international chess tournaments in the 1980's and became romantically involved at those events. In 1988 at the chess Olympiad in Greece, they eloped and got married, and incident got wide press coverage (the elopement was necessary because it was hard for Soviets to get exit visas from the USSR in those days). The newlywed couple was interviewed many times and consistently denied any political motivation behind the marriage. But the two Misplaced Pages articles described EA's entry to the US as a defection, which has political overtones. I changed "defected" to "emigrated" in EA's article, a 3-second edit turning a POV term to a neutral one, the kind of easy incremental improvement that keeps Misplaced Pages moving towards reliability, and made a similar type of edit in the JD article. Sloan rv'd the edits saying (with no documentation) that it really was a political defection , a contentious claim that insinuates that the Donaldsons had entered a marriage of convenience. I felt I had to fix the article because as a chess buff, I remembered the incident, but not many other Misplaced Pages editors were likely to recall such a thing. I then spent 1/2 an hour digging up an old newspaper article and adding a cite about how the couple met. This is a good example of Misplaced Pages's "Sloan problem". Since Sloan was the one wanting to use a contentious term, he, not me, should have been the one spending his time that way. Editors like Sloan discourage the small easy incremental improvements that Misplaced Pages depends on, by turning them into instances of "no good deed goes unpunished".

I actually do find Sloan's writing entertaining and sometimes informative, and I read it with interest (and many grains of salt) on Usenet and on his web site. Misplaced Pages is just not the right place for it, given its lack of sourcing (WP:V), its reliance on Sloan's personal knowledge (WP:NOR), and its opinionated approaches (WP:NPOV). I haven't had serious problems directly with Sloan til now. This is not an off-wiki dispute that spilled here; it's more like the other way around.

Although Sloan's filing of this RFAR didn't follow normal procedures, I hope that it's accepted and some measure is taken against Sloan (whether blocking, mentorship, or whatever), for the reasons I gave in his RFAR against Rook_wave, below. Louis Blair suggested the "users who exhaust the community's patience" clause in WP:BLOCK. Sloan has announced his intention to post more of his "biographies" for the upcoming Olympiad and they're likely to be full of his usual confabulation, each one a potential Seigenthaler incident in its own right, and I dread this. The situation is quite bad. Phr 05:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Rook wave

Comment by Sjakkalle

I would recommend to Sam Sloan that he refrain from filing requests for arbitration for a while. He has made a number of reasonable and valuable contributions to chess articles, but the fact is that many of them, especially biographies of living people lack adequate cited sources and don't comply with a neutral point of view. This is the reason many of his articles are trimmed down, or deleted outright as was the case with Tom Dorsch. For instance, if we look at the initial revisions of the Bessel Kok article, one which almost looks like a campaigning piece for his election, we see an attack on the current FIDE president Ilyumzhinov, accusing him of bribery. Again, the article lacks sources.

That articles don't remain the way we created them, and that some of the changes are ones we dislike is something all Misplaced Pages editors need to live with, indeed the editing screen says in big bold writing: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."

Sloan has previously filed an RFAr against the very dilligent and fair administrator Howcheng, and has filed another RFAr further down on this page very similar to this one. What we have here is a content dispute, or perhaps a off-wiki dispute which has spilled over to Misplaced Pages. If it's a content dispute it should be noted that in very many cases consensus has not been favorable to Sloan's revisions. Also, bringing this to arbitration when there is hardly any edits to the other parties' user-talkpages is, at the very least, premature. If it's an off-wiki dispute, it should remain off-wiki. I do not think that such disputes are the purview of Misplaced Pages's arbitration comitee. Therefore, I recommend rejection of this case as well, if not I think the case would be more about Sloan than the other parties Sloan has listed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by an outsider

In his request for review of the Tom Dorsch deletion decision, Sam Sloan made similar claims about multiple votes. In response to such claims, Howcheng wrote, "recounting the votes on the discussion page shows only one legitimate keep vote, which is Mgm and seven valid delete votes: Jareth, Phr, Olorin28, Titoxd, TheRingess, Parallel or Together, pgk. I did not count any votes by anonymous users, as well as Andrew Zito (who just had some weird anti-Misplaced Pages rant) and Billbrock, who has a history with ." (17:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)) Rook wave wrote, "That I voted six times is of course ... just plain wrong. I made comments ..., but only voted once, as can be easily verified." (19:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)) For details, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ADeletion_review&diff=43217170&oldid=43215421

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch - Louis Blair (March 20, 2006)

Comment by Olorin28

I first contacted the article Tom Dorsch after a request for comment was filed, I believed by Rook Wave. Ater a glance at the article, and other articles written by Sam Sloan, it became very clear to me that he was using Misplaced Pages to express his point of view. The biographies he wrote about various chess personas consisted 90 percent of personal attacks, gossips and rants gleaned from what he called "reliable sources" from usenet. While I do not believe that the similar cases to that of Siegenthaler will surface here, I believe that the articles Sam Sloan writes are completely one-sided and expressed significant biase. Rook Wave, I believe, is correct in removing most of the attacks and rants from these articles. The request by Sam Sloan for Rook Wave to stop editing his articles is simply detrimental to the well-being of Misplaced Pages. Olorin28 03:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by JzG

To state the obvious, non-admin users cannot "delete" articles, they can only edit them or propose their deletion. The fact that Sam Sloan's contributions are often tendentious is a key contributory factor in their reversion or deletion, as noted above. It is telling that Sloan's response to this ios to raise complaints about the editors, administrators and processes which oppose his actions, rather than to adopt a more neutral editing style.

Sloan's description of the content and history of the Tom Dorsch article bears only the most superficial resemblance to the truth. The article was a blatant attack on a person for whom Sloan clearly bears considerable animosity. For any non-admins, and to save the trouble of dredging in the deleted history, here is an example paragraph:

His problem was that, although he usually won, whenever he won big he would go out and buy a steak dinner at a fancy restaurant and spend his winnings. If he won even more, he would go to Tijuana, Mexico, where he would check out the whorehouses and the strip clubs, with an eye for the donkey shows. He even got to know some of the girls who performed in these animal acts on a first name basis. He would spend all his gambling winnings and, as a result, when he lost, he would not have any backup money to get back into the game.

And:

Therefore, Dorsch tried to hustle the weak games in the game room at the ASUC Student Union building on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley. His problem there was that the impoverished students he beat at poker often did not pay their gambling debts.

Sloan edit-warred over this article, including edit summaries like reverted Edits by User:Jareth. She obviously knows nothing about the subject and has no business repeatedly vandalizing this article.

The deletion of the Dorsch article was partly the result of a lack of any credible evidence of notability, and partly because experienced editors apparently felt that the effort of fighting Sam Sloan's "ownership" was not worth the effort for this minor character. Even editors who felt that Dorsch does nose over the line into notability voted to delete the article and start again later.

I commend to Sam Sloan the following: WP:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. I do not believe I am alone in seeing strong evidence of Sam Sloan extending to his Misplaced Pages contributions the strong agenda he has outside of Misplaced Pages. The solution is not for those who disagree with Sloan to stop editing, it's for Sloan to stop adding tendentious content. And Sam, sometimes when everybody tells you that you are wrong, it's because you are wrong. Just zis Guy you know? 10:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Thorri

Sam Sloan has publicly stated that "I hate Dorsch so I write garbage about him" and "my job is to smear everyone who doesn't support Goichberg and Schultz". (scroll down) --TonyM 18:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In fairness to Sam Sloan, it should be mentioned that there DOES appear to be a person who posts fake Sam Sloan notes from addresses like "sloan@journalist.com" (probably chosen to make fun of those who claim that Sam Sloan deserves to be considered a journalist). In general, the source addresses for the notes seem to hint at there non-authentic nature. On 30 Dec 2005 07:50:03 -0800, "sloan@whoever.com" posted a rec.games.chess.politics note that openly declared, " That's what you'll get if Sloan stops posting in 2006." On 30 Dec 2005 08:22:17 -0800, Taylor Kingston addressed the author of the apparently fake Sam Sloan notes: "While in general your negative view of Sam Sloan is quite justified, your practice of filling the newsgroups with childish, asinine comments is pointless and annoying. The crude, hopelessly inept attempts at parody tarnish your own image more than they do his. You may succeed in doing something Sam by himself could not possibly do -- arouse sympathy for him." The I-write-garbage quote (mentioned by Thorri) came from sloan@journalist.com. - Louis Blair (March 21, 2006)

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

• Reject; nothing for the ArbCom here. AfD nominations, speedy deletions for copyvios, content editing disputes, all proceeding as usual. Even if Sam Sloan were the authority he takes himself to be, that would cut no special ice on Misplaced Pages. Unsourced gossip being cut is a good thing, as Sam should note well. Charles Matthews 18:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Aucaman

Involved parties

• User:Aucaman
• User:Robert McClenon as advocate for User:Zmmz

All Parties are aware of this request

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Aucaman#Request_for_Arbitration

Statement by Robert McClenon as advocate

There is a difficult content dispute over the articles on the Persian people and Iranian people. An attempt has been made to resolve it by cabal mediation by mediator Fasten. This has not mitigated the dispute, because of the conduct of User:Aucaman, who has been consistently uncivil, and has engaged in personal attacks and revert wars, and has repeatedly been blocked for 3RR violations. Part of the problem seems to be that he considers any use of the word "Aryan" to be racist and so prohibited. There is a consensus that this word, in the context of the Iranian and Persian peoples, has a historically valid meaning. The fact that it was abused by Germans should not prevent its use in its original context. The behavior of Aucaman makes it difficult to resolve the content dispute. Robert McClenon 02:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Aucaman

First let me use this chance to make sure I was brought here for the right reasons.

If this is going to be an investigation of my conduct and my conduct alone, it's not going to get us anywhere:

1. Some of the statements just made by User:Robert McClenon are blatantly false and show his unfamiliarity with this case. I've only been blocked once for violating 3RR and that was because I wasn't aware that I was reverting to an older version by just inserting a single word. I've also only made personal attacks once and only once and that was due to extreme provocation and under unusual circumstances. (I've provided a full explanation of it here and the case is now closed.)
2. A quick look at my block log would reveal that my general conduct has been far less desruptive that the conduct of those who have so joyfully brought me here.

Based on the above two points, I would not accept any investigation of my conduct and my conduct alone.

But if this is going to be an honest forum for the discussion of some of the problems surrounding Iran-related articles, I will cautiously welcome it.

I'm also not sure why my name (and my name alone) is associated with this RfAR. As I explained, my conduct has not been as disruptive as some people want you to believe. Also, unlike what is sometimes claimed, I'm not the only person involved in this dispute. Many users have supported my position at one time or another (too many to list here, but I can provide a list if asked). So, to reiterate, I don't think labelling this case with my name (and my name alone) is in any way fair and only reflects the bias of those who have set this up.

I would also like to mention that the dispute at Persian people has mainly failed because the other side refuses to even acknowledge that there's a dispute in place. They have repeatedly (on average, probably around once a day) removed any dispute tag placed in the article without ANY comment after the mediator asked for an explanation (I'm talking about the section titled "Please explain the demand to remove "). My specific concerns in talk page have also been either repeatedly ignored or brushed aside with statements that directly violate WP:V and WP:NOR.

I would also like to point out that since I've been threatened to be brought here early into this dispute (even when I had a perfectly clean record), if the case is accepted, I expect some serious rulings. I come to Misplaced Pages to contribute to the articles, but for the last few weeks I've been doing nothing but reporting various personal attacks to admins, responding to various misunderstands about me, and repeating my arguments in talk pages (because they were constantly ignored or trolled with nonsense). I view all of this (even this RfAR set-up against me) as yet another excercise in censorship by those who play childish games and constantly refuse to accept any changes I make to any articles (even the trivial edits that I'm sure they wouldn't have opposed if someone other than me was making them). If this is not stopped I'd have no choice but to stop contributing. Aucaman 14:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Zmmz

First and foremost, I would like to state that it was not my intention (at least not from the beginning) under circumstances to try and ban someone who I or others may not agree with, and just try to censure that person (although at some point I may have been frustrated, for which I apologise) . After all, it’s a big world out there in Wikiland, and there is room for everyone here; even those who you may strongly disagree with. However, because of its recent popularity, Misplaced Pages can be used as a tool for some. Unfortunately, due to malicious comments made recently by the Iranian media about the Holocaust, and because that country is currently often in the media, the articles relating to it have attracted more than the share of *vandalism, ranging from your typical nonsense vandalism to attracting some **inappropriate political/cultural edits/comments. * **Zora (talk · contribs):, **

At the beginning I was invited to try to join the discussion in an article called Persian people, and I was warned that a particular user, namely Aucaman, has an issue with the use of the word Aryan and/or Indo-European in many articles. Apparently this has been going on long before I joined Wiki. Although at the start I took Aucaman`s concerns seriously, and tried to be understanding of his grievances, soon it became apparent that the tone of the user’s behaviour spoke of that of an unconditionally inflexible one. Nevertheless, the turning point was when as a history buff I personally tried to intervene and submitted some archeological evidence, and in return Aucaman gave a shocking excuse as a reason for his refusal.

I then tried to seek a third opinion, set-up a Mediation Cabal (both were requested from neutral users, Khoikhoi, then Fasten), and lastly an Rfc, but all have failed, which may be a testament to Aucaman`s unwillingness to compromise.

User Aucaman is an intelligent, and savvy Wikepedian, who is well-connected here, but who regrettably tries to indirectly involve other users into what seems like a never-ending-cycle: he refuses to reason in the discussion pages, reverts the articles, then if anyone tries to revert it back, he accuses them of not participating in the discussions, provokes them, and frivolously reports multiple users (often unmerited), sometimes simultaneously to admins for following him around, or files false 3rr reports etc., etc.

In all Aucaman,

• Games the system, e.g., contacts and seeks the sympathy of the admins etc.
• Refuses to accept authoritative references (diffs 54 & 55 show outright refusals by a **User:Zora who aids Aucaman).
• He is eminently unreasonable: too rigid, cannot work and/or compromise with others (apparently his disruptiveness spills into a spectrum of articles, and may have concerned outsider editors who have no contributions to articles about Persia)
• Inserts controversial comments into articles, e.g., to this date trying to relate Persia with Nazi Germany etc..
• Is involved in Civility infractions .

I do not take particular pride in having the possible banning of any user on my conscious; in fact, perhaps a final warning or an ultimatum may do the job. However, as I have stated from the start, to be fair, please look into all sides, but, do get involved and investigate the matter further. No reasonable chance: I am now convinced that the only authority who user Aucaman will actually respond to, is; ArbCom.Zmmz 02:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by semi-involved party LukasPietsch

While I agree there may be an issue about "stubbornness" on Aucaman's part, I believe that the claimant(s) is/are to a very large part themselves to blame for the escalation. Their previous actions against Aucaman have been highly unfair. In scrutinizing Zmmz' behaviour, it will be necessary to widen the case to include at least also ManiF (talk · contribs) and Khashayar Karimi (talk · contribs) (sig. "Kash"), who have acted in close concert with Zmmz throughout this dispute; and perhaps (more indirectly) also Zereshk (talk · contribs), who is central to the tradition of POV warring over Iran-related articles that forms its background.

I will show that:

1. Zmmz' allegations against Aucaman's personal behaviour are largely groundless.
   1. There was one single instance where Aucaman lost his temper under provocation, answered an ethnic slur with another, then retracted (); this was later blown out of proportion by his opponents, who flooded talk pages with complaints until days later, until they were themselves warned of blocking for disruption;
   2. This incident occurred after Zmmz et al. had brought the RfC against Aucaman; the original list of alleged incivility infractions by him contained nothing substantial whatsoever.
   3. It is characteristic of the low quality of Zmmz' evidence that he let Robert reproduce a blatantly false allegation of previous 3RR blocks against Aucaman here at Arbcom, even when the error had been pointed out and Zmmz had been forced to apologize over it previously.
   4. Zmmz himself has a much worse record than Aucaman of 3RR blocks, vexatious complaints or baseless 3RR or "vandalism" allegations.
2. Zmmz' et al. are largely themselves to blame for the failure of the Cabal Mediation.
   1. Aucaman was not acting against unanimous consensus; there were several editors who expressed at least partial support for his views.
   2. Zmmz et al brought the RfC against Aucman while the mediation was still running.
   3. Unlike Aucaman, who responded positively to suggestions by the mediator, Zmmz hardly engaged in constructive discussions of compromise proposals, but filled the mediation with personal accusations instead.
   4. Zmmz et al effectively stopped communicating with the mediator shortly after he pointed out to them that he could find no value in their accusations (, ).
3. This case is part of a long-standing dangerous tendency among a group of Iranian editors to form an organized faction, the "Iranian Watchdog".
   1. Characteristic is the functioning of their "notice board", which until recently included a daily "alerts" list and even a blacklist of anti-Iranian users "to keep a watch on". This was discussed on the RfC and WP:AN as highly problematic, and has since been partly cleaned up.
   2. However, this doesn't solve the problem. There is still a deeply entrenched tendency among this group of referring to opponents as "attackers", "vandals", "haters of Iran" etc., showing that they regard the representation of views opposing theirs on Misplaced Pages as ipso facto illegitimate.

My own role: I was uninvolved until 13 March, and have kept out of the content dispute except for a single attempt at a compromise suggestion. I filed a critical "Outside View" to the RfC. Since then, criticism between Zmmz and me has escalated to a point where we both have accused each other of harassment and similar things. I leave it to Arbcom to decide whether they want to treat me as a party to the dispute for this reason, or as a mere "outside view". Lukas 10:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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

User:Rook_wave vs. User:Sam_Sloan

Involved parties

• User:Rook_wave
• User:Sam_Sloan
• User:Phr

All Parties are aware of this request

I have made a request for mediation in this dispute. Although User:Rook_wave did not respond here, he did state this morning over on the Usenet Group rec.games.chess.politics that he is refusing mediation of this dispute. Over there, he posts as "Ralf Callenberg".

This dispute has gone on for more than three months since early December, 2005 and it is obvious that User:Rook_wave and User:Phr have no interest in settling this dispute.

Statement by party 1

I am a recognized author and authority in the world of chess. Articles I have written have been published in virtually every major chess magazine in the world, including New In Chess, ChessBase, Chess Life, The Week in Chess, Chess Asia, Chess World, Schachs Europa, Shakhmary Riga and so on.

In early December, 2005 User:Rook_wave registered as a new user just so that he could blank an article I had posted. Ever since, every time I have posted an article about chess, he has deleted almost all of the content, usually leaving only one or two lines. He never edited on any other subject, other than to delete content from my articles, until about a week ago when in response to my complaints, he added one word to an article. Yesterday, he deleted most of an article I had written only two minutes after I had first posted it, and before I had even finished it. I stopped posting for a few months because of User:Rook_wave hoping he would go away. However, with the Chess Olympiad starting in Torino, Italy on May 20, it is neceessary that I be able to post some chess biographies, so that the public will know who the major players in this competition will be. Sam Sloan 21:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

User:Sam Sloan constantly misuses Misplaced Pages to distribute his point of view about several people, resulting in unsourced attacks, rants and gossip. My deletions concentrated on those parts, and they are also (with one small exception) limited to chess relevant articles, not his articles about other topics. At those occasions where there was at least a chance for sources, I explicitely asked for them, but not once Sam Sloan was able to provide a concrete one. I didn't agree on his mediation request as it didn't seem to be real, more a complaint about me and the threat to get me blocked. Up to now no real discussion between us developed, neither at Misplaced Pages nor in Usenet and regarding his concentration on ad hominem style arguing, I doubt this will ever change. Nevertheless I intend to continue with my changes, as I think most of his biographies are very poor examples of Misplaced Pages-articles and he disserves chess with those contributions. His latest concern is about the coming election of the FIDE-president. His recent biographies are filled with strong personal attacks on the current president (including claims of bribing and even threats of killings) and his staff and very positive articles about the challenger and his team, sometimes just copied from the campaign's web page.

Here you will find some of the changes I made:

Rook wave 22:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Party 3

Detailed statement TBD hopefully within a day or so if needed. Basically I support Rook_wave in all particulars. Also, I hope some measure is taken against Sloan (whether blocking, mentorship, or whatever) for burning up so much time of people who would rather be doing other things. Cleaning up after Sloan is a huge burden and any kind of relief would be welcome. Relatively few Wikipedians follow chess politics at all, so those of us who do are more or less forced into this duty and it's unwelcome. Phr 02:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sloan opened a separate RFAR against me and I responded to it. I'm not sure if I need to say anything else here. Phr 07:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Addendum Someone deleted a remark from a concerned outside party: . This looks like an irregularity to me, but I'm not sure of this. Phr 02:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Explained as self-revert. Phr 07:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Statement by Party 2 User:Rook_wave

Here is exactly the problem: User:Rook_wave admits that he has deleted content from every posting I have made about chess in the past three months, more than 50 deletions in all, yet he admits elewhere that he knows nothing, zero, about the subjects I am writing about. He just goes about willy-nilly deleting almost everything I post, and he states that he will continue to do so.

He states above that I am not able to provide any concrete sources, but in fact I can. It is just that I should not be required to prove to him that I have sources, because he is not a policeman.

For example, he claims that I am attacking the current president of FIDE, by saying that Ignatius Leong accused Kirsan of threatening his life. However, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov has been accused of more than just merely making threats of murder. He has been accused of the actual murder of Larisa Yudina (not by me, incidentally).

I am a journalist who has attanded and reported on many of the incidents that I am writing about, so I am an eye-witness to many of these events. In addition to my own published reports, numerous other journalists have written about these same events and their reports have been widely published in the chess magazines. For example, here are two official reports which deal with the incidents in Yerevan, Armenia in September-October 1996 where Ignatius Leong hid in Steve Doyle's hotel room, claiming that Kirsan was trying to kill him, and two days later Steven Doyle switched his vote in exchange for a Rolex watch and a FIDE Vice-Presidency:

https://listserv.surfnet.nl/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9610&L=chess-l&P=562 https://listserv.surfnet.nl/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9610&L=chess-l&P=2222

In short, User:Rook_wave who admits that he knows nothing about the subject and is merely targeting me, should not be allowed to delete or modify my postings. Sam Sloan 01:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment from an outsider

I took the time to look at Sam Sloan's two links. They are both 1996 reports by Carol Jarecki. To focus on just one issue, in the second of the two reports, it states:

"On a Lighter Note: Sumo Wrestling

The highpoint of the day was when Andrei Makarov went up to get his ballot to vote. Steve Doyle met him just short of the stage, obstructing his passage, and they got into a 'belly-bumping' battle. It was hilarious and brought the house down. Then Makarov did the same to Steve when the USA was called. This time people were ready with cameras but I don't know where to get a copy of the photos. Then, because there were TV cameras there too and neither of them wanted it to look like there was any animosity involved, Makarov grabbed Steve's hand, faced the cameras both with broad smiles, and raised their hands together. They both were minus jackets since it was very warm so it made quite a picture. The cameras loved it."

This is what Sam Sloan wanted Misplaced Pages to say about the matter:

"Doyle achieved international notoriety in FIDE, the World Chess Federation, by engaging in a Sumo Wrestling Match against Makarov, the President of the Russian Chess Federation. Doyle, the lighter of the two contestants, lost the match, which is still remembered as one of the most notable sporting events ever in the history of FIDE."

Neither Carol Jarecki article said anything about a Rolex watch. - Louis Blair (March 19, 2006)

I support what was said above completely... I could not find any mention of Rolex watches or bribery. I think Rook wave has just been NPOVing the articles correctly and removing unsourced opinions... If anything, ArbCom should review Sam Sloan's edits. Sasquatch t|c 06:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with the suggestion of reviewing Sloan's edits is they aren't 99% bogus--it would be easy in that case to trash them as vandalism. And they're not 1% bogus, which would be within Misplaced Pages's normal margin of error and not a big problem. They're more like 20% bogus, which means that every single one of them has to be carefully verified (e.g.: compare Sloan's version of the sumo wrestling story with Jarecki's) before its quality can be judged, and this is difficult since Sloan rarely cites sources and many of the edits look somewhat reasonable at first glance. So even Sloan's "good" contributions create a workload for other editors that's more trouble than the contributions themselves are worth. Phr 13:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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

• Reject. The edits by User:Rook wave look sensible to me, in general terms, and to be anything but destructive. Charles Matthews 22:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Appeal of Silverback

Involved parties

• User:Silverback

I am Silverback and request the removal of the 1 revert per article limit imposed in my arbitration case.--Silverback 13:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 1

The one revert per week limit makes it difficult to work on controversial pages, especially since the current revert interpretation refers to reverts of any material, not just repeated reverts of the same material as was once the interpretation. It appears from this discussion that the time period on my revert limitation was purposely left indefinite:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Silverback/Proposed_decision

The intent was that this be revisited at a later time. I hope this is that later time. -- thanx, --Silverback 13:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Addendums to statement by party 1

In response to User:Raul654, there is nothing on the talk:Global warming that I did not do in good faith, and I welcome arbcom members careful review of the page. If Raul654 is referring to the violation of the 1RR limit, in good faith I thought I was complying with it, I did not realize that the 3RR definition had changed to be any reversions and not just be reversions of substantially the same material. You must also see my talk page to get the complete picture . Realize that you must be reasonably scientifically literate to evaulate the merits of some of the discussions on the Global warming talk page. I admit mistakes when I am wrong and stick to the discussion of the merits, except perhaps when admonishing others to do the same or pointing out a double standard. If Raul654 has any specific counter examples, I will be happy to address them.--Silverback 09:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to WMC, please go ahead and read the Solar variation exchange. It is fairly typical, I discuss the evidence and provide more cites, WMC dismisses the evidence or dismisses the scientists, even if it is from the journals Nature or Science or engages in an ad hominem comment usually questioning good faith. When he is wrong, he doesn't admit it, just grudgingly leaves the text in. I admit he has been reverting my contributions, and that he was more willing to compromise when I could force the issue more. A lot of my contributions have made it into global warming or its spin off articles in the past and have been almost universally supported by peer reviewed journal citations. By placing weight on WMC's opinion here, the arbcom is deferring to someone motivated more by political correctness than getting the science right. Read the discussions for yourselves.--Silverback 14:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by William M. Connolley

I oppose this. For two reasons: first, Sb still doesn't have a pattern of cooperative edting there - he has edited a few times, and largely been reverted (by me I admit), and then gone away for a while. I very much suspect that without the parole, we would be back to edit wars. Second, recent talk at Solar variation shows familiar problems - Sb holding very firmly onto certain opinions that are, in my view, wrong.

I am sorry to oppose this (if that helps at all) because Sb can easily be a useful editor. OTOH, he can still be productive under the 1/7RR sanction - no-one is removing his edits out of spite, just content.

William M. Connolley 10:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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

• Reject. I did a quick sampling of this user's recent edits. If Talk:Global warming is any indication, this remedy is doing exactly what it should be. (I would be willing to consider if, for example, User:William M. Connolley were to put in a statement saying that he thinks Silverback's editing there is fine, but I don't see that as a likely event) Raul654 21:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Reject ➥the Epopt 03:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Katelyn Faber

Involved Parties

• Nightscream (talk · contribs · logs)
• Tufflaw (talk · contribs · logs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by party 1

User:Tufflaw has been making various attempts to censor information in articles that in any way mention or are otherwise dedicated to Katelyn Faber's rape allegation against Kobe Bryant. In December 2005, for example, Tufflaw attempted to have the entire article deleted, using extremely specious reasoning. Naturally, the result was to keep the article, since deleting the subject of a noteworthy criminal case is unjustified. Now, Tufflaw is trying to censor images of Katelyn Faber being added to the article, and since he/she cannot offer a single cogent, rational argument to justify this, or cite a relevant WP policy or guideline, he/she is removing the image, and refusing to respond directly to my refutations of his/her reasoning. Tufflaw has made exactly one attempt to cite a WP policy that he/she could use to justify this activity, but bizarrely, the policy in question does not say what she claims it does. I request you read the section on the Faber Talk Page titled, "Deleting Images" to see where this is going. Thank you. Nightscream 05:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by FloNight

This complaint involves the use of a tabloid style photo on the biography of an possible rape victim. I'm not sure there is an arb comm case. It looks more like a simple content dispute. I removed the image and asked that it not be re-inserted without consensus from a large number of experienced editors. (I have not edited the article before so I am not well-versed on the entire history of the dispute. Therefore, it is possible that there is something I missed.)

• Additional information

I contacted Nightscream and he/she understands that this is premature. Other methods of of dispute resolution are underway. I'm very hopeful that this will be resolved without formal dispute resolution.

Statement by Tufflaw

This is WAY too premature for referral to arbcomm, and is at the very least extremely disingenuous of Nightscream, who did not bother to even notify me of this RFA, or mention it on the article's talk page. However, he found the time to individually contact arbitrators, , , , as well as spamming dozens of messages on various talk pages slandering me and attempting to rally support for his position - , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . He mentions that I unsuccessfully listed the article for deletion in December as if that somehow negatively affects my credibility with respect to any edits I make to the article. Most of the opposing votes in that vote suggested to clean up the article, which I attempted to do. I strenuously disagree with Nightscream's claims on the talk page that I am engaging in some form of vandalism - I stand by every single one of my 1200+ edits I've made to this project, and not a single one is vandalism. I should also note that of the users who have since begun to respond to Nightscream's message blast, none only one of them believes that the photograph belongs in the article. This should be rejected as premature. Tufflaw 19:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Question by TenOfAllTrades

Was there ever a request for comment on this issue, which seems to be a content dispute at its heart? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No there was never any other method of dispute resolution pursued. Tufflaw 19:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments related to Arbitrators' opinions

The content dispute is settled. The image was deleted for copyright violation. Both sides in the dispute are fine with this outcome.

FloNight 12:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In that case, it is merely a policy issue.

James F. (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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

I have strong negative opinions regarding publishing of the name or images of an alleged rape victim. Fred Bauder 13:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Reject; this is in parts a content issue, and in parts a policy issue. Either way, it is not an Arbitration case. And RfC might well help, certainly. James F. (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Reject; please demonstrate that earlier avenues in dispute resolution have been taken, or if not, take them. Dmcdevit·t 19:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Reject as above. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Benapgar

Involved parties

• FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs)
• JoshuaZ (talk · contribs)
• Cyde (talk · contribs)
• Benapgar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• I confirm. JoshuaZ 05:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Benapgar

Statement by FeloniousMonk

Benapgar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been chronically disruptive at the Intelligent design article, frequently violating WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:CON, WP:POINT, WP:NPOV, WP:HAR, WP:NOR. He has engaged in many sustained, aggressive and distruptive Talk page campaigns flouting consensus in attempts to rewrite the article to fit his point of view. , , , .

NOTE: The early history of the Talk:Intelligent design page was moved to Talk:Intelligent_design/Archive23 by an improper archiving in December. Benapgar's history at Talk:Intelligent design prior to December 2005 can be seen here:

When his tendentious proposals fail to gain consensus, Benapgar frequently resorts to disruptive personal attacks against other editors, and been generally uncivil to anyone who objects to his POV or methods, and promotes strife by inciting others to disruption. Examples: , , , , , , , This has resulted in a user conduct RFC, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Benapgar, where he continued making personal attacks and dismissed the community's views. He has subsequently been blocked a number of times for chronic NPA violations, the last being for 1 month, ending 2 March 2006. Since his unblocking he has resumed his disruption of Talk:Intelligent design with numerous personal attacks and unending tendentious arguments. Despite warnings from admins, an RFC, and multiple blocks for NPA he shows no sign of letting up, but of spreading his disruption to other areas of the project. Arbitration is more than called for. FeloniousMonk 04:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Delaney

I am the most recent admin to block Benapgar for personal attacks. For this diff, which was one in a string of serious personal attacks, where he enjoins another editor to "GET THE FUCK AWAY FROM ME YOU FUCKING PSYCHO."

• 12:01, 27 January 2006 Ryan Delaney blocked "Benapgar (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 month (Serial NPA violator; needs a long wikibreak)

Since this RFAr was brought, I've been reminded to check his recent edit history. From his last 20 edits:

• "Note that it also says the same thing about you: disingenuous or incompetent" -- also asserts that no one can censure him for personal attacks because it would be a double standard.
• Repeatedly states "If I wanted your advice I'd ask you for it."
• "Or perhaps you mean little interest from yourself and your Usenet buddy flamewarriors who've hijacked this article."

A little further back:

• "I accused editors of doing the above purposefully and maliciously--though not necessarily completely conciously--and accused them of having devious and underhanded motivations. I believe this is true and I am not ashamed of making these accusations."
• Asserts that he has been providing evidence to third parties of '"highly activist editors" being "unethical", and members of groups co-ordinating to edit Misplaced Pages'.

This user appears to be a chronic disruptive and disrespectful editor who, after many others have attempted to reason with him, given him chances to reform, and finally blocked him for extended periods, shows no signs of improvement whatever. --Ryan Delaney 06:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Cyde Weys

This user has been very disruptive and outright rude in relation to various articles. The statements above already cover most of this but I thought I had to have my say because this Ben guy attacked me very specifically. He took one of my posts from talk.origins and used it as "evidence" that there is some sort of "evolutionist" conspiracy on Misplaced Pages. Nevermind that I've never really edited intelligent design in any major way. The way he brought in something from outside of the Wiki and used it to attempt to attack me was very unexpected and multiple people brought it to my attention. --Cyde Weys 09:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:JoshuaZ

Despite repeated attempts to reason with Ben, and remind him of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA he has repeatedly violated them and insulted me. He has also engaged in what is most probably wikistalking, disrupting two other abitrations that I am involved in, the Agapetos arbitration and the Gastrich arbitration. In both cases he has attempted to bring largely irrelevant information in from outside Misplaced Pages, in the case of Gastrich, very late in the proceedings, and has made multiple attacks based on this, including calling a request for information by me "spiteful." He has engaged in myriad other violations which the other parties have summarized well. This needs to stop. JoshuaZ 17:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Ben

I welcome an investigation into my conduct and the conduct of those participating in this case. --Ben 12:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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

• Accept. Dmcdevit·t 09:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear Energy

Involved parties

• Benjamin_Gatti (talk · contribs · logs)
• Rondack (talk · contribs · logs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Benjamin Gatti 20:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

Arbcom is preventing me from taking this up on the discussion pages.

Statement by party 1

This Diff - is a clear an unambiguous attempt to use the Arbcom earlier ruling as an opportunity to mislead the readers. The DOE has changed it site - however it has not changed its 4 listed missions which are at the new location here:

Which states clearly: Defense Strategic Goal: To protect our national security by applying advanced science and nuclear technology to the Nation’s defense. as the first goal.

Changing the original text to list the last goal as if it were the first is to dramatically mislead the readership.

Benjamin Gatti 20:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

Umm... I have no idea why he chose to leave a cryptic message on my talk page instead of explaining any issues he had with an edit. I got an error message when I clicked the link, so I chose to fix the relevant section on Misplaced Pages. This is apparently a loaded topic, but in whatever war of semantics is being fought, I seem to have become a civilian casualty. Fortunately I'm a patient person, or I'd say forget this Wiki nonsense. In any case, you're the pot calling the kettle black since taking that goal out of context without mentioning the other is just as misleading... Anyway, note to self, stick to editing pop-culture/history articles. Rondack 05:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Sean Black

I have no idea what Ben thinks this is going to acheive. There is no coherent case presented here. As for my bans, I think I was acting in the spirit of the remedy and applied it correctly. If the ArbCom disagrees, then I have no problem with them lifted. Uh, I guess that's all I can say, but I urge rejection. Thanks.--Sean Black 06:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Woohookitty

For the love of God, please reject this. --Woohookitty 12:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/1)

• Can you clarify how "Arbcom is preventing me from taking this up on the discussion pages"? Dmcdevit·t 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

  He was banned from editing the article according to his talk page... Which should tell you something about his motives. Rondack 05:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  Sean Black banned him from Nuclear power and Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act for recent behavior, see report here · Katefan0/poll 05:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  I know all this, and wikitext really doesn't convey my tone properly. What I mean is, could you please adequately clarify how "Arbcom is preventing me from taking this up on the discussion pages". Dmcdevit·t 09:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  I believe he is banned from editing the article's talk page as well as the article. -- Kjkolb 07:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Reject. "I got myself banned from this article, and then someone went and made this edit I don't like" is not grounds for an arbitration case. Raul654 07:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Content dispute, and a vexatious one at that. Reject. Sam Korn 20:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. ➥the Epopt 03:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. James F. (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

DarrenRay and 2006BC

Involved parties

• DarrenRay (talk · contribs · logs)
• 2006BC (talk · contribs · logs) (sockpuppet of DarrenRay as confirmed by and indefinitely blocked by Essjay)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• DarrenRay
• 2006BC

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

I don't think this is particuarly relevant. These two people are heavily personally involved in articles they've been edit warring on, and have shown no inclination to cease in the future.

Statement by Ambi

The essential basis of this is that two people are using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox to wage war on an auditor who is in the process of suing them over allegations of corruption.

A few years ago, the Melbourne University Student Union crashed and burned amidst complaints of dodgy dealing. It was subsequently liquidated, and the auditor, Dean McVeigh, sued three former presidents - Darren Ray, Ben Cass, and Andrew Landeryou, over their role in the collapse. A couple of weeks ago, Ray and Cass both popped up in Misplaced Pages, creating what essentially amounted to an attack article at Dean McVeigh and edit warring incessantly at the article on the student union (now at Melbourne University student organisations). They've now created Rugs Galore, an article on a company that McVeigh was criticised for his performance in liquidating, with 80% of the article being a long screed about McVeigh's alleged misdeeds. This is a fairly simple case - two people who are being sued by an auditor over their role in the collapse of a company are way too personally involved to be editing articles about said auditor and said company. Ambi 02:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside statement by David Gerard

This may be related to the Australian Politics Vandal, a troll/vandal who adds possibly defamatory statements to all manner of articles related to minor Australian politics. The link is not certain, but it smells of it - David Gerard 11:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've looked in CheckUser. There's a sockpuppet theatre going on here. I'll be writing up a private report with details for the AC and blocking a string of sockpuppets very soon - David Gerard 18:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

At Ambi's request, I've run the necessary checkusers and blocked all the sockpuppets I could find. My results are available to the committee privately, and I'm working on a detailed breakdown. Essjay 09:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by DarrenRay

"Since many people read Seigenthaler's op-ed, and few people responded to the original article, some Misplaced Pages contributors (known as Wikipedians) questioned his reluctance to simply correct the page. Other contributors pointed out the existence of an autobiography guideline on Misplaced Pages which is often interpreted to mean that users may not edit pages about themselves, and still others noted that even if he corrected the page, he would have to keep track of it for the rest of his life to be sure that inaccuracies were not added and compared opting-out of spam to the demand that Seigenthaler fix the inaccuracies himself.

From Seigenthaler controversy article

1. To the very limited extent that I have made edits that relate to myself, I have been motivated by what I believe to be the legitimate objective of ensuring neutrality in the articles that mention me. The alternatives including publicly attacking Misplaced Pages seemed much less appropriate choices. It's hard not to admire the creation of a 💕 for everyone. I note that that the last time I edited the article that contains some information relating to me was on 11 March and was quite uncontentious and did not in any event relate to me.
2. I was told by one experienced editor that because I was not an anonymous editor that my contributions would be closely scrutinised if I edited about myself. I don't have any problem with being subjected to that scrutiny. But I don't see why my honesty about my identity should enable anonymous/pseudonymous editors to say that my contributions are - per se - illegitimate and not worth considering. I am not proposing to write a vanity article about myself, I would just like the opportunity to correct errors when I identify them, as I believe Mr Seienthaler ought to have done.
3. I did not write the Rugs Galore article but there is an afd about it, and I personally think it's worth keeping. I have had some involvement with one of the people (Dean McVeigh) involved in that article but (he's not an auditor by the way) but I read the article and don't have any issue with it.
4. The Dean McVeigh article had many versions but I don't believe that any contribution I made could be said to constitute an attack. In any event, the article has been for the time being merged with another article and there haven't been any edits about that content for well over a week.
5. I have tried to reach an understanding about what Misplaced Pages's rules are and believe I have complied with them. I have - even if I do say so myself - contributed as much as I could to Misplaced Pages in a short term. I must have caught the bug or something, but the main point is that I believe my openness about my identity should not make me the punching bag de jour. If there are specific edits that I have made that Ambi has an issue with (I certainly have issue with many of hers), I would be pleased to discuss that. I have a lot to learn and am keen to do so.
6. David Gerard's suggestions that I am another user or vandal are not correct. I stand by every edit I have made. I find it a little ironic that he would suggest that I am guilty of defamation in light of what's being going on.

DarrenRay 06:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Garglebutt

I have probably been more involved in the heat of this battle than most other editors. Both the involved parties came to WP with strong agendas and predetermined views on how articles would look, with strong opposal to any views that did not coincide with their own. They sought and ignored advice from others, including admins, as they tried to find a way to enforce their particular POV on the articles of interest to them. I appreciate there are (at least) two sides to every story, but it is not appropriate to swing an article from one extreme to the other and call it NPOV.

The blog of 2006BC is a slanderous and vitriolic critique of Dean McVeigh, which makes it difficult to believe that he has come to WP to write balanced articles that reference McVeigh or the union liquidation in general. Edits I made that provided direct quotes from media coverage where reverted by both parties as slanderous or POV, and suggested that the quoted newspaper was a biased source(Talk:Melbourne_University_student_organisations#Reversion_of_facts). DarrenRay also tried to remove tags making his personal involvement clear stating this was irrelevant.

One of my concerns has been the apparent collusion by DarrenRay, 2006BC and to a lesser degree User:AChan to revert attempts to rework what are considered POV edits by other editors to these and other articles to avoid WP:3RR by passing the baton to the next person when each individual hits 3RR. This is bad faith editing and has made it even more difficult to gain consensus in balanced edits.

Criticisms aside, both DarrenRay and AChan have made some worthwhile contributions when they are not revert warring over contentious political articles, but on a number of occasions when things seem to be settling down, 2006BC has stirred the pot as is the case with the Rugs Galore article. Garglebutt / (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Xtra

I have previously supported a Request for arbitration against these two and their "associates". They are not interested in consensus building and are continually adding personal attacks against Dean McVeigh. Normally I would think that it is good that someone associated with an organisation is adding content, but ith these two users I differ. Due to their continual POV pushing, adding of personal attacks, reverting against consensus, I believe they should be banned from editing any page to do with Melbourne University student activities and from adding any content to do with Dean McVeigh. Xtra 00:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by 2006BC

Could this arbitration also consider the personal attacks and discourteous remarks made from User:Garglebutt and User:Ambi. Garglebutt has also been engaged in user page vandalism. Is it appropriate now to list those or do we wait for later? 2006BC 01:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, if User: David Gerard is making allegations against me (if he is), I believe it would be procedurally fair for him to disclose anything that might later be regarded as relevant, including political associations and so on. I note I make no allegations here at all (I've had enough of all the personal attacks going on) but I thought it might be helpful for me to prompt a disclosure now before we go much further. 2006BC 02:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to David Gerard's statement:

Can you please explain what you mean by "sockpuppet theatre". Far from being a sockpuppet I edit while disclosing my name, on my user page where I disclose my political affiliation. I look forward to David Gerard engaging in similar disclosure. Without this a 'private report' will be very hard to take seriously. --2006BC 02:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside statement by Esteffect

I apologise if this statement is being made in the wrong place, but I figured it is correct. Please note that I am not at all defending either user's actions, which I believe are wrong. However, I am almost certain that Darren Ray and Benjamin Cass are different people. Firstly, both are listed as presidents of the Melbourne University Student Union. Secondly, various Google searches give results such as this, which suggests that both persons do exist. From an hour long discussion on IRC in #wikipedia, which both Ray and Cass were present for, it seems that the two are very good friends with very similar ideologies, and that the two work together (I will loosely suggest that is where the matching IPs came from). I'm not supporting or opposing any motion with regard to blocking and unblocking, but in the interest of fairness, I hope that the two are treated as different people in this case, and not as the same. Esteffect 13:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Note on sockpuppets from David Gerard

Darren Ray is User:DarrenRay and User:AChan. He and Benjamin Cass are indeed different people, although they appear to have edited from each others' houses, both using their own accounts and their socks' accounts. Ben Cass (User:2006BC) has a string of his own socks.

If these guys aren't actually the exclusive operators of the phenomenon that the vandal-hunters have named "the Australian Politics Vandal" then they're the main operators.

I've sent a fuller report to the AC. I also just blocked AChan as a sock indefinitely and DarrenRay for 48 hours for sockpuppet abuse to evade 3RR. Darren can, of course, still communicate with the AC via email. (You lucky people!)

And their obsession with small-time headkicking politics is remarkable. I got a query on my talk page from Ben Cass asking what my party affiliation is. WTF. I'm with the "we're here to write an encyclopedia, not play pitterpat with people using it for petty outside ambitions" party. Thanks ever so much - David Gerard 17:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The checkuser evidence is confusing until you realise there's more than one person, which is probably how Essjay concluded 2006BC was the same as DarrenRay. Coordinated vandalism/POV-pushing teams are really quite rare, thankfully. I'm now trying to work out who person number three is editing as, and if there's a fourth.

I strongly recommend the AC ban Darren Ray and Benjamin Cass by name. Knocking their political legs out from under them is the only way to take away their motivation. They've been trashing Misplaced Pages for months in this cause, and a general admin disgust ban hasn't stopped their assiduous work one dot - David Gerard 20:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Additional note on sockpuppetry from Kelly Martin

I've also reviewed the CheckUser evidence that David and Essjay refer to above, and I see clear indication of a combination of multiple sockpuppetry, coordinated edits, and so forth. I've submitted a summary of the evidence to the Arbitration Committee privately, and place myself at their discretion should they require additional information on the basis of my conclusions. It is my opinion that there are two individuals, possibly three, who are coordinating their activities across multiple accounts for the purpose of using Misplaced Pages as a vehicle to gain advantage in a dispute not within Misplaced Pages. As such, I recommend that all such individuals should be banned under the precedent set in the Bogdanov Affair case last year and all accounts used by those individuals blocked. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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

• Accept. Behaviour here appears to be beyond what is acceptable. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Dmcdevit·t 20:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. ➥the Epopt 03:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

FourthAve

Involved parties

FourthAve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jaysuschris (talk · contribs) (bringing this issue to the attention of the committee)

Jesster79 (talk · contribs)

Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

User-multi error: "Reyk" is not a valid project or language code (help).

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Notice to FourthAve

Notice to JesseG

Notice to Tony Sidaway

Notice to Reyk

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

1. Various warnings
2. Talk page intervention
3. Talk page intervention
4. Attempted mediation by Reyk
5. RFC by me.

Statement by Jaysuschris

It was my sincere hope that this matter could be settled without coming to this forum. Unfortunately, the intervention of various third parties has done little to abate FourthAve’s behavior. His consistent violations of WP:NPA and WP:NPOV in the face of informal and formal warnings by other editors, stern warning by administrators, and even a couple of account blocks, has led me to the realization that no other choice exists. The following list is a summary of activities that I believe the Arbitration Committee should consider.

1. Personal attack A B, C, D against me
2. Personal attack against JesseG
3. Obscenity/Extreme violation of NPOV (sexually derogatory language)
4. Extreme NPOV violation in Bob Vander Plaats
5. Extreme NPOV violation A, B, C, D, E, and F in University of Dubuque
6. Extreme NPOV violation A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H in Jim Nussle
7. Personal attack when notified of the RfC A, B, and C
8. Probable sock puppet (all edits were WP:NPOV or WP:NPA violations in the custom of this editor)
9. Personal attack A, B, C, and D against Tony Sidaway

FourthAve’s behavior goes beyond what should be acceptable, even in politically sensitive articles. It is my hope that the Arbitration Committee will join me in the view that FourthAve should be enjoined from editing Jim Nussle, Bob Vander Plaats, and University of Dubuque while this matter is considered due to his demonstrated unwillingness to adhere to WP:NPOV in these articles. - Jaysus Chris 11:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Statement by JesseG

In regards to the FourthAve user, I wish that it had never had to come to this level. I wish that we could've resolved this issue long before having to take it to this formal level. However I don't see that we have much choice here, as FourthAve has ignored repeated requests to respect others (contributors, other people, institutions, etc). However our requests seem to have all fallen on deaf ears, FourthAve has not only ignored such requests, but has also continued to engage in personal attacks. He has been blocked for short periods of time, and after these blocks have expired, he comes back and engages in further attacks.

I feel that some sort of stronger action needs to be taken by the administration of Misplaced Pages. FourthAve has shown through word and deed that he will not listen to others and will do what he pleases, regardless of whether or not it is acceptable behavior. He has shown nothing but contempt for others. And if he will not respond to arbitration by ceasing personal attacks and vandalism of articles, then he should be banned from making further contributions. It is still my hope, even now, that FourthAve will avail himself of this one last chance he is being offered, that he will cease making personal attacks and vandalizing articles so that he can continue to make a useful contribution to the Misplaced Pages article.

JesseG 04:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

An odd case. This fellow has many, many edits and considers himself a good ("admin level") contributor to the project. However he is obsessed with the supposed evilness of political Republicans, in particular a certain Iowa Congressman. FourthAve has repeatedly and persistently added allegations of political corruption and moral turpitude of this fellow and his current wife to the biographical article on the Congressman and also to related articles. He has accused those who object to his lurid addenda of being such things as "a typically Republican vandal, like those in the Speakers office editing wikipedia for partisan advantage" and "a vandal, a troll, a piece of shit."

Over the past few days I've been attempting to dissuade this fellow from pursuing his obsession; his other edits seem to be in good faith if not of particularly high quality. He continued his vandalism today at the end of a 24-hour block

I'm not convinced that an arbitration would have any effect in this case. His problematic activities are blockable, and inasmuch as he is likely to respond to blocks by limiting the vandalism and personal attacks, so he is likely to avoid progressively longer blocks. Should his behavior continue, he will be blocked for months or perhaps permanently. I can think of no possible arbitration remedy that could further empower the community to remedy his actions, and suggest that arbitration would probably be a waste of time at this stage, Should he eventually respond to blocking by ceasing vandalism and personal attacks, then in all likelihood there will be no remaining problem with this editor, and in any case this would be a problem for a future arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 12:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

At the time of writing, User:FourthAve is just about to start the second day of a seven day block imposed by User:Nlu in response to the former's renewal of his comically inept personal attacks . He had not, however, resumed his vandalism on that occasion. --Tony Sidaway 05:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Reyk

The trouble with this guy is that he thinks he's in the right. Most vandals, trolls and other such people know they're doing the wrong thing, but not FourthAve. He considers himself to be a decent contributor to Misplaced Pages, and indeed he is so long as he's not talking about politics. Unfortunately he seems to think his political opinions are unassailable fact and that anyone who attempts to rein in his POV pushing is either stupid or malicious.

It's so hard to reason with a person like that. He refuses to compromise on any point, and he deals with criticism by levelling bizarre accusations and obscene personal attacks at people. Even when warned, and blocked, he just will not change his behaviour. It's a pity it's had to come to this, but I don't think he'll ever listen to anyone.

I would love to be wrong on this one, but I believe it will eventually require a long-term block or even a banning. Reyk 21:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside comment by MONGO

The level of personal incivility has become blockable and is borderline bannable at this point. I posted an unrelated comment on Tony Sidaway's talk page and saw that the next edit to Sidaway's talk page was a partial blanking of the page by User:FourthAve. I asked FourthAve if this was an accident and s/he responded about being at an admin level of editing (not sure what that has to do with the page blanking), but later again, did not answer my question at all, instead being deliberately confusing. I saw further incivility after being informed about FourthAve and tried to communicate about the need for civility , , . When User:Jaysuschris informs me of the situation in more depth, FourthAve responds with nothing but insults and profanity to Jaysuschris...I also should ask all to note the reference to the following comment by FourthAve in the last diff: "Jaysus Chris is blasphemous by his choice of user name: he clearly has a deep personal hatred of the Ten Commandments". FourthAve then calls Jaysuschris a "bitch" and signs(?) his next post to my usertalk with "Ten Commandments". FourthAve last comment on my usertalk was a bit calmer, but still argumentative, and this was after I had repeatedly asked him to be more civil.. My usertalk page is then hit with this edit by an anon, and asks me "Shall I call you a homosexual slut?", right after mentioning editor Jaysuschris and the Ten Commandments again. The rudeness and incivility doesn't seem to have abated much, with edit summaries such as "Fixed right-wing-whako depravity", , and POV unreferenced nastiness such as "Bullock is a whore", "many graduates of UD regard him and his wife as common prostitutes" . If this keeps up a long term block is mandatory. Start with a week and then a month. Editors to this project do not need to be called "bitch", "piece of shit", or "homosexual slut". Further acts of incivility should then result in longer blocks. It should be noted that I see his contributions aside from the incivility to be suspect as well, as they are extremely POV and unreferenced, so I'm not sure much loss is going to occur to Misplaced Pages if FourthAve sits out a week or even a month block to try and reconstitute themself.--MONGO 20:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

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

• Accept and note that that arbitration proceedings have no bearing on whether blockable offenses can be blocked for, and you ought to pursue that as well. Dmcdevit·t 07:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 04:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• Accept, but as Dmcdevit note that blockable behaviour can lead to a block without arbcom intervention. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Waya sahoni and WP:RS vs. SCOX and Linux Community Editors

Involved parties

• Waya_sahoni (talk · contribs · logs)
• MediaMangler (talk · contribs · logs)
• Aim_Here (talk · contribs · logs)
• Mjpieters (talk · contribs · logs)
• OneNamelessCat (talk · contribs · logs)
• Vigilant (talk · contribs · logs)
• Jerryg (talk · contribs · logs)
• Kebron (talk · contribs · logs)
• Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs · logs)
• BWD (talk · contribs · logs)
• Vryl (talk · contribs · logs)
• Talks_to_birds (talk · contribs · logs)
• Pgk (talk · contribs · logs)
• Natalinasmpf (talk · contribs · logs) - listed herself as a party

Clerk note (3/0/0/0)

This case application has been moved to /Waya sahoni because of the bulk. Please add comments, arbitrator votes, etc, there, and they will be precised by clerks here.

Precis:

Waya sahoni requests an injunction of three months against certain parties editing the article Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, on the grounds that they injected poorly sourced content. Respondents claimed for the most part that this was a frivolous, disingenuous or ridiculous request. Some stated that they believed that Waya sahoni was actually Jeffrey Vernon Merkey himself. Waya sahoni withdrew the request for arbitration.

Fred Bauder voted to accept, primarily to consider whether the information in the article was adequately sourced, but also to consider the editing of Waya sahoni. He added "I think we need an affirmation of intent to avoid autobiographical editing, if a complete ban is to be avoided". Jdforrester and Dmcdevit have also voted to accept.

Waya Sahoni has stipulated that he is prepared to undergo a voluntary ban from editing Jeffrey Vernon Merkey in the form of a joint agreement with arbcom. He requests that the other involved editors be similarly banned from the article but be permitted to make contributions to the article's talk page, and that anyone who has stated that he's "here to stalk Jeff Merkey" be banned from following Waya sahoni or Jeffrey Merkey around Misplaced Pages to revert or deface their edits.

Currently there are three Arbitrator acceptance votes, no recusals, no rejections.

Last updated by --Tony Sidaway 06:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Requests for Clarification

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

Guanaco injunction

Is Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Proposed decision#Guanaco restricted from admin reversals intended to prohibit routine reversals such as un-semi-protecting pages after the vandals have left or enforcement of decisions on pages like Misplaced Pages:Deletion review? —Guanaco 23:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to a question of whether or not we think you'll try to use such an exception to game the system. Raul654 02:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes. The injunction is intended to prohibit, while the case is being considered, any reversals of any admin actions. Misplaced Pages will not crumble and fall if you do not personally maintain it for the few days this case will be open. ➥the Epopt 03:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

How much longer do you intend to drag this on? —Guanaco 04:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately for both you and me, there appear to be plenty of other cases, yours being one of the newest. Arbitration tends to be a game of patience. Dmcdevit·t 07:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in my experience they can be quite speedy about things, at times. Everyking 08:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of gaming the system; I have better games to play, some of which are actually fun. —Guanaco 04:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII probation

Due to frequent, problematic disruption of the admin's noticeboard, such as reporting month old vandalism by a user he was engaged in a dispute with and repeatedly shouting, I considered banning RJII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from the page under the terms of his probation. However, the decision spefically uses the word "article"- Would this ban be covered by the probation, or would an amendment of the previous decision be necessary for a ban to take effect?--Sean Black 08:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with this, as it's in line with the spirit of our ruling. If he's being disruptive, he ought to be banned from it. RJII doesn't seem to be getting our message, however. You may want to bring consider, on AN, enacting the general probation for an appropriate length of time. Dmcdevit·t 09:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Given this, I have done so. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RJII_Banned_from_AN_.26_AN.2FI Essjay 10:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

CarlHewitt

If the anon 24.23.213.158 is CarlHewitt, then I believe he's violating Remedy 1 in editing Arbiter (electronics). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how that is autobiographical editing (and not just editing in his field)? Otherwise I don't see the justification for an IP check. Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

He seems to have created the concepts, according to the references and previous discussions. But whether or not the Admins (or whichever level administers blocks) agree that his current edits are autobiographical, it should be noted that he and now Anonymouser may be Carl. See the history of Talk:Indeterminacy in computation for details. (Also, to whose attention should I bring questions of identity related to Arbitration remedies.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

These don't appear to check out as Carl Hewitt, according to the location of that ip. Fred Bauder 01:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I know Hewitt edited from User:67.142.130.28, both IPs are from California. I also find User:71.198.215.78's and User:24.147.9.238's edits suspicious. —Ruud 04:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There's little doubt in my mind that this is Hewitt; Bah, who cares. Not a massive land grab.--CSTAR 19:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Concur that User:71.198.215.78 sounds suspiciously like Carl, as does User:24.23.213.158. I don't see anything obvious in the contrib history for User:24.147.9.238 — did you mean someone else? --Allan McInnes (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

User:24.147.9.238 added an external link to MIT CSAIL to Scheme programming language, but I may be seeing ghosts here. —Ruud 02:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh my... User:Anonymouser. This guy removed the NPOV tag from Scientific Community Metaphor. —Ruud 02:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone case

The arbcom recently placed all three on probation, the latter over usage of sources, the former two over edit warring on the issue of allegations of homosexuality and bisexuality in articles. I have deliberately avoided entering the debate on the issue of sources because I do not have access to US biographies and magazines and so cannot prove either accuracy or inaccuracy. I have had to block both Wilkes and Wyss, the former a number of times, for clear breaches of their prohibition on editing biographical articles on allegations of homosexuality and bisexuality. The latter seens to have quit WP in a huff as a result. Wilkes however, while not editing articles, is using talk pages to mispresent onefortyone's probation by alleging that Onefortyone was convicted of lying by the arbcom. See also here. In fact the decision of the arbcom related to the reliability of sources, not lies.

Probation explicitly mentions articles. That could be interpreted narrowly to include just the article and not the talk page, or broadly to include the talk page, given that the talk page discusses and shapes the contents of the article. The arbcom ruling explicitly uses the word "broadly". Does this mean that three admins may also impose restrictions on the edits placed in talk pages dealing with the areas (homosexuality and bisexuality) that Wilkes is prohibited from editing. Wilkes has clearly breached Misplaced Pages ettiquette but has he breached the implicit conditions of his probation by posting allegations that another user who was the subject of an arbcom ruling is a "convicted liar" when that is a distortion of the arbcom ruling? FearÉIREANN\ 23:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The ruling does not make "article" explicit with regard to the newest remedy. That general probation is to apply as a full ban. Any three admins can ban him (as in a block-ban, not ban-from-an-article) for a year or less. This "good cause" can include any kind of disruption, certainly the kind you are describing, if three admins agree. Dmcdevit·t 00:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Never letting the thing go, on and on and on, focusing on that one issue is certainly disruptive. I think the gist of the decision is that it is not up to either of them to police Onefortyone. Fred Bauder 02:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Everyking 3

The only thing it says under the heading "Enforcement" in Everyking 3 is that Snowspinner does not get to enforce the remedies . So does anybody else, and if so how? Everyking is for instance right now violating Remedy 3, "Everyking is prohibited from making comments on non-editorial actions taken by other administrators other than on the administrator's talk page, a Request for comment, or a Request for arbitration", by attacking my actions at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates., .From my point of view the worst part is that he's making my life more difficult by encouraging a problem user and offering to enable further disruption from him. So, er, is my only recourse here to make sure that Snowspinner doesn't enforce the remedy? It seems a little limited. Bishonen | ノート 22:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC).

Be careful, EK might seize this "opportunity" to rant about this decision. --TML1988 22:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The default, unless specified otherwise, on all arbcom rulings is that any administrator can enforce the rulings with short blocks if they see fit. In this case, it is any administrator who is not me. So you can feel free to use a short block here. Phil Sandifer 22:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

He can be blocked for disruption, Bish. SlimVirgin 22:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

He clearly knows he's violating the decision, and is willfully violating it and hoping no one will enforce it. Block him for a week. Next time he does it, block him for longer. Raul654 23:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Archives

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (unofficial)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution