Misplaced Pages

Statement length: ~450 words -- Kim van der Linde 16:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have striken my statement, as I do not want to be part of the case but want to be on my way out of wikipedia as I think that wikipedia is way to much process oriented (at the expense of content quality), to much anti-expert and filled with way to many POV-pushers, even among Admins, to ever become something that could be called an encyclopedia. -- Kim van der Linde 00:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Question to Tony by El_C

Have you attempted to discuss the "extermely" concerns with the respective parties anywhere? If so, where? Have you attempted to facilitate an RfC (not an article one, about a single image as cited above, but a conduct one)? If so, where? Have you tried, or have there been an attempt to, persuade the contesting parties to accept Mediation (not mediation cabal, but formal mediation headed by approved members of the Mediation Committee)? If so, where? This leads to the question of why you feel that you, yourself, can abstain from the normal steps of dispute resolution that other editors are expected to follow. I havne't edited the article or read it closely, so this RfAr strikes me as messy, desprately lacking coherence and organization. I challenge that the onus is on the filer, Tony Sidaway, to do much more to provide some sort of a basis. El_C 20:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I want to commend Tony for the honest introspection. Tis certainly to his credit. But with tongue partially in cheek, I will remind him that intern positions on the Association of Member Investigations are currently suspended, indefinitely, as I have tagged it {{historical}} last week. ;) But beyond Tony's own mediational efforts (or lack thereof), I'd like to stress on the need for establishing a sufficient investigatory and evidentiary basis that later on can lead to a more coherent overview, prior to filing an RfAr. That is, with such a formula in mind, contacting one of "life's mediators" (*waves*) to try to advance the dispute toward mediation and/or RfC, as the next logical step. Thus, if those efforts are exhausted, then, an RfAr can be filed, with the Arbitration Committee thereby enjoying the benefits of the original overview, plus whatever additions and modifications that follow from mediation/RfC (i.e. a more substantive account, even and despite failed results). Otherwise, it reminds me of the old legend where the horse was put on the cart, and then it had to be carried around by people (this was in the olden days before rocket-powered horse carts), with great effort, much to the confusion although quite posaibly enjoyment of said horse. I'd like to also note my surprise at how quickly Fred accepted the request. Perhaps he knows something I don't, but I always known him to be rather strict about exhuasting other dispute resolution steps in general, and mediation, in particular, prior to accepting requests. El_C 01:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment from probably uninvolved party ChrisO

(Disclaimer: I've contributed a short historical section to the article but otherwise have not been involved in the controversy; I'm approaching this as an outside observer.)

I second El_C's comments above and agree that mediation would be a better intermediate step. Having said that, I also feel that there are real problems with editor interaction on this article. I've noticed some unnecessarily aggressive and confrontational comments from experienced editors which can't have helped to defuse tensions between editors. I'm also concerned that we seem to repeatedly hear similar complaints involving many of the same editors in a range of articles on Middle Eastern topics, suggesting that perhaps there's a broader problem here. I wonder if part of the problem might be that some editors feel that they have to "defend" certain articles. This could well give rise to a perception among other editors that "ownership" was being claimed. I'm not sure that's an arbitrable issue, though - it would seem more appropriate to refer it to a conduct RfC as El_C suggests. -- ChrisO 23:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Leifern

I drop into this article from time to time, and my impression is that there are constant content disputes, frequent bickering, and some nastiness. But if the Arbcomm decides to get into this, it will require a lot of forensic analysis to sort out who did what to whom, for what reason, and on what basis. To be credible, an arbitration decision has to be very well substantiated, and that's going to take a lot of work for everyone involved. Some of the involved individuals are very active and productive editors, and this may distract them from doing much more productive things. There may be specific issues - e.g., use of images - that call for clarification and/or arbitration, but my advice would be to let the argument run its course. --Leifern 23:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Andjam

I heard about this RFAr via one of the users' talk pages. While recognising that wikipedia is not censored for minors, I would appreciate it if Ben Houston could remove the profanity from his statement. Profanity is generally unnecessarily incivil and reflects poorly on wikipedia. I also feel that other parts of the statement are worded a bit harshly, but at least they're expressing concerns. Andjam 03:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Briangotts

It is entirely unclear to me what the dispute is here, or exactly what is being "arbitrated". Most of the parties offering comments have little or no involvement with the article, or state that they are not sure that they are involved. There do not appear to me to have been any violations of specific WP policy.

There have been no attempts to resolve this issue in other more appropriate fora or to go through the required procedures of mediation, RfC, etc. The issues at dispute here appear to be entirely content-based, and my understanding is that the ArbCom is not in the business of mediating content. Many of those who raise issues appear to be unfamiliar with the topic and the research and scholarly literature relating thereto. It seems the real objection is to the existence of an article on this topic in any form, and it looks like the dispute is at its heart one between those who want to present the ongoing discussion of this issue in society (i.e. Jay and SV) and those who would prefer, for personal and subjective reasons, to ridicule and denigrate the concepts without regard for the real underlying issues.

This dispute is entirely inappropriate for the Arbitration Committee and should be rejected outright, or referred to mediation. The almost immediate acceptance of this vague, poorly defined case, explicitly based on the desire to sort out content issues within the article, is inappropriate and seems to me to violate the manner in which the ArbCom is supposed to function.

--Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:Rednblu

The causative defect here is that Misplaced Pages policy is written in such self-contradictory text that it incites and intensifies the kinds of turf battles and personal attacks in the complaint. I illustrate the defect of self-contradictory policy text with the following unattributed exchange from another but similar turf possession and personal attack page.

Alpha: When I check your cite, I see that you quote only the portion that supports your POV. Then I add more of that cite for context and for NPOV. Why do you delete it?

Beta: First I insert a quote in a way that is entirely accurate. The section was on critical response, not popularity, and I quoted the part that concerned the former. I initially tried to use the whole quote, but it was awkward to insert into this context, as shown by your own attempt, which led to a false claim. In fact, some of her works were popular, but not all of them were bestsellers. Seeing your error, I gently corrected it so that it used almost the whole quote, yet did not leave a misconception in the reader's mind.

Beta above has read the wrongly worded statement in the WP:NPOV page "When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed" literally--that is, that she is supposed to remove "misconceptions" from the statements of the scholars she quotes. In contrast, Alpha above has applied the NPOV mandate to "represent all significant views fairly and without bias" correctly--that is, that she is supposed to present what the published writer actually said, neither adding to nor deleting from the POV that the scholar actually conveyed in the writing. That is, the WP:NPOV page lacks self-consistent and useable definitions for "bias," POV, and NPOV.

Let us all consider our human plight with compassion. In the absence of clear policy definitions our default negotiation of conflict is 1) turf possession and as much 2) personal attack as the surrounding community will tolerate. We inherited this default and instinctive language of consensus negotiation from the ancestors of the chimpanzees, and I refer you to any standard text on chimpanzee politics for the genetic explanations and mechanisms.

What we need here are clear definitions of Misplaced Pages policy that can build a culture that is compassionate for our inherited nature but controls it rather than incites and enflames conflict as the current unclear Misplaced Pages policy text does now in the New anti-semitism page and the myriad other Misplaced Pages instances of 1) turf possession and as much 2) personal attack as the community will tolerate.

(Statement less than 450 words including this statistics line.) --Rednblu 19:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved User:IronDuke

Although I agree that this RfAr is very much out of process, I don’t think that should be a barrier to its acceptance. If it helps WP, it’s worth having. However, I think this is simply a fishing expedition meant as some sort of policy test case. Although I think curtailing POV in all its glorious forms on WP articles is worth doing, it isn’t worth doing at the expense of the wikistress it inflicts on valuable editors. And Jay and Slim have just been dragged through this very recently, and to what purpose? Wasting hours and hours of how many people’s time?

There are always going to be POV wars on WP as long as it remains a wiki. And in this case, as these wars go, this all seems quite mild. Yes, there can be heated words, but if Arbcom wishes to make it their business to clamp down on heated words, I suggest expanding the committee fairly substantially. You’ll have dozens, if not hundreds, of cases a day to deal with.

I hope that this case is dismissed before much more time is wasted. Fighting POV on WP is a huge task; it cannot be done from a top-down approach, only a critical mass of editors acting in good faith can do this. We must all convince each other of the utility of this.

I have contributed approximately zero edits to the article in question. IronDuke 00:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved User:Irpen

Just read this case and I must say I am amazed how very strange this ArbCom submission is. Not being involved in the article in question, I am involved in a slowly going content dispute over a related article with some of the very editors mentioned in the #Statement by User:Tony Sidaway, an originator of this case. While that other dispute is by no means resolved, and that frustrates me and, I am sure, my opponents as well, it somehow did not cross my mind that the busiest Highest Authority of Misplaced Pages is the way to proceed to get that disagreement resolved, especially since ArbCom clearly emphasizes that "it doesn't do content".

There are numerous ways to deal with what seems insoluble content disputes we are all familiar with. Both sides of this content dispute surely know how to appeal to a wider audience, call for mediation, request and cite sources, call an article or (god forbid) user RfC and/or place appropriate tags over the whole article, or its selected sections, or label disagreeable claims, etc. I read the article's talk and this seems a not-out-of-the-ordinary discussion between two sides, although highly opinionated ones. I see some stubbornness but no evidence of foul play. I had much more frustrating discussions over content and most where eventually resolved through the normal means.

What I find especially alarming is the way how this case is originally submitted. None of the parties involved in the dispute even mentioned arbitration in their prior discussions, and all of a sudden a "concerned" user appears out of the blue... The user makes no attempts to resolve the dispute to which he has no relation or involvement and, likely, familiarity. The user says no word on the talk page, does not indicate that he even read the article and talk in their entirety and concocts a strange submission here, as if WP:ArbReq is some kind of a joke. If the user sees a violation of WP:OWN of such a gross scale that an ArbCom intervention is needed, he should have made the case emphasizing WP:OWN violation. What we see is "ownership" is only passingly mentioned with the weasel word "perceived" while the emphasis is put on some unidentified "extremely ugly interaction". The originator also mentions a "possibly defensible perception" (three meaningless weasel words in a row!) that some "extremely highly respected members of the community" permit "their personal biases to intrude into the editing". Is that news? How many of us, respected and disrespected, don't permit that? That's what the talk pages are for!

So, not only a lack of clarity in the original statement as well as an obvious compliant's lack of interest in the topic (how did he get to that article at all?) but also lack of any arbitrable substance masked by the frequent use of weasel terms made me suspect that there is something else going on here, either an attempt to get an upper hand in an unrelated quarrel, settle scores or I don't know what. That this in haste attempt is made in circumvention of all rules of DR development despite the user knows all too well the normal order and, especially, what belongs where in Misplaced Pages in every detail, only adds to my perception that something here is fishy.

IMHO, the arbitrators should not concern themselves with this purely a content dispute. As such, the original statement should be ignored, at least in relation to the possible case about the article in question. WP:OWN claim might or might not be valid but for that to be judged, there should be a clear complaint of the affected editors who would state that they feel such an abuse of WP:OWN that ArbCom action is need. All the supposedly wronged editors, except one, simply wrote that they are unhappy about the situation. So am I over a good dozens of articles. As such, I don't see a need to arbitrate on the original issue.

However, should ArbCom be willing to investigate the possibility of this being a frivolous litigation (known here as WP:WL), this might be a valid and important case that would discourage using an ArbCom for the purposes to intimidate as this goes against everything writing encyclopedia is all about. --Irpen 05:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Quadell (uninvolved)

I read through the request for arbitration, and I read through the New Anti-Semitism article and its talk page. This was a lot of reading, but I can't avoid the conclusion that there seems to be no basis for the request for arbitration. Yes, I think the article at present reads too much like an essay. Yes, long-term users who have contributed a great deal to an article tend to get confused about "ownership", and need to remember that all editors are equals. But it seems like this arbitration request is being used as a way of preemptively getting people to avoid unpleasant arguments, or to make a point, or to encourage upstanding Wikipedians to act exemplarly. And that's not what arbitration requests should be for.

I also want to add my name to the list of people who find Freb Bauder's reason for acceptance baffling. Find who is maintaining the article? The edit history makes that trivial. Sorry state? That's a judgement against content, which isn't a part of the ArbCom's purview. Way too long and POV? The correct way to deal with that is through editing, not arbitration. Let's apply consistent standards here.

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/2/0/0)

• Accept. We need to find who is maintaining the article in its present sorry state, way too long and POV. Fred Bauder 15:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC) The article has improved some. Fred Bauder 00:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. There are some serious problems here. There may even be personal cases to be made about individuals associated with this dispute. But this case does not look arbitration-ready. I think mediation would be more appropriate. Dmcdevit·t 04:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. - SimonP 12:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo

Initiated by Cowman109 at 16:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) not really involved, see below -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Cowman109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Template:Wp-diff
• Template:Wp-diff

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo
• Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-29 Russo-Turkish War, 1877–1878
• Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-07 Polish Cabal and myself as its leader
• Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-20 Crimean war
• ANI Report with a list of recent trolling and incivility
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive124#Ethnic slur
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/AndriyK#Ghirlandajo_warned
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive133#Ghirlandajo

Statement by Cowman109

Ghirlandajo has been consistently incivil towards other editors in his time here on Misplaced Pages and has made personal attacks as shown in the above RFC, has engaged in tendentious editing per the above Mediation Cabal cases and has recently trolled and provoked editors as shown by WP:ANI#Ghirlandajo. Also, another accusation is that he is making use of meatpuppets, such that many users come to defend him and support him in content disputes and other arguments. It also seems that wherever he goes, a certain group of users always supports him in content and user disputes, of note being Ghirlandajo's interactions with Polish users, as shown by the last ANI archive link, in particular Piotrus.

As an addendum, it seems that Ghirlandajo has failed to assume good faith of other editors he comes in conflict with, which promotes a negative environment between him and other editors. The responses to the recent ANI report also appear consistent with his behavior - if anything, it would have been better to simply leave the situation alone instead of further patronising other editors with the attitude that he is above them for his article contributions. If he would have liked to contest this block, it could have been much more civil to calmly ask for a review of the block instead of trolling with comments such as "When a stranger comes to WP:ANI and asks to block a well-established contributor... and he gets instantly blocked by a person whom that contributor criticised an hour ago... well, it is called... Wiki-justice, apparently. --Ghirla -трёп- 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC). I stand by my beliefs that his interactions with users are highly innapropriate for the encyclopedia, and while a block may not be in order, it needs to be made clear that his attitude towards other editors is innapropriate. Cowman109 20:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus

This arbitration is a suprise to me. To the best of my recollection I am not currently involved with any edit disputes with either Ghirlandajo or Cowman109, although for the record I had been involved in some major disputes with Ghirlandajo in the past. I can offer my comments in the current Ghirlandajo-Cowman dispute, as well as discuss my past experiences with Ghirla, and on the possible solution (I have thought about ArbRequest against Ghirla in the past) but as there is no current Ghirlandajo-Piotrus dispute I am not sure if I classify as an 'involved party'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party Grafikm_fr

I find this arbitration a bit quick, surprising and intempestive. Ghirla and Piotrus have been involved in a lot of disputes in the past, but the trend is clearly cooling down (as confirmed by Piotrus himself). For instance, Piotrus recently praised Ghirla for a well-written article on a Russo-Polish war, which is something rather new. In any case, conflicts now follow a rather well-established DR scheme and there is no reasons to take it further. As for the recent thread on WP:ANI, it does not even remotely qualify for ArbCom.

In the light of what I and Piotrus said, I suggest that our Arbitrators dismiss this case and return the respective parties to already existing DR processes. After almost a year of quite lengthy and often disruptive processes (which incidentally saw some of the main protagonists blocked) things are finally return to normal. Let's not start the fire again please. -- Grafikm 17:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Addenum 1: You will note that on ANI WP:ANI#Ghirlandajo, very few users find his remarks to be incivil. Angry, yes, but not incivil. Only Tony and Dmc find them so. By the way, both should recuse themselves from the case... -- Grafikm 01:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to Ideogram: "Ghirlandajo has driven many editors away from Misplaced Pages"? Do you have any proof of that? -- Grafikm 12:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to Ideogram #2: "Are you now going to argue that Ghirlandajo is kind and welcoming towards those he disagrees with, that he attracts more and better editors to the project?" First Ideogram, I find your phrase is bordering on procès d'intention and is quite disturbing. Second, Piotrus is witness, I warned Ghirla many times about his behavior. Point is, things are cooling down (well, they were before that sordid RFA affair) and that's why this Arbitration is intempestive. Putting more gaz in the fire won't solve things. -- Grafikm 13:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party Giano

Ghirlandajo can be abrupt and curt. He does not mince his words. He is however a huge asset to this encyclopedia, and the links provided by Cowman 109 at WP:ANI#Ghirlandajo as reason to bring this case, do not in my view prove anything

• A comment on a very contentious piece of Misplaced Pages history.
• A comment on my talk page mentioning no names just his view of a situation
• Again a view and a recommendation
• Yet again his view, no insults or obscenities.
• Some people may even call this wise advice.
• No one is singled out, again he states a view - no more.
• He expresses his view
• He concurs on a contentious matter with another editor, in this case me.
• And yet again he concurs with other editors.
• I cannot imagine why this dif is even listed. It is his view in a legitimate forum for expressing it.

In all the above links, Ghirlandajo has done no more than robustly express his opinion, which he is at liberty to do. That he does not do so in the language of an 18th century courtier at Versailles may be regretted by some, but there is no Wiki-law that says this has to be so. He uses no insults, or obscenities overall he seems to feel the system is at fault, and the overriding message is that of a good wikipedian anxious to do what he considers his best for the project

I submit that on the evidence provided by Cowman 109, Ghirlandajo has no case to answer. Cowman's statement "It also seems that wherever he goes, a certain group of users always supports him in content and user disputes" is meaningless - and has, I think, no business here. The reasons for bringing this case have been given, it would be wrong to keep digging and trying to find others. Evidence for bringing the case has been brought and it is in my view inconclusive unless to be a little brusqe is a crime Giano | talk 10:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Further to my statement I would like to make the following observations. This is a preliminary hearing to see if the charges brought by Cowman 109 are worth following. The arbcom may or may not feel the evidence he has presented worth further investigation.

However, not since the days of the inquisition have others then been allowed to turn up with further charges. This is contrary to every judicial system in the civilized world. People cannot just pop into a court room where a man is being tried for an murder and say "Oh yes, by the way, on his holiday in Minsk in 1989 he stole a policeman's whistle".

Some people may feel Tony Sidaway, Ideogram, and Renata should confine their comment to the evidence presented, and that they have had ample opportunity to begin a case themselves, but for their own reasons have decided not to. Some people may construe their actions to be jumping on the bandwagon, or even kicking a man when he is down. What ever their agenda it could smack of medieval justice. Such behaviour would not be allowed in any modern western court room.

The interchanges between Ideogram and those defending Ghirlandajo in a modern court of law, would be regarded as prosecuting council, a role he has assumed, badgering a witness before commencement of trial. This would cause the trial to be abandoned and Ideogram to be held in contempt of court.

The above is merely an observation of how Misplaced Pages justice differs from that in Europe and North America. Giano | talk 18:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And this leads me to beleive further comment is futile. The expression "For God;s sake" springs to mind. Giano | talk 07:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• To answer Mackensen's query the case concerns the points brought her by Cowman, see links above. However the case now seems to have been hijacked by Tony Sidaway who is going off on tangents unconnected to the case. His points should be dismissed in order that Ghilandajo can be judged fairly here. They are unconnected to this case. Giano | talk 07:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Ghirlandajo

I don't recall to have ever interacted with User:Cowman109. I don't remember him expressing any specific concerns on my talk. He never applied for mediation or comments of my behaviour which seemed questionable to him, to the best of my knowledge. In short, I fail to see in what am I being accused and by who. Unless it is explained what this case is about, I will not contribute to this arbitration. Please don't bother me, I have articles to write and not to discuss something of which I have no idea with someone who I don't know. Thanks, Ghirla 18:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I posted the above statement, User:Tony Sidaway came up with a statement against myself. It is instructive that when the issue was discussed on WP:ANI yesterday, no commentator except Tony Sidaway identified my comments as "inflammatory and grossly incivil". Others qualified them as "to the point", "slightly angry", and "just". Furthermore, the first time I mentioned him in my about 50,000 edits was an hour before that, when I posted this comment about the controversial re-promotion of Carnildo. Two hours later Tony Sidaway blocked me, citing that very edit as a pretext. Exhilarating, isn't it? After that, he returned to the RfA page and noted with satisfaction that "the noisy opponents of the RfA are now in the minority". Of course, Tony Sidaway didn't discuss the matter with me because he just came and blocked me immediately after reading my criticism. Did it never occur to him that gratuitous blocks of well-established contributors serve no other rational purpose than radicalizing them? It is notheworthy that in the same diffs I expressed criticism of ArbCom and Kelly Martin over Carnildo's re-promotion. The same day, Kelly Martin was quick to express her unconditional support for Tony's actions, while someone who I don't know launched an arbitration case. Well, I'm forced to give up the subject, as I was threatened with further blocks if I continue to question the validity of his behaviour. The whole affair seems to me like an attempt at revenge for my dissident opinions, which is also a nice pretext for User:Halibutt and other established ghirlaphobes from all quarters to add their 2 cents here. --Ghirla 07:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel obliged to respond to Renata's statement. As a member of the Lithuanian community, she is entitled to protect it from inroads made by Russian editors. I cannot help thinking that her statement was motivated by my yesterday's edit, which led to some rewriting of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, an article about a predominantly Slavic and Orthodox medieval state. This is a purely content dispute which has been caused by the fact that articles about Lithuanian history contain some extreme statements concerning Russian history. We have been over this mined ground over and over again. I'm sorry that Renata uses this page as an equivalent of an RfC. It is not fair to deny me an opportunity to explain my own edits in detail, especially as many diffs pertain to the articles written by myself. It would have been more helpful if she had discussed what she feels problematic about my behaviour on my talk page or on the article's talk page or on RfC, rather than bringing it up for the first time on this page. --Ghirla 07:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The latest accusations are so wildly different, that I fail to see anything in common between them. These are two separate cases. I remember to have had a content dispute with User:Mzajac last year, but I don't think that I have interacted with him after the ArbCom's decision concerning the subject matter of that old RfC. If we had some disputes recently or I was incivil towards Mzajac this year, I await diffs to refresh my memory. I may say for myself that I have avoided pages edited by Mzajac, knowing him for an exceedingly delicate editor who tends to overre-act to my edits. The difference of our characters is no basis for arbitration. Fred's accusation that User:Wiglaf left Misplaced Pages last year because of my disagreement with some of his more extreme views struck me speechless. I strongly advise to review the history of his relations with User:Molobo and his joint actions with User:Shauri, with whom I had never met in Misplaced Pages (cf. this and this), before making such sweeping accusations. I think that Wiglaf, with all his shortcomings, is irreplacable as an editor. I was involved in one slowly dragging content dispute with him (as User:Dbachmann may testify) but I don't recall any evidence of incivility or personal attacks there.

I was urged to trim my statement and therefore commented out my lengthy response to User:Ideogram, as the issue seems to have been settled, anyway. Since I can't see a common denominator between so many unsubstantiated accusations on seemingly unrelated matters and since I don't know which one is the main basis for this case, I follow the example of Pecher, Geogre, ALoan, and R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine), among others, and take a break until the next week in order to sort out my attitudes towards the project and all the bad blood that has characterized it of late. I shall return to this page when I understand what's going on here. --Ghirla 21:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Tony Sidaway

In response to Mackensen's plea for clarity, I'll put this case into a nutshell.

Ghirlandajo's ongoing behavior casts Misplaced Pages in divisive terms. Pole against Russian , himself against "aberrant" bureaucrats , himself (again) against "Carnildo's buds" , editors against administrators . The problematic behavior seems to have a long history and is not strictly related to any one incident. I think there is a behavioral problem that needs to be remedied in the interests of the encyclopedia.

Similar cases of a disruptive rabble-rousing polemicist who is also widely regarded as a good editor have come before the arbitration committee before, most notably in the Alienus case.

"Misplaced Pages is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Misplaced Pages discussions goes directly against our policies and goals." (What Misplaced Pages is not) --Tony Sidaway 01:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Ideogram

I first encountered Ghirlandajo in the course of mediating cases for Medcabal. He was edit-warring on two articles and refusing to discuss. My first attempt to get him to discuss was deleted as "trolling". When I tried to contact friends of Ghirlandajo to get some kind of communication he accused me of "wikistalking". He has also accused me of "revert-warring" and "sockpuppetry"

This is only my personal experience with Ghirlandajo, there are literally hundreds of similar instances. Ghirlandajo is paranoid, incivil, and incapable of assuming good faith. But the biggest problem is that Ghirlandajo believes that Misplaced Pages needs him more than he needs Misplaced Pages. As long as he has this holier-than-thou attitude he will treat the entire community with contempt. I don't know what rule this breaks, but I hope it is clear this attitude cannot be tolerated. --Ideogram 05:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Paranoia: calls the English Misplaced Pages "sinister" and "totalitarian" claims he was blocked for opposing an RFA implies bureaucrats are not to be trusted edit summary accusation of sockpuppetry

Failure to assume good faith: attacks another editor and his ancestors claims his opponent is a nationalist accuses an editor of being deliberately inflammatory and recommends he be banned edit summary calls previous editor a "stalking troll"

Incivility: sarcastically asks if his opponent has any arguments

Personal attacks: edit summary

Revert warring: ; , , ;

Ghirlandajo continues to claim he is being persecuted over individual events and refuses to understand that he has a long pattern of unacceptable behavior that needs to be addressed. --Ideogram 09:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"I'm sorry." Ghirla, I am not trying to belittle your awesome contributions here in any way, but those two words of yours mean more to me than all the rest. I have indeed noted that you have been more accommodating of late, but it took comments by Grafikm fr and others to make me realize this was a conscious effort. I am truly sorry that this RFAr got filed in the middle of all this but it was hard for us outsiders to see what was going on.

I am now prepared to recommend this RFAr be dropped as being obsolete, or that if it is accepted, Ghirla be given the lightest possible punishment, some kind of warning I suppose. The problem appears to have solved itself. --Ideogram 07:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Alex Bakharev

As an established meatpuppet user guilty in occasional support of User:Ghirlandajo I have to remind you that with all respect the task of this project is writing an enciclopedia. Without writing the articles all our wonderful social and administrative activities are just an empty mastrubation. On this page I heared a phrase Ghirlandajo is a valuable editor but.... I am not sure everybody here understands just how valuable he is for the project.

I consider myself to be a sort of content creator, having written around 150 articles some to WP:DYK level and over 15K edits with around 10K in the mainspace. Many of my mainspace are products of AWB and Vandalism reversion, so they are not that valuable. Despite a not particular impressive results it took a significant amount of effort. I think most of people here can say something like this about your own contributions. In the case of Ghirlandajo we have more than 1000 new articles, quite a number of them of a very high standards, more than 50K edits - most of them are actually content creation, not automatic tools, very little vandalism reversion, little revert warring and empty talk - 90% is what Misplaced Pages is for - the content creation. I am monitoring P:RUS/NEW and more or less aware of all new articles related to Russia. Ukraine and Belarus. The quality and quantity of Ghirlandajo's work there is equal to the total of next five..ten best users (me included). Without Ghirlandajo there would be huge holes in the Misplaced Pages's coverage of the 1/6 the Earth. Besides this I constantly find that Ghirlandajo making valuable contributions to the spheres completely outside the Eastern European realm. Anyway I will estimate that Ghirlandajo is approximately five to ten time more valuable than an average established user or admin like me.

Yes, he has strong opinions on some problems and occasionally not very civil. Sometimes he is stubborn. Still I am finding that it is an absolute disgrace for our project that we assemble here not to praise his great efforts but to shame him or even ban him. In my own opinion such great contributors like Ghirlandajo or for example User:Halibutt who is also often a target of criticism deserve from us, people of the project, that we do our best to establish the most comfortable conditions for their work with the minimal misuse of this valuable resources on wikilawyering. Obviously it does not mean to give them a free hand in inserting their POV into the articles or biting new users, or putting really venomous attacks on established users. But otherwise I would think that in our own interests to live such people alone and let them work for our project. abakharev 12:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Rspns to User:Ideogram. I am not aware of any productive user diven away by Ghirlandajo. Who are you talking about? abakharev 13:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by non-involved party User:Pan Gerwazy

First I would like to beg administrators' indulgence, as this is my first attempt at involvement in such matters.

This whole affair is an aftermath of the dispute over the Russo-Turkish War. That User:Ghirlandajo does not remember that User:Cowman109 was involved there too (]) does not testify to bad memory, but to the fact that he is working so hard at this project that he simply could not possibly remember all brief encounters of that kind. The problem with mediation there was that User:Ideogram insisted that everyone deleting the reference to a book by an Armenian genocide denier (some Turkish editors were using the article to introduce the book as a trustable academic source into Misplaced Pages) should explain why (s)he did that, whereas the problem with that book and its author had been discussed at length on the talk page already.

I did not exactly see eye to eye with Ghirlandajo at that page (] , but as the attempts at "mediation" were obviously only exacerbating the situation with Ghirlandajo claiming User:Ideogram to be a troll or a sockpuppet, I did some digging into past encounters between Ghirlandajo and Ideogram and told Ghirlandajo on his talk page what I had found (evidence of possible stalking) and advised him not to react to a rather ambiguous comment by Ideogram before, which sounded like an invitation to a revert war. (] and subsequently ]) Apart from the stalking (see further evidence ]), Ghirlandajo also accused Ideogram of sockpuppeting. The point being that before Ideogram arrived on the scene as mediator, an anonymous IP, the Ghirla stalker, had been working in unison with Turkish editors in a revert war against Ghirlandajo: ] and ]. After Ideogram arrived, this anonymous IP more or less left the Russo-Turkish scene, thinking he had done enough damage there, and went on to other pages.

Now User:Piotrus is flabbergasted to see himself presented as an interested party. I am not. He was dragged into this conflict because no one else could be found who may better damn Ghirlandajo. In fact, this "affair" as I called it at the beginning of my statement, has been going on for some time, since the end of June: ]. Why do I get the impression that this is a cabal of two who have waited for Ghirlandajo to be trivially blocked on incivility to present a Request for Arbitration? In any case, including User:Piotrus indicates how weak this case was from the beginning and that it was started as a fishing operation – it was believed someone else was bound to report further evidence of annoying language from Ghirlandajo to this Request. A request that is rather untimely, because Ghirlandajo has recently decided to keep to writing and improving articles and leave the bickering to those who are not so good at writing an encyclopaedia - and is trying to keep himself to that proposition.--Pan Gerwazy 23:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (trimmed to 490 words according to MS Word)

Statement by non-involved party User:Renata3

I completely agree with User:Ideogram. Ghirlandajo is uncivil and insulting with very strong Russian POV. The incidents are not isolated cases, but overarching patters of behavior developed through years and months. Just no one got the guts do anything about it because, as Alex Bakharev nicely explains, Ghirlandajo did write 1000 articles.

Some examples of Ghirlandajo incivility:

• putting in a nice pink box on top of his talk page that "The edits of established ghirlaphobes from Poland and former Polish dominions will be promptly removed, unless their proconsular leader is defrocked"
• threatening to enforce the disclaimer described above in reply to a good faith questions on his recent edits, and accusing editor of trolling and nationalism
• keeping up with his promise above
• keeping up with his promise above.
• accusing User:M.K of "Russophobic hand" when that particular sentence in the article came from 2004.
• edit warring over his personal opinion on "reconstructed" or "recently built" castle

Some examples of POV edits:

• defending POV phrasing: "These brilliant feats of arms — utterly unprecedented in Russo-Polish relations..."
• removing external link and image that supports architect not being Russian
• removing categories not to show he was French-Russian
• describing Red Army military campaign as "walked across Polish borders"
• and finally, recognizing his own POV on user page

He even thinks that he owns articles:

• reverting "unexplained" edits, but this is Misplaced Pages where people are encouraged to edit freely, no?
• revert warring on image placement (yes, he got blocked for that)
• again, image layout
• demanding to cite policy on changing image caption

While browsing through contributions, I did not seem to catch a single attempt to compromise, alter his original stand, to meet somewhere in between. He seems to have this "my way or the high way" notion. I urge ArbCom to see this case not as Ghirla vs Piotrus as originally presented, but Ghirla vs community. He has been a problem user for a very long time. I doubt anyone could argue that he is incivil. Yes, some like Alex, can and will point out to his numerous contributions, but is that a license to be a dick? Renata 17:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Quick reply to Ghirla: I did ask you on your talk about one of the diffs I supplied. No response so far. As to "revenge" for Grand Duchy of Lithuania: I made not a single edit to that article and not a single diff I provided is about you editing that article. Here, again, Ghirla thinks he is being "hunted" for isolated incidents, when really these are patterns of behavour repeating again, and again, and again on different articles and Misplaced Pages namespace. Renata 15:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party Bishonen

I'm certainly not part of any group of users habitually defending Ghirlandajo; in fact in the only dialogue I've had with him, in April of this year, he was wounding and inconsiderate, and I've given him a wide berth ever since. Nevertheless, I urge arbcom to reject this case. In fact I urge Cowman109 to withdraw it. I believe, after a sampling of Ghirlandajo's more recent contributions, that he is already well on the way to communicating on-wiki with more consideration for others. (Or that he was, as the circumstances around his recent 3-hour block and around this RFAr will surely tend to the opposite effect.) The recent diffs posted by Cowman on ANI are IMO by no means personal attacks or incivilities, they're mere expressions of opinion in appropriate venues. I clicked on them lazily, expecting to have my preconceptions confirmed—"oh, yeah, Ghirlandajo, rude bugger"—and was astonished to see what kinds of edits are now being called "incivility and trolling". Please just look at them, Giano lays them out above. In the ANI discussion following on Cowman's list of diffs, some strong protests were lodged against the treatment of Ghirlandajo, and incomprehension was expressed of why these diffs were even being posted (a puzzlement I share). See especially the fully argued comment by Irpen on Tony Sidaway's actions ("dangereous, unwarranted and harmful", as italicized by Irpen). What Tony did was post a warning on User talk:Ghirlandajo that referred to the edits in question as "gross incivility and what appear to be trolling or deliberately inflammatory comments" (IMO a provocative description) and then he blocked Ghirlandajo for this response. The block reason given is "Unreasonable and defiant response to request to tone down after multiple instances of gross incivility" I'm flabbergasted by this. "Unreasonable" might equally well be applied to Tony's insistence that these edits are grossly incivil, and as for defiant, WTF? (That stands for "What The Flap-doodle".) Users don't get to defy admins now—that's a block reason? What are we, 19th-century headmasters at a really strict public school? If this kind of treatment "encourages" Ghirlandajo to be more civil, I'll eat my cascading style sheets—where's the realistic psychology? There is too much blocking for putative, subjectively defined (as there is no other way of defining them), "NPA violations", and it only seems to be getting worse. The idea of blocking an editor one finds abrasive in order to give him/her "time to cool down" or an "opportunity" for introspection or whatever (a notion also mooted in the recent User:Giano debacle) seems to me to be mere Newspeak, and just about equally patronizing as planting officious warning templates on established users. Did anybody ever improve in civility, let alone introspection, by being talked down to in this way?
The most important point I want to make is that I think Ghirlandajo had already seen the light and was being more congenial. That's the impression I've formed from a sampling of his recent contribs. Of course I may have missed stuff, but better-informed editors are saying the same thing above, I see. (See statement by Grafikm_fr). I believe that the complaints made at the old RFC which is listed as evidence above and which was brought in December 2005, are essentially obsolete. I would fully endorse Ghirlandajo's request for more recent evidence. Finally, it's not an admin job, or even an arbcom task, to fix people. Yes, Ghirlandajo probably does think the project needs him more than he needs it; yes, he goes on a lot about his contributions; yes, it's annoying; so? I'm annoying, you're annoying. Misplaced Pages is not the bed of Procrustes for reworking people's personalities all into the same approved mold. For instance, and this is just one minor example, we're not all Americans. There needs to be room in the project for a fiery Sicilian like Giano, a rancorous Swede like me, an... annoying Russian like Ghirla. To some of us, the dominant American/British wiki discourse (which I'll refrain from offering any stereotype of) can even be annoying in and of itself. More headroom, please. Bishonen | talk 19:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

Statement by uninvolved party user:Geogre

This is an absurdity wrapped in travesty. Unpleasant people are normal. People who are arrogant, abrasive, imperious, intemperate, and even malicious in their hearts are normal, and Misplaced Pages is not a project only for saints. There is no policy against being curt or even nasty. There are multiple policies against disruption of Misplaced Pages, and in this case the disruption is being caused by Tony Sidaway. It is not that I endorse any particular nastygram by Ghirla, but rather that the idea that dissenters are to be blocked and then arbitrated when they "don't get the message." The message is to be nice, effectively, since an honest statement of dissent is incivil. Those against Carnildo's reappointment are in "the minority," but RFA was never 50/50. The moving goal posts on his RFA have gotten several people to either leave or express outrage. If outrage is now a blockable offense, then leaving is the only option. There is a policy that says we don't attack each others' persons. That is all it says. Failure to please the administrators is no crime. Seeing administrators as being in a conspiracy is no crime. Only when we try to run with jackboots do we justify every malicious thing that our detractors can say, and this case gives every wild eyed opponent of Misplaced Pages's administration the perfect justification because it is absolute evidence. Geogre 20:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party user:Mzajac

Perhaps there is no way to know that Ghirlandajo's behaviour has driven any editors away from Misplaced Pages, but for several months I have chosen to edit in topics where he is not active, and actively avoid participating in any discussion where conflict with him is likely. His extremely unpleasant manner of participating in disputes is hard to take, and I could certainly see how it could cause other editors to withhold contributions. I'm glad to see things have been improving. —Michael Z. 2006-09-08 18:48 Z

Statement by uninvolved party Fred-Chess

I hesitated to post this, becase I feel that people leave Misplaced Pages on their own behalf, and not because of others.

But since it is repeatedly questioned whether anyone has left Misplaced Pages because of Ghirla, I will point my finger towards User:Wiglaf -- an administrator with 10k+ edits -- who left Misplaced Pages in December 2005. His Special:Contributions/Wiglaf makes it obvious why he left.

Statement by uninvolved party by User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

Normally, I try to stay as far away from the meat-grinder known as Arbcomm as humanly possible. But the defendant known as Ghirla, has invoked not only my name but that of my departed friend and one of my wiki-mentors, Wiglaf. Fred Chess' above comments are correct, Ghirla was in no way responsible for Wiglaf's departure nor was Molobo. While they certainly did not give him reason to stick around, neither did they drive him off.

• Second point, Ghirla and I are not friends. Like many here, he and I have had our differences in the past. Sometimes unpleasant, heated exchanges in which certain derrogatory terms have been traded. I blame him no more than myself (afterall it takes two to Tango, right?). I quite frankly find him a boorish Russian nationalist. He doubtless views myself as an Ugly American redneck. But so what?! At the end of the day we don't hate eachother...we tolerate eachother, we agree to disagree and we respect eachother as editors, scholars and gentlemen. We see beyond our differences of opinion, personality and nationality and put up with eachother because we realize that having us both here makes this place and this project better than if one of us departs on account of the other. Which leads to my-

• Third point, Ghirla does damn good work, and he does A LOT of it. Even his foes must acknowledge this. Overlooking, downplaying or ignoring this fact, is shortsighted and (in my POV) foolish. The defendant's personality should not be allowed to overshadow this fact. in fact, many of the best writers,both here and out there on earth where it really matters, are opinionated, outspoken, contentious, cranky, ill-tempered assholes. Bishonen makes this point quite well above.

• Point the Forth, "You can't take away peoples' right to be assholes". If you don't know where that quote is from, I suggest you go see Demolition Man (film)...go ahead I'll wait till you're done. And when you try to take that right away you only make things worse.

• Point Number Five, is more of a question really, why is Ghirla really here? Because he is a churlish Russian Bear? Or because, like Karmafist, he's an outspoken opponent of the increasingly authoritarian , heavy handed and (dare I say) arbitrary power structure here on Wiki:en? Surely if edit warring and disruption are the charges, why isn't User:Molobo here? If having, as someone (not me, unfortunately) once described, A "temper like a harvest combine inside an orphanage", is a crime, then why isn't User:Kelly Martin here (again)? Both are just as guilty, but are far less productive contributors than Ghirla, which to my mind makes them more expendable for the good of the project and the community. If you must have a witch hunt, try going after the real witches for a change.

• Point (not a number!) Six, this project really does need Ghirla and his like more than they need it. That he is here now, represents a failure of all the normal channels of mediation, dispute resolution and community building. Taking punitive action against him for any of the above "sins", would only further compound these failures.

But, if Misplaced Pages desires to shoot itself in the foot once more, who are we to stand in the way. Trying to roll this here growing boulder upside an increasingly steep and rocky mountain is getting tiresome. There is enough knowledge and talent involved in this Arbcomm case alone to start our own Wiki. And we will learn from the mistakes and maybe get it right this time, by creating a community and project where knowledge and good writing are welcomed and rewarded (Wow what a concept!). So either learn to put up with us, as we put up with you, or bid farewell to "an annoying Russian", "a fiery Sicilian", "a rancorous Swede" and "a lazy, mildly dyslexic AADD afflicted bastard, with a Scots/Irish temper, courtesy of my ancestors which has been deep fried by a Southern climate and upbringing Y'all." Hmm maybe if we do start our own Wiki, we should call ourselves the Disgruntled Wikipedians' Breakfast Club BTW, I'm only half joking...but which half?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

A query from Mackensen

It's unclear from the above if this request concerns Piotrius and the Russo-Turkish War or Tony Sidaway and Carnildo's RfA. I'm having real difficulty imagining a case that includes both. Could someone wiser than I explain what the hell is going on? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party by Dbachmann

as per Bish above, I urge arbcom members to reject this request. No coherent case is built. Ghirla is an extremely productive editor (40,000 edits?); yes, his behaviour has been problematic in the past; for all I know, it has improved significantly. A stale rfc from last December does not build an arbcom case, and I take it the arbcom has more pressing duties than generally reviewing and judging the sum of a user's 40,000 edits. If there is any recent, urgent matter, let Cowman submit another to-the-point rfc first. Presenting diffs such as these as "evicence", as Cowman does, seems to indicate wikistalking on Cowman's part rather than any misbehaviour (let alone RfAr-able offences) on Ghirla's. dab (ᛏ) 09:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party Peripatetic

I've had very little interaction with Ghirlandajo, maybe a couple of times back in February when I worked on a couple of Russian articles. But as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, this man is worth his weight in gold. Whether it's quality of articles or quantity of edits, it's hard to beat what he has contributed to WP. What we need is more editors like Ghirlandajo and less of the ponderous bureaucracy that seems to have mushroomed in WP over time. More creators of high-quality content and fewer chatterboxes and hangers-on would be a positive for the project. It'll be a sad day if Ghirla ever decides to pack up here and go off to RU:WP. --Peripatetic 17:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Halibutt

Firstly, having been conflicted with Ghirlandajo over a variety of issues in the past I'm not that uninvolved, but I believe hardly anyone is. And especially people who have ever came in touch with Ghirlandajo. Anyway, as has been pointed during the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo, he is a good editor, with great knowledge and ability to share it. I can recall hundreds of his articles on Russia's historical landmarks, towns or people, and most of them were good at the very least.

However, he has a huge problem with dealing with people and especially so if anyone disagrees with him. It seems to me that when in conflict over some issue, the most natural reaction for him is to jump to personal remarks, offences, accusations, name-calling and other such uncivil remarks. Typically, his reaction to anything he disagrees with is somewhere between soflty unpleasant and downright offensive, even to new editors new to Misplaced Pages. It seems to me that he's seen the light, which in his own eyes justifies any kind of behaviour and any kind of vocabulary. //Halibutt 06:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. As to people leaving Misplaced Pages because of Ghirlandajo's incivility, I guess this comment might shed some light on why did User:Rydel leave. //Halibutt P.S. II As to what R.D.H. wrote above in his point (not a number) six, I'm not sure that the failure of processes that were meant to change Ghirlandajo's ways could be blamed entirely on the processes themselves. Imagine a criminal going out of jail and then committing the very same crime again. Sure, it is a failure of the entire process of re-education, but it's the guy to go to jail again, not the chief warden. //Halibutt

Statement by ALoan

I was not involved in the alleged historical issues with Ghirlandajo. However, I believe these should stay where they are, in the past. The question is how he behaves now and in the future.

From what I can see, the worst that can be said of his behaviour now is that he does not mince his words, and he does not suffer fools gladly. If that requires an ArmCom case, then so be it, but I would invite the ArbCom to also investigate the surrounding circumstances, and, in particular, the recent block by Tony Sidaway (ignoring a block at the end of July that was quickly reversed, his second block this year). Do any of the cited links show any evidence of the alleged "gross incivility" complained of? Does an "unreasonable and defiant response" to an admin (while not accepting that that was an accurate characterisation of his response: indignant, I would call it) justify a block for 3 hours?

I have written before that "Misplaced Pages is not maiden aunts' tea party. We debate issues fully, frankly and robustly; and we should not be afraid to express our views (within the accepted policies) for fear that others may get attacks of the vapours. Misplaced Pages may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, and that goes just as much, if not more, for talk page and user talk pages." This was in reponse to a suggestion that Giano should be blocked for one month, not because of anything he had done, but pour encourager les autres. I hope this is not a similar case. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party Errabee

In real life, nationalism abounds in both Poland and Russia. These sentiments are bound to occur on Misplaced Pages. Recently, we've had a number of pro-Polish and/or anti-Russian conflicts on Misplaced Pages and Commons. This RfAr seems to be at least partly due to this same phenomenon, attacking the most prominent pro-Russian member. By accepting this RfAr, the ArbCom would succumb to this Polish nationalist movement. I therefore urge the ArbCom to consider very carefully if they should accept this RfAr. Ghirlandajo's recent actions, especially those mentioned by Renata, must be seen in the context of extreme Polish POV pushing, which he is trying to fight. Errabee 23:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that comments like above were exactly the root of problems we had with Ghirla in the past - problems, which I'd like to stress, seem to have diminished now (as I state above). I'd like to take this opportunity to state that the above comment, completly unfounded and serving only to antagonize and create divisions and conflict between nationalities,is quite uncivil and I hope arbitrators and other readers of this topic will reprimmand Errabee for it - less in a few months we deal with RfArb about that user. PS. To be clear: as a Polish editor of Misplaced Pages I feel quite offended by the above remark.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

How is this unfounded? In the last month alone we've had the move of Polish September Campaign to Invasion of Poland (1939), the Anarchist League of Ingria and other Ingria related topics, anti-Russia sentiments at Talk:Vilnius and the proposed deletion of the {{PD-Soviet}} template and that's only what I remember. I don't seem to remember any pro-Russian movements, whereas anti-Russia sentiments are abundant. Renata's so-called evidence, especially ones like these (her third example of POV edits), is a complete travesty. Removing a French-Russian category is not POV when his family lives in Russia for almost 200 years (remained there after Napoleontic war of 1812). The presenting of that kind of evidence (and the whole way this RfArb is presented) creates divisions and conflict between nationalities. Mine was simply a statement of fact, not unfounded as I've proven, and certainly not meant to antagonize. And as a last note, speaking in soccer terms, asking for a yellow card is not nice and I am quite offended by your comments. Errabee 10:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not an expert on anti-Russian sentiments on Wiki, and from he examples you give above I am familiar only with the case of movement of PSC to IoP(39), which was done through a proper WP:RM procedure and certainly not with any 'anti-Russian' intention (nor outcome). What I found offending in your post was the suggestion that there is some 'Polish nationalist movement' (WP:CABAL anyone?), and that Poles are prosecuting Russians on Wikimedia projects. PS. Considering that this RfA was not initiated by the Polish editors, and the two who spoke here (me and Halibutt) seem (IMHO) to be taking a neutral stance, your assertion that the 'Polish nationalist movement' is trying to influence ArbCom with this RfArb is pretty bizzare (and offensive).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party MBuk

Just a shor rhetoric questions to all who advocates here Ghirla:

• Should active and valuable contribution to WP be considered as an exuse for insulting other users, breaking the basic WP policy WP:NPOV, refusing to discuss the differences with othe contributors, edit warring, etc.?--Mbuk 17:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Threaded dialog removed: wait for the case to be accepted and you'll have all the rebuttal opportunities you ever might want. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC) (acting as assistant clerk)
• removed threaded dialog from Renata's statement. Each party comments go into their own statements. -- Drini 18:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/0/1/1)

• Recuse, but urge acceptance per my statement on ANI. Dmcdevit·t 00:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 17:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. - SimonP 19:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• A comment, for now. I am unsure whether or not to accept. I do believe a case could be made; the phrase I keep hearing as noted above is "he is a prolific and valuable editor but..." The "but" happens to be a large one; I have seen from Ghirlandajo, consistently, comments that make me wince at their abrasiveness, and no one, no matter how otherwise good an editor, should be making them. And yet this is a somewhat incoherent case and not a strong one, with no real specific incident to pin down. In light of comments that he has been making conscious efforts to tone it down, no vote for now; if this is truly the case I would far rather see it continue than set these wheels in motion. Perhaps an alternative to arbcom could be considered, with a reconsideration of the request if this is not sufficient? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Intangible

Please see this WP:AN/I discussion regarding my involvement in this case. The general feeling, it seems, is that this case needs to be revisited for the following reasons:

1. I was never informed that I was a party to the case;
2. neither I nor any other editor could thereby provide evidence in my defense;
3. no evidence to which I could respond was presented against me;
4. and the action taken against me did not have the support of the required majority.

Thank you, in advance, for your time and consideration. Best wishes, --AaronS 01:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: I shall be very inactive until 30 September (preparing my thesis, taking GRE, and applying to grad schools). If it is decided that this issue should be re-examined, please keep this in mind. Better yet, feel free to keep this on the backburner and deal with more pressing problems for the time being. --AaronS 03:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The evidence was your edit warring and prior blocks. Please offer actual reasoning why you should not be on probation, rather than procedural arguments against how it was done. Dmcdevit·t 04:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If that is the evidence, here is my short response: two of the administrators who blocked me for WP:3RR have since re-examined their decisions and regretted them.The first block was deserved, but I had violated 3RR inadvertently. I discussed the situation with the admin who blocked me, and he lifted the block, because I was at the time doing a lot of work to improve the New England article. I stayed away from anarchism for a while, because it is truly a difficult page to work with.

One always walks a thin line while trying to improve controversial articles. I have had the benefit of working with several excellent editors from all sides of the ideological spectrum. In fact, I'm amazed at how some people can have such strong feelings about either side of an issue and still work together and reach compromises through civil discussion. This is how things usually proceed at anarchism when a few inflammatory editors are not around -- namely, User:RJII, User:Thewolfstar, and User:Hogeye and their various admitted or proven socks. When they or their sock puppets are involved, things usually get heated up very quickly, and that's when edit wars start to crop up.

I try to avoid edit wars as best as possible. When I revert, I try my damnedest to revert without edit warring. Or, I only revert sock puppets of banned users, suspected or proven. I should note that I rarely revert people who are simply suspected of being sock puppets, unless they have come from out of nowhere and are making the same edits or arguments as a recently banned user without any discussion (see User:That'sHot and User:DTC). As soon as they start engaging in discussion, I don't care whether or not they are sock puppets, and am happy to have them on board as long as they play nicely. If a sock puppet is obliged to edit in the best interests of the article, then there's no harm done. Unfortunately, their talk page discussions tend to descend into some nasty stuff.

In conclusion, with an examination of the current evidence, if I were to be put on probation it would be for nothing more than having a one deserved 3RR violation block on my record, a block that was soon lifted. I am a helpful, cordial, friendly editor, and quick to apologize to those whom I have wronged. I do not like edit warring, and find it pointless. It achieves nothing. I don't mean that philosophically, either. I mean that literally. What an article says right now doesn't matter, so long as there are other people who think that it shouldn't say that, and who can back up their claims with verifiable, reliable sources. At the same time, socks of banned users should be reverted, if only because they are a nuisance. I also do not edit tendentiously. Very few of my edits are controversial, and they are usually either (a) common opinion or (b) backed up with sources.

I think that you will find that most of my edits are useful, and that all of the editors who get along well here also get along well with me. People need to work on controversial articles like anarchism, and those articles need to be watched; however, it is very difficult, time-consuming, and sometimes frustrating.

Lastly, if there were 11 arbitrators in the beginning, and 1 recused himself/herself, then 6 is still the majority; 6 is the majority in a group of 10, and 5 would only be half. Forgive me if I'm using the wrong numbers, but if I am not, then this whole discussion seems rather moot. --AaronS 13:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The abstention of User:SimonP from Remedy 3 was treated in the same manner as a recusal, reducing the majority for that motion to 5. The motion passed. Evidence was presented demonstrating that AaronS was blocked for edit warring, and a Finding to that effect was made in the case. I regret that neither the arbitrators nor the clerks informed AaronS that probation was being considered in his case. This was an oversight. --Tony Sidaway 04:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, since Aaron is currently busy, I will try to do what I can to explain why he should not be on probation. As you know, his first block was overturned after he explained the situation. The blocking admin in the second case later apologized and said they wouldn't have blocked had they had more information at the time of the block, but since the block had already expired by that time he was never unblocked. It appears as if the blocking admin from the third block may feel the same way, although they didn't explicitly say they wouldn't have blocked, but I think it was implied. See for yourself and decide I guess. . Anyways, most of the edit warring that happens at the anarchism articles is due to users who are now indefinitely blocked, or sockpuppets of those users before they are blocked themselves for being socks. A lot of outsiders don't realize this, so users like Aaron will occassionally be blocked. It's understandable, and it usually gets resolved without a problem. I personally think probation is inappropriate in his case, especially considering he was never even notified. The way I see it, the case for Aaron needs to be reopened. Some of the original supporting voters may change their minds after hearing Aaron's side of this. I'm not sure Tony if your post above is meant as a way of saying the case is closed and won't be reopened, but if so, that is not right. You shouldn't be able to decide whether Aaron still should be on probation since you (nor anyone else) can unilaterally put a user under probation. Aaron's part of the case needs to be re-voted on to maintain basic fairness. The Ungovernable Force 06:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just a clerk so I wouldn't be involved in the decision on whether to re-open. However as a clerk I rummaged around in the case and came up with what I thought might be relevant detail. --Tony Sidaway 06:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, just wanted to make sure. It sounded like you were turning it down without saying so explicitly. Thanks for the clarification. Ungovernable Force 07:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom

Admins are discussing here whether they will be enforcing Remedy 7.3.1, "Irishpunktom and Dbiv are banned from editing Peter Tatchell for one year" with respect to Dbiv. Admin and ArbCom clerk Tony Sidaway has, in fact, said outright that he would "stop trying to enforce this remedy", saying that Ignore all rules applies here. Is non-enforcement optional or dependent on the quality of the edits, or is this a bright-line ruling? --Calton | Talk 01:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's my personal opinion, made as a Misplaced Pages editor. My role as an arbitration committee clerk means that sometimes things I say may be misinterpreted, and I apologise for unintentionally misleading anybody into thinking that my opinion is worth more than anybody else's. I only meant (and I said as much) that I had decided that I myself would cease attempting to enforce the remedy. I object to no other administrator who enforces it and I will take no action to challenge enforcement (I also said as much). As far as I'm concerned this remedy is a fully enforceable arbitration ruling, equal to any other arbitration ruling in its legitimacy. --Tony Sidaway 02:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is no trouble, I really don't care either. Fred Bauder 17:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

Statement by Andries

1. Does not linking to purportedly unreliable websites also include the homepages of critics with their own articles of Sathya Sai Baba e.g. Robert Priddy (see ), Basava Premanand, M. Alan Kazlev (see here one of the webpages on the website authored, owned, and maintaind by Kazlev, linked to in his Misplaced Pages article), Sanal Edamaruku, Babu Gogineni, the late Abraham Kovoor, and the late H._Narasimhaiah. SeeMisplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/#Robert_Priddy for a description of this dispute.
2. Does not linking to unreliable website also include wikipedia user pages such as user:Andries See
3. Do unreliable websites also include the websites created and maintained by user:SSS108 especially for Misplaced Pages. In certain cases such as this one the webpages on this website are simply copies that SSS108 took from the webpages of exbaba.com
4. Is it okay to use webpages with copies of reputable sources on purportedly unreliable websites as convenenience links in the references. See e.g. here
5. User:SSS108 removed a lot of information from the article talk page that I had moved from the article to the talk page . In spite of my request to do so he did not justify in specifics why this removal was either justified by WP:BLP or the arbcom decision regarding posting external links. I object to mass removals of information from the talk page that are not motivated in specific terms if and where it violates WP:BLP or the arbcom decision. SSS108 stated the intention to remove more of my future comments from the talk page Is SSS108’s or my behaviour a violation of talk page etiquette?

Andries 13:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC) added one more clarification request 17:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by SSS108

Regarding Points 1-4:

I would like to point out that the Geocities site that Andries is now complaining about was created, with his consent and agreement, in mediation with BostonMA: Reference. In the past 6 months, Andries has never complained about the content (or ownership) on the Geocities site although the Geocities site is completely neutral, cannot be traced to either Pro/Anti Sathya Sai Baba Sites and whose content has never been disputed by Andries for the past 6 months.

Andries is now having a change of heart and is wishing to link references to his and other Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba sites in violation of a clearly stated ruling by ArbCom that forbids this: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba. It is also important to point out that since all these references come from reliable sources (newspapers, documentaries or magazines) they are not "owned" or copyright protected to Anti-Sai Sites. The material in question cannot be claimed by Andries as his own and was never originally published on Anti-Sai sites.

Andries entire argument is moot in light of the ArbCom ruling. Andries is unremittingly attempting to link to his Anti-Sai site so he can push his Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba agenda. Why is he so insistent that the links go to his personal, critical, partison and controversial website when there is a neutral one that does not push anyone's agenda? That is the question that is at the heart of this matter. To further illustrate this point, Andries feels that slanderous pages are entirely appropriate on Misplaced Pages. See Reference where Andries stated, "re-insert homepage of the subject in question robert priddy can slander on his own article whoever he likes". It is disturbing comments like these that prove that Andries has a keen agenda to push on Misplaced Pages.

Even today (Sept. 9th), Andries made a highly questionable edit where media articles (which were determined to violate WP:NOT) were moved from the Article to the Talk Page: Reference. This was discussed in arbitration (Reference), in which I stated that Andries was using the talk pages to promote his Anti-Sai agenda.

I have also agreed to hand the Geocities site over to a neutral 3rd party. If anyone is willing to take over this Geocities site and assume responsibility for its upkeep (and update it accordingly, as needed), I will gladly hand the site over. I stated this when the site was created.

Andries has been trying to change Misplaced Pages policy on the Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources (see history) page so that he can push links to Anti-Sai websites (including his own) on Misplaced Pages: Reference. I posted on the thread on September 7th: Reference. Andries conceded that this argument preceded the ArbCom ruling and was unrelated to the ArbCom case (Reference). What is strange about this is that despite his former comments, Andries was attempting to cite this very same argument (from the Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources page) that he was using to defend the inclusion of links to his Anti-Sai Sites: See FloNight's Thread. Also see Tony Sidaway's Thread.

Regarding Point 5: :See Thread on my talk page where I gave reasons for removing this information.

Finally, the policy might be different on pages that have not had an ArbCom ruling, however, it is my contention that since ArbCom made a ruling specific to the Sathya Sai Baba articles, the general policy must be interpreted in association with the ArbCom ruling. Thank you. SSS108 14:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

I want to comment here on my dual role in this matter. My first response on this was that it seemed to be a matter for administrators to resolve, and I investigated as an administrator and warned Andries politely in my role as an administrator that in my view and that of other admins he was contravening the ruling in the arbitration case.

Andries has come back politely with what amount, in my view, to clear signals that he requires much closer direction on this matter. I suggested that clarification from the arbitrators might be a good way of resolving this matter, and his query here is the response. Andries has shown by his responses and actions that he is eager and willing to comply with the arbitration and in my role as a clerk I commend his queries to the Committee, While this is clearly a dispute that could have become very rancorous, it seems to me that Andries is doing his best to avoid that path and seek clarification. I also commend SSS108 for his civility in the course of expressing a difference of opinion in a forthright and honest manner.

I hope that this is not "crossing the streams". I hope it's clear that my views as an administrator and as a clerk are quite distinct. My regard for both participants here is very high. Their honesty and civility is impressive. --Tony Sidaway 02:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Eternal Equinox limited to one account

This was originally posted under motions in prior cases, but only arbitrators can make such motions. I guess this amounts to be a request for clarification or further action in the Eternal Equinox case. A motion was subsequently passed. --Tony Sidaway 23:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Eternal Equinox came back a few days ago, editing her favorite articles as an anon, from her trademark range. She has already amassed a fairly impressive log of blocks and bans The user is editing by ArbCom permission, she's not banned; so could that permission be made conditional on her creating an account and being limited to using that only? I think I saw her claim a while back that she has munged the Eternal Equinox password--IIRC--but she could obviously easily create a new name account. The floating cloud of IPs she's using makes it very difficult to keep track of her edits and infractions, to block her (I got collateral damage on the brief range block I imposed last night) and to communicate with her. Bishonen | talk 14:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC).

I am fairly sick and tired of all this. I returned on September 5, 2006. It's now September 10, 2006 and I've amassed five bans/blocks. Pretty ridiculous-sounding for six days of editing. There seems to be a problem here, which is that the Arbitration ruling has gotten to those users who still won't leave me alone (Bishonen, Bunchofrapes, etc.). They are abusing the ruling as an excuse to block me whenever they feel it appropriate. In these five cases:

1. Bunchofgrapes blocked me for edit-warring with another user and refers to my edits of debate and discussion as "disruptive". Extraordinary Machine and I have been trying to achieve consensus — which is working — but Bunchofgrapes interfered with the excuse that I was being disruptive. Where am I disrupting?
2. Second ban/block: I declined the ban because it was obnoxious and ridiculous. Bishonen comes along and begins abusing the ruling by banning me because of my comments and why I thought it was unfair. This suggests to me that whatever they say is going to happen; that won't be.
3. Third ban/block: I stated that the ban at Cool (song) was insincere and I would continue editing it since I was trying to resolve issues that have been coming along pleasantly. (See the process on the talk page.) Of course, Bunchofgrapes bans the IP for "violating" his "ban".
4. Fourth ban/block: Extraordinary Machine, the user in question of the discussion at Cool (song) resets the ban, perhaps presumably to avoid discussing and achieving consensus. This suggests that he wants his edits to remain when I found some of them questionable. But the process is going well, like I've said.
5. Fifth ban/block: The most abusive actions taken of the ArbCom ruling was this one. I was trying to post a response on Talk:Cool (song), when suddenly I've been blocked. When I see that it's Bishonen, I cussed a lot at her, especially since this "ban" was absolutely notorious. What she claims here is almost entirely false.

• She says that I "repeatedly piddled" with the images on Simon Byrne. Utter nonsense; I edited twice here and here. Editing twice is not "repeatedly piddling" with an article. I was first reverted by Sagaciousuk for not providing an edit summary (which I'd forgotten). I said okay and went back and provided an edit summary. Bishonen then "magically" appears two minutes later and claims that I was toying with the image and claims I was "trolling". My browser indeed does have an image-display problem, and decreasing it by a single pixel would have made it the appropriate size for my monitor. She ignored this, but my main concern is that she is 100% convinced that I edited the article because it was authored by Giano. I detest Giano and had no idea that he'd edited this article. A few days before Belton House was on the main page; I knew he'd edited this article and didn't bother with it because I knew Bishonen would come up with an excuse. So when Simon Byrne appeared on the main page only a few days later, I didn't think twice that an article authored by the same user would appear soon after (this is something that should become official on Misplaced Pages). I didn't even make a major edit to the article and she says I was trolling. Two edits is not trolling, especially since I was first reverted for not providing an edit summary and because the user who reverted me does not have any affiliation to me. I had no idea Giano wrote most of the article until afterwards checking the history. Here is the "fifth ban", which is very misleading.

There is a problem with this ArbCom ruling and adjustments will have to be made in order to ensure that these users do not abuse it the way they have been. Also, I will absolutely not create an account since I'm only editing Misplaced Pages on occasion now. This is Hollow Wilerding, which you have been told (and obviously received the e-mail for since you wrote my name in one of the "bans"). I'll be sure to tell E.E. that you're failing to respond to him. Hollow Wilerding 17:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• I second Bishonen's request to limit this person or persons to one account, and would request that an Arbitrator propose such a motion as an additional remedy. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have made the motion, thanks for bringing this to our attention. Dmcdevit·t 18:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I've made myself quite clear: I will not access accounts. Also, don't abuse the ArbCom ruling. 64.231.113.136 22:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that rather than choose a logged-in account and stick to it you intend to use a variety of IPs? --Tony Sidaway 00:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Because I edit a few times per day now, unlike beforehand (which was very many), I choose to edit from an IP-only account. 64.231.154.178 21:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That reasoning is not sufficient. In fact, it does not even logically follow that editing anonymously is more useful for lower level of activity. However, it is a lot easier to violate article bans when you are a changing IP. Dmcdevit·t 22:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It may not be sufficient to you, but it certainly is to me. 64.231.153.78 20:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you guys believe us now, huh? Here you have the Hollow Wilerding demeanour in a nutshell. I request permission to ban her for more than a week from pages she disrupts. "Up to a week" is a feeble remedy for this editor. Bishonen | talk 21:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC).

This is not for you to determine or request; since the RFAr is effective, you are to operate it as stated. Abusing it, as you currently have been (blocking for trolling? What trolling?) is disruptive enough. Most of my edits since September 5 have been neutral and what you establish as "disruptive" has been far less than that. My last edit has nothing to do with "the others believing you now"; I stated that editing anonymously is sufficient to me because I'm not editing as much anymore (which was stated in an edit a bit further up); this is my second edit today. 64.231.153.78 02:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the above I suggest that any IP editor from Canada (especially but not restricted to Sympatico in the Toronto area) that disrupts articles in a recognizable manner should get a one-week anon-only block. Thatcher131 14:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

How biased and full of nonsense. 64.231.152.103 19:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• I endorse Thatcher 131's proposal. I dislike banns and blocks intensely but for this number/person I realistically see no option. Giano | talk 20:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Bishonen, she can block a disruptive editor for as long as seems reasonable. Arbitration probations are permissive with respect to administrator action; they are not intended to limit administrator action. Consult on WP:AN. --Tony Sidaway 20:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A reasonable period of time seems appropriate. I will complain if she intends on blocking for non-disruptive and purely discussion-related material, however. Also, "one week" does not apply to Talk:Cool (song), which is solely discussion (as of now). 64.231.152.103 21:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Eternal Equinox is inaccessible. If you want me to create a new account, it will have an entirely new name. 64.231.119.5 23:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I will make an exception to the "treat as banned" to reply to this. That's fine. The arbitrators already said that's fine. Please tell us what your new name is after it is created. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the new account. I don't want Bishonen, Bunchofgrapes or Giano posting on the talk page unless strictly necessary. Also, any unfair blocks will be discussed; edit-warring is not "disruptive" if it's progessrive. I want them to acknowledge this and stop abusing the RFAR. That's all. I have nothing more to say. By the way, you'll need to pardon me if I accidentally editing anonymously without realizing it (because I'm sure most of us have done this). Veltron 01:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, this is unacceptable. Posting on my talk page is not trolling. I'm utterly confused at admin actions at this point. Veltron 01:16, 15 September 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 (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)