Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:49, 1 October 2006

• ]

A 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 (ArbCom).

• 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. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. 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. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four accept votes are cast. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details.

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.

See also

• Arbitration policy
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case - Recommended reading: An (unofficial) guide to presenting effective Arbitration cases.
• Arbitration enforcement - Any user can request help here if it involves the violation of an ArbCom decision
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template

How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

• Click the "" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;
• 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

Harrassment, talk page vandalism, and non-consensus changes to guideline

Initiated by Fresheneesz at 04:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• User talk:Radiant!
• User talk:Doc_glasgow
• User talk:Dmcdevit
• User talk:Centrx

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I have tried talking for a loong time, and have requested that others contribute their opinion. Its time for a definative answer - this has been going on for too long.

Statement by Fresheneesz

Firstly, User:Doc_glasgow has twice removed (and once striken) a talk page poll I set up at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-notability to gauge peoples feelings on the proposal. User:Radiant! removed it once before this. Here are the edits: . This is the most clear cut part of this case. Radiant is of the opinion that "A poll is not a comment. Removing polls is common practice."

Please note that some of this has been discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Secondly, User:Radiant!, User:Dmcdevit, and a couple others have tried to change the status of guideline pages and proposal pages, claiming that they know what consensus is (but won't show us where to verify that consensus). WP:STRAW has been guideline for a year, yet radiant has been pushing WP:VIE and WP:DDV on that page enough to be considered POV pushing and undue weight. Dmcdevit has recently demoted it without consensus :

Radiant and Centrx have pushed Misplaced Pages:Notability as guideline when there is no consensus to do so. They cite that it is "current practice" and thus doesn't need any more discussion: . Note that on the last edit, Centrx makes no mention that he removed the factual accuracy tag. People have tried to demote it back to proposal, place a "disputed status" tag, and the "factual accuracy" tag. But Radiant and Centrx have repeatedly demonstrated that they *are* a consensus of two, and that the less-than-a-month-old proposal doensn't need anything more to be a guideline - despite heavy opposition and controversy.

Radiant has been pushing his pet proposal WP:DDV with a little help from Centrx and Dmcdevit and Doc glasgow, here are some places where it has been changed into a guideline without consensus: . Here, radiant removed disputed tags: More changes to guideline (this is all chronological): More removed dispute tags: .

Sorry for the barrage of links, but there has been massive misconduct here, and I'm trying to compile all the references to the wrongdoings of these editors. Please note that many of these links also contain the previous editors objections about the consensus-less edits.

Lastly, there has been some harrassment at Non-notability where these same editors (radiant and doc glasgow) have marked the page as rejected or historical, when there was ongoing debate on the talk page, and editing on the main page: . Here doc changes a "disputed" tag to "rejected":

The actions taken by these editor greatly disappoint me, and although I have much support from other editors, It surprises me that these people have not already been taken under arbitration.

• I'm very much concerned abuse-of-power issues, and I feel this is very important to resolve. I appreciate *everyone's* input on this, however short it may be. Thans. Fresheneesz 04:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by {write party's name here}

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

Question to clerk, what happened to the crop circle case? Did it just get deleted?Fresheneesz 04:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

User:Gwernol

Initiated by User:71.97.243.176 at 19:27, 27 September 2006

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• User:Gwernol
• User:ZimZalaBim
• User:71.97.243.176
• User:71.111.117.99
• User:71.111.164.224
• User:Saatana

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried '

I and Saantana tried to talk Gwernol about his abuses to no avail. 71.97.250.11 03:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As first party, you may feel tempted to add a summary here. If you do, make it a single sentence of not more than twenty words. Please make your case in your statement.

Statement by User:71.97.243.176

I hope I am doing this right. I would like to request arbitration and report gross abuses and intimidation by the user/ adminstrator "Gwernol" who conducted a 1 WEEK block for an editor who made a good faith attempt to improve the "Jodie Foster" by adding just 3 words. Furthermore Gwernol proceeded to use page protection to gag the user from using his or her own talk page! Gwernol (or his allies such as user ZimZalaBim) then took the extraordinary, unethical and unusual step of changing the history page record of the Jodie Foster article to erase even the history of the attempt at improving the page and his revisions. Gwernol then threatened this user/editor, who was acting in good faith, with an lifetime ban! (Which I do not believe that he has the authority to do). They then after being reported revised the history page again!

I hope the Committee will look into this along with the sarcastic, belittling and needling comments Gwernol puts about edits he does not like with the comment (to many good faith edits). "Thank you for experimenting with the page Jodie Foster on Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed" He should know perfectly well these edits are not "experiments" but the hard work of people trying to improve articles. He also made unsubstantiated and possibly slanderous claims of an editor conducting "repeated vandalism" on the Jodie Foster which he has no proof of. He also belittled an editor by suggesting the editor should "strongly sugggest you sue" the school the editor attended because of Gwernol's perception of the editor's ignorance. These kind of insults and incivility are unbecoming of an Adminstrator.

I believe Gwernol and his supporters have abused their power as administrators to punish editors for content they do not like regardless of its relevance and truthfulness. I ask that Gwendol's SYSOPS and Administrative powers be revoked or at the very least be suspended for 6 months. I also believe Mr. Gwernol owes me an apology for the severe intentional infliction of emotional distress, intimidation, and probable slander he has caused. Please consider his expulsion or suspension and my request for the betterment of the Wikicommunity and Misplaced Pages. Thank you very much.

It is NOT unrelated or irrelevant because it shows a Pattern of Abuse by Gwernol. The witness (a diligent editor) if he is unblocked could provide valuable important information on Gwernol's Pattern of abusive actions including trigger happy blocks for people he disagrees with! This is improper for an Admin! 71.97.243.176 23:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Saantana has made some good points. Thank you Saantana. As for so called "legal threats" these were merely observations and advisements on the inappropriateness of Gwernol's actions. Also there were no "personal attacks" on Gwernol by me as far as I know and there is no record of this. I hope the Committee will consider this. 71.97.250.11 03:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Xoloz and User:Thatcher131

• Point of Information For those interested, the "three words" at issue are apparently, "...or selling out." Reversion to conform to NPOV policy seems in order, I should think. :) Xoloz 16:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• See also 71.111.164.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thatcher131 17:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Gwernol

I have not changed the history of any page. I don't have the technical ability to do this. All the IP's edits remain in the page history for everyone to see. I would also point out that the block on this IP was put into place not for WP:POV-pushing but rather for repeated legal threats from this IP: see the edit summaries and , and the talk page comnments from the IP and . The user was warned multiple times not to make legal threats by multiple editors, see the talk page . The user continued to ignore this and was subsequently blocked for 1 week for making legal threats. At no time did I threaten a lifetime block on the user, I merely pointed them to WP:NLT. I don't personally believe in indef blocks on IP addresses except in the most extreme cases. As far as I can see, all interactions by myself and other editors with this user have been done in a civil manner, but I would point out this edit summary from the user to me. If the ArbCom believe I have acted improperly I'll happily accept their judgement. Gwernol 22:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The complaining user has recently contacted another user who I have blocked, requesting them to join this RfAr, although that dispute is unrelated. The other user, User:Saatana is currently blocked for making repeated personal attacks, but if another admin wants to unblock him so he can contribute here I would not object. Gwernol 23:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding User:Saatana who has been invited to join this RfAr, he originally created an article about the Fish Tank Clan, a Counterstrike gaming clan. This was sent to AfD where after discussion it was deleted as non-notable (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fish tank clan). Saatana then recreated the article; it was deleted under WP:CSD:G7 by User:NawlinWiki . Saatana then made a pointed personal attacks against User:NawlinWiki . This was the first point I had contact with this case. NawlinWiki warned Saatana for making personal attacks and given the nature of the attack, I added my agreement , pointing out that there were more appropriate venues for the content that Saatana was trying to post. I also noticed he'd recreated the article as FT clan, which I deleted under CSD:A7 .

At this point, Saatana decided to respond to me, claiming he had not made personal attacks . I attempted to explain that the community had already decided that the article should be deleted and that reliable sources and verifiability were important to Misplaced Pages . Unfortunately this was met with a string of tirades and further personal attacks , and . The user was then blocked for 24 hours. He continues to deny that he has made any personal attacks, and fails to understand basic Misplaced Pages policy around verifiability and guidelines on notability despite good faith efforts by multiple editors to help him. He continues to "look for loopholes to exploit" so he can post his non-notable article, as he stated on this RfAr. Gwernol 14:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This forum thread is interesting too, especially "Oh well, in case anyone wanted the USER PAGE for the fag who deleted us: " (by the way linking to the wrong user) posted by the user who is likely User:Saatana; and "i wana ruin every wiki that user has edited. what a dick. who the fuck cares if a clan made a wiki... wow 4kbs of wasted webspace...Man, Gordon, you stirred up the Hive" etc. Gwernol 14:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:ZimZalaBim

Gwernol has noted all the relevant diff's above. Nothing has been deleted from the Jodie Foster history . IP's inclusion of "or selling out?" is a non-neutral conjecture that isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. User was warned of such, but persisted, followed by continued legal threats, even after warned (by myself and others). User also issued personal attack against Gwernol . Block (and talk page protection) was entirely appropriate and within policy. Gwernol's actions were not an abuse of admin power.

On the subject of Saatana (talk · contribs), that user's activities are irrelevant to this issue, and their 24-hour block was also appropriate.

Statement by User:Saatana

The block of me was not appropriate, although it has expired at this point and may not matter to most of you, because I was simply pointing out that my experiences thus far on wikipedia had been dealing with people who were assholes to me. Yes I guess maybe this could be considered a personal attack and repeatedly I was pointed to an article saying that I was supposed to say things about other editors contributions and not about the editors. Well what exactly am I supposed to say about someone who has contributed nothing except to delete my post on their own arbitrary interpretation of the rules. I provided all information asked of me by those who wanted to delete my post and then nobody said anything to me about that but merely deleted the post. If, with the exception of one or two actual personal attacks that I did make because I was really frustrated because nobody would listen, the most I have done is simply try to exploit loop holes in your rules. That is no reason to be a complete and total jerk to me.Saatana 21:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved User:Fram

Looking at the diffs, Gwernol acted correctly, and this arbcom case is a waste of time. If you don't want to get blocked, don't make numerous legal threats, and don't insult editors or admins: if you want the ArbCom to accept your case and support you, tell them the whole story, not some extremely one-sided version. The block of Saatana is unrelated, but also entirely appropriate, and Saatana would be well advised to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Fram 11:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Threaded comments removed; reinsert in your own section if needed to support your position. FloNight 15:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

• Reject, no prior dispute resolution. Dmcdevit·t 18:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Morton_devonshire

Initiated by Shortfuse at 23:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

Shortfuse
User:Morton_devonshire

Notes will be left on talk pages immediately after finishing this writeup.

Other attemps to resolve this issue:

• Avoidance would require that I cease editing all 9/11 articles, which I do not wish to do as it is a subject that interests me and that I am somewhat knowledgeable on.
• Attempts to discuss and resolve differences on this complex issue at these locations: , , and
• Mediation would not be appropriate in this case because mediators cannot address user misconduct, per the stated policy. Additionally, with the amount of charge involved in this issue and the fact that we seem to have no middle ground in this issue, I feel it is extremely unlikely that medication could result in a workable solution. Finally, it can be assumed that User:Morton_devonshire would not wish to partake in medication considering the fact that he has answered this Request by stating that he dosent wish to participate. In Mediation, he would have that choice but, should this case be accepted, he does not.
• AN/I: Another user has brought up similar misconduct allegations, the admins have stated that the AN/I board is not a proper place to address this.

Summary: Severe and extreme POV pushing through abuse of WP:DP combined with incivility, personal attacks and failure to WP:AGF.

As first party, you may feel tempted to add a summary here. If you do, make it a single sentence of not more than twenty words. Please make your case in your statement.

Statement by User:Shortfuse

• User:Morton_devonshire improperly nominated for deletion 911: In Plane Site, a little less than six months after it had just survived AfD, with a consensus of keep. At numerous points during the discussion, he was asked to state where he had "asked around" in accordance with WP:DP and/or WP:CCC to see if consensus had changed prior to nominating. These questions remained unanswered. As was noted by other editors in the discussion WP:DP states that "XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally."

• User:Morton_devonshire has used his user page and/or talk page and sub pages thereof to ridicule those who attempt to include 9/11 conspiracy theory items in the Misplaced Pages with pictures of people wearing tinfoil hats. He has since toned these down slightly, removing the derogatory captions under the pictures. While all users are entitled to their opinions, neutrality must be the most important concern. He has also used these pages to make clear an agenda that involves deleting all articles from the encyclopedia which do not conform to the official 9/11 Theory. Gaming the XfD system in this manner violates the spirit of the policy.

• Finally, User:Morton_devonshire demanded that I apologize for discussing my thoughts on the MfD on Association_of_9/11_All_Sides_Editors (a project that I created to combat User:Morton_devonshire's destructive effects on the encyclopedia, and which was immediately proposed for deletion by another user) on that MfD's discussion thread and threatened to report me to the admins if I didn’t. It is my position that this is a form of intimidation designed to discourage my participation in the editing and discussion process which violates WP:CIVIL.

• While it would be possible to list every single infraction, indication and example of personal bias being applied to editing in violation of policy and to the detriment of the encyclopedia, I dont feel it would be appropriate to do so here as there is simply too much to discuss will wait for the case to be opened by this Committee. Shortfuse 06:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Morton devonshire

The charge is baseless and misleading. Thank you, but I decline to participate. Morton devonshire 00:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Question by uninvolved User:Tom harrison

Shouldn't there have been a request for comment first? Or was there and I missed it? Tom Harrison 00:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:MONGO

Ah, Shortfuse (talk · contribs) seemed angry that Morton Devonshire nominated the 9/11 in Plane Sight article for deletion, and feeling that many simialr article were also up for deletion, decided to create the Misplaced Pages:Association of 9/11 All Sides Editors, which I put up for Mfd shortly after he created that page. Later, on that association article, Shortfuse decided he would first add Morton's and then my name to the list of editors to watch. I complained and told him I would delete it as an attack page. Shortfuse also insinuated that he was going to Mfd articles such as Misplaced Pages:Counter-Vandalism Unit and I told him if he did that he might end up getting blocked for WP:POINT. Anyway, I wasn't happy about my name being on a list and neither was Morton...though Shortfuse did remove the names after several editors asked him to do so. He didn't do it because I asked him. Basically, looks to me like this arbitration is pointing in the wrong direction, but if Shortfuse wishes to file an Rfc, he certainly can. This case would be a waste of arbcom's time.--MONGO 05:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement from uninvolved JzG

As far as I can tell Shortfuse appears to believe that we give altogether too much credence to the absurd and fanciful notion that the 9/11 attacks were the work of terrorists, backed only by the public record, whereas the Truth that they were the work of the Evil Corrupt American Government is being ruthlessly suppressed by POV warriors such as Morton Devonshire and MONGO. Or something. As MONGO suggests above, this RFAR is pointing in the wrong direction. It's also premature as there has been no obvious prior attempt to resolve the conflict. Guy 11:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement from uninvolved Aude

Regarding WP:CCC, there have been a number of AFDs lately relating to 9/11 conspiracy cruft that have resulted in deletes, where consensus has changed since February/March. For example, 9-11:_The_Road_to_Tyranny in March resulted in "no consensus", whereas the consensus recently was "delete" With 911: In Plane Site, the result in March was "keep" while this time it was "no consensus". By bringing the article to AFD, it gives an opportunity to "ask around a bit" per CCC. To ask at say, Village Pump, as CCC says is unrealistic for a deletion issue. Asking at Village Pump applies more to policy issues (e.g. should a policy change?) rather than article/content issues. Incidentally, someone did ask me on my talk page about 911: In Plane Site, it's notability and CCC. In all, I think Shortfuse misunderstands CCC and Morton handled this AFD properly.

As for Misplaced Pages:Association of 9/11 All Sides Editors, we have precident for deleting such projects. (e.g. Misplaced Pages:The "9/11 Truth Movement" WikiProject and WikiProject Conspiracies Guild) Though Shortfuse's "project" is even more objectionable, as it takes form of attacking users (e.g. MONGO and Morton). It seems that Shortfuse is simply upset with this MFD, and is coming to arbcom to complain.

Re: the "apology", Shortfuse left the following on Morton's talk page:

"Your demand for an apology (and related threats) at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Association_of_9/11_All_Sides_Editors has been received, considered and subsequently was denied. No apology will be forthcoming for the reasons stated at the AfD discussion. --Shortfuse 09:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)"

That smacks of incivility. Such attitudes on part of Shortfuse have no place on Misplaced Pages.

Shortfuse has only been involved with 9/11 articles for a short time, voting on an AFD on 9/12. And two more on 9/20 On the other hand, Morton has been working on these articles since December, and is well aware of how various Misplaced Pages policies apply. While we welcome more folks to get involved with these articles, we ask for NPA, civility, and respect for Misplaced Pages's other policies. I find such respect lacking on part of Shortfuse. Morton has been helpful towards Misplaced Pages project goals, working in accordance to policies such as WP:NPOV#Undue weight, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, etc. There is no need for ArbCom to be involved here. If anything, Shortfuse should try a RFC first. But, I think that too would be a waste of time. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 15:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by tbeatty

I urge the committee to decline this. 9/11 conspiracy theories have exploded into crufty sub-articles. The community is in the process of merging/deleting these articles into the main articles. SHortfuse opposes this effort by the community and is taking his frustration out on Morton devonshire. Decline this request and let the community carry on with it's work.--68.226.97.243 03:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Tyrenius

There are some serious and disturbing issues here, concerning various aspects of the community's dealing with 9/11 issues, and Morton's conduct has had highly questionable aspects to it. However, these have been given an airing on AN/I, and he has shown willing by removing some polemical material on his user page. I would rather AGF that he will attempt a more collegiate approach with other editors. Even if problems remain, there are other steps that need to be taken before ArbCom, and I have advised Shortfuse to take them. Tyrenius 19:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Reject: try some previous steps in dispute resolution first, and keep in mind that an arbcom case will look at behaviour on ALL sides. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. Per Matthew. Jayjg 22:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. Charles Matthews 14:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Editingoprah

Initiated by Zaphnathpaaneah at 08:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• User:Editingoprah
• user:Zaphnathpaaneah

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

This was done. Please see the notes on Editingoprah's talk page made by Zaphnathpaaneah at 08:53 on 25 September 2006 (UTC), thank you. --208.254.174.148 03:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Please also be aware that user Whatareyou may either be another variant of editingoprah or a parallel user (They both edit the same articles often in tandem, please see their editing histories).

Notes will be left on talk pages immediately after finishing this writeup.

• Avoidance requires that I relinguish my participation in the Black People article which I have taken a great deal of effort to contribute in.
• Disengagement has occurred multiple times where I left the article while it was under lockdown for a period of eleven days.
• Mediation - User:Editingoprah and I both initiated various forms of mediation, however, in all cases the majority ruled in my favor. Please see ] which shows the results. It basically ends with a compromise (the likes of which I had already accepted), including Editingoprah's viewpoints (which have already been included even before he had participated). Finally he is 3RRing the article and constantly making small yet rediculous edits that go back to his original position prior to mediation! For example he removed a reference clearly cited , and replaced it with a ((fact)) then in the talk page he is insisting that I provide a reference for my position! Now he asks for a compromise, and I feel he is only following the process technically, yet manipulating the spirit of the process.

As first party, you may feel tempted to add a summary here. If you do, make it a single sentence of not more than twenty words. Please make your case in your statement.

Statement by party 1

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Statement by party 2

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Statement by Ezeu

The issue at Black People is about whether only people of sub-Saharan African origin can be called "black", or if non-African "black" people such as Negritos, Australoids, some Melanesians, etc. who are considered, or self-identify as "black" can be included in the article. This has been a battleground of laboriously conflicting opinions during the last few months or so. There is an overwhelming talkpage consensus that "black" is a term without a definitive definition (esp. talk archive 2). Despite consensus, Editingoprah refuses to allow the article to describe "black", from a neutral point of view, and time and time again he tries to push his specific POV. Editingoprah's opinions on the issue are somewhat, but not entirely strange. The article could well include his opinions, and other users have tried to accommodate his views, but Editingoprah shows little willingness to compromise, and blatantly disregards from general consensus. Although he has not crassly abused policy, I argue that Editingoprah is disruptive by refusing to abide by consensus (this has manifested itself again and again, see the Talk:Black people/Archive 2). I believe that Editingoprah is is a valuable contributer, especially since he often brings valuable opinions that challange the mainstream. The problem is that he tries to promote fringe views as if they are generally held opinions, and refuses to acknowledge that other editors are presenting prevailing, mainstream and verifiable viewpoints.--Ezeu 19:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Whatdoyou

Seeing as Editingoprah appears to be unaware of this process and thus once again bullied out of an opportunity to defend his/her self, I would like to quote what Editingoprah has said on the talk page. Editingoprah's point is that we need to be encyclopedic and have a clear definition of Black from an authoritative source. Otherwise there's no objective way of deciding who is Black. The aeta of South Asia are not considered Black in any census, nor are they genetically related to Africans, but Zaph inserts his POV that they are legitimate Blacks simply because aeta is vaguely derived from a root word that means Black in tagalog. But when others try to add the Black Irish, who have experienced discrimination also, and are also of a dark complexion (compared to fair skinned Europeans)Zaph arbitrarily decides that they are not Black-and I agree they're not, but if the aeta can be called Black because of historical nomenclature and prejudice, then why not the Black Irish? Here's what Editingoprah actually said:

The U.S. census defines Black exclusively in terms of recent sub-Saharan lineage. It states quite clearly that Black refers to “ a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro,"or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.” Black Africa is a synonym of sub-Saharan Africa and all of the non-African groups mentioned (i.e. African-Americans, Haitains) are descendents of the recent African diasporas. So while I strongly agree with the mediator’s excellent conclusion that we need to be encyclopedic by relying on census definitions, the notion that non-African descended examples were included in the census is categorically false.

Further there’s nothing at all to indicate that the British census includes people of non-African ancestry. It’s sub-divided into Carribean, African, other Black background, and all Black groups but Caribeans are African-diasporas people and other Black groups is for Haitains, and Black immigrants from America who are also of African diasporas ancestry. The other Black groups most certainly does not refer to the extremely dark skinned South Asians of Britain because their classified as Asian in the British census. So if we’re going to be encyclopedic and if we’re going to accept the mediators conclusion that the census of two major countries on two separate continents is reliable, we must adheare to African heritage, and not color, when defining Black.--Whatdoyou 16:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I also think it's important to add that editingoprah's the only one who is citing actual referenced definitions of Black from reputable sources. The others are just selectively picking examples of different groups being described as Black at different times and places. I quote again from editingoprah:

Dictionary.com], the free dictionary online]., the U.S. census], and the British census] all emphasize the idea that Blacks are of African origin-in fact it is against the law for a dark-skinned person of South Asian or Australian origin to claim to be black in the census. An article by the BBC makes a clear distinction between Blacks and the dark skinned people of South Asian ancestry]. This article about race in biomedicines says “The entities we call ‘racial groups’ essentially represent individuals united by a common descent — a huge extended family, as evolutionary biologists like to say. Blacks, for example, are a racial group defined by their possessing some degree of recent African ancestry (recent because, after all, everyone of us is out of Africa, the origin of Homo sapiens)."] --Whatdoyou 17:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

It looks like this is the kind of editing dispute that WP:CITE and WP:V were designed to resolve. Talk page consensus does not NPOV make. However, I see no evidence of prior dispute resolution. --Ryan Delaney 06:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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

User:Jean-Thierry Boisseau (formerly User:Musikfabrik), et al.

Initiated by Adam Cuerden at 00:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Users involved

• User:Jean-Thierry Boisseau, formerly part of User_talk:Musikfabrik
• Adam Cuerden
• User:Folantin
• User:Moreschi
• User:Makemi
• User:Ssilvers

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Notes will be left on talk pages immediately after finishing this writeup.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

All other steps have been tried:

• It is very hard to avoid him: Jean-Thierry Boisseau, the main subject of this case, keeps undoing edits and other similar things.
• Disengagement is difficult: Jean-Thierry originally objected to an article being NPOV, so I and others worked extremely hard, taking it in good faith, and worked, with his approval, to create an NPOV technique to get the page NPOV. Promptly on having finished, Jean-Thierry Boisseau changed tack and began accusing us of horrible sexism, tried to get various orginisations set against us, and other such things. I edit under my own name. To accept this could be dangerous.
• Mediation and similar options: I believe I and User:Makemi counted as mediators in the first instance: I was trying to deal with issues he raised, after coming to that page briefly from another project, and rather agreeing with his attempts to makie it NPOV. Unfortunately, this presumed he was acting in good faith: The very act of creating this NPOV listing, which he initially approved of, has led to him, in the end, upping the degree of bashing significantly.

As first party, you may feel tempted to add a summary here. If you do, make it a single sentence of not more than twenty words. Please make your case in your statement.

Statement by party 1

User:Jean-Thierry Boisseau, formerly part of the banned group-username User:Musikfabrik has begun a course of bullying, personal attacks, and generally making things awful for all contributors at Talk:List of major opera composers and List of major opera composers.

Examples (You may find it easier to read the other party's statements first - this is largely a collection of annotated evidence.):

• Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive3#Please do not add or delete any information from this article until the term "major opera composer" has been defined - Early bullying.
• User_talk:Makemi#Gender_bias_issues - Accusations by him flying thick and fast.
• Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive3#Adding unsourced statements - here's where he removed a reference because it didn't contain a page number. Also shows Folantin and Moreschi's contribution.
• Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive3#One_major_POV_issue_to_be_resolved - Here's where it came out he was part of a collective.
• Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers#Not_so_fast.__There_is_obvious_POV_gender_bias_here - I fully enter the dispute. (I can't get this one to go straight to the section in question - click on "Not so fast. There is obvious POV gender bias here" in the Table of Contents if there's difficulty.)

Adam Cuerden 07:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

For an example of Musikfabrik's promotion, compare these:

• Musikfabrik's additions to List of composers for the classical guitar

• Musikfabrik's catalogue of guitar music

Finally, in rebuttal to Boisseau's comment below, I would point out the final list contains several living people: Menotti, Adams, and Glass. For an overview of four and a half centuries of composition (which began in Europe), this is not unreasonable. Adam Cuerden 00:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness, it seems appropriate to here list what seems to be the worst of my behaviour in this case: In the section above, under "I fully enter the dispute", I, after Boisseau mentioned he was getting a professor to use my actions and my talk page as an example of sexist behaviour in his or her class, told him to shut up. I have since apologised. I would strongly suggest, however, that the professor be asked to strip all names and not provide links, as it seems slanderous to use trying to obey Misplaced Pages guidelines as they then stood and as Musikfabrik (whoever it was at the time) initially supported as evidence to teach that I and others are sexist under our own names.

Perhaps more questionably, I have submitted several Musikfabrik-related articles for Deletion Jean-Thierry Boisseau, Paul Wehage, etc, and removed all Musikfabrik-contributed composers from others. In my defence, I did this only after he said in section 2 that Musikfabrik was primarily for promotion, save one much earlier, List of organ composers, which I had discussed with him. Adam Cuerden 12:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

It was never hidden that the username Musikfabrik was attached to a music publisher and that the articles being contributed were made for composers published by this organization, as is evidenced here - ]. It should also be noted that the first post that was made on this talk page uses "We" and "Our". We had no idea about this "Role Account" rule and it was never brought to our attention. However, we have been honest and upfront about what we were doing from the beginning. Our additions to Germaine Tailleferre (the only documented complete list of her works anywhere) Gold and Fizdale, Alice Esty, Category:Works by Germaine Tailleferre speak for themselves.

However, as I have clearly stated, it was never our intention to try to get Germaine Tailleferre on this list (as has been repeatedly suggested on the page Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers, as she does not qualify, purely and simply. Using this tactic in a discussion concerning POV issues in the specific article List of major opera composers is clearly beside the point.

When my colleague Paul Wehage began editing on the article List of major opera composers there were no sources, no women listed, no living composers, no non-European composers and the selection process was done in a collegial manner without using any sources or definition of the term "important" or even "opera". Certain issues have been resolved, not without much discussion and intrigue, but sources which could have resolved the POV gender bias issues have been ignored at best and surpressed at worst (as the discussion here would suggest User_talk:Adam_Cuerden#Judith_Weir). The International Alliance of Women in Music was involved was means of getting sources which documented the importance of women in Opera; Three sources out of that discussion were proposed on the page Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers/Archive3#NPOV as was information about Kaija Saariaho among others, all of which was ignored or dismissed because this material only contained inforation about women. Yet, of the ten lists used to create the new contents of List_of_major_opera_composers, six contained the names of only men. The other four contained one or two women. When women (as is the case of Saariaho, Libby Larsen, Judith Weir and many others) have operas commissioned and performed by major festivals and major houses, staged and performed by major stage directors and singers, and recorded on major labels and none are seen as being important because information which could prove this claim is being deliberately surpressed, it would seem to me to be quite clear that an sexist agenda at work here.

As it stands, this article gives the message to the public that no women, no non-Europeans and very few living composers were "important opera composers". This statement is only possible because of the sources used. If other sources taking into account more recent research, compositions and performances, the information could be presented in an entirely different light. The point of all of this is that there is a great deal of resistent to change in the entire category of Opera, with a definite bias against anything outside of the accepted canons of "standard repertoire". While it is clear that these notions of "standard repertoire" should be included, what is also clear is that other sources which document other aspects of this subject outside of these "established canons" which are generally published in sources after the "general repertoire" sources should also be taken into account. While the regional bias and the bias towards "Dead White Males" is also clearly an issue and should also be addressed, the gender bias is an entirely objective and clearcut criteria in which there can be no argument. I fail to see how it is more neutral to dismiss the works of more than 50% of Mankind, simply because of the conventions of "standard repertoire" and inspite of sources which could easily prove the contrary.

My primary issue with this list is its existence: How can a List of major opera composers ever claim neutrality, given what it is in the first place? Jean-Thierry Boisseau 13:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Party 3

The Musikfabrik account was blocked as a role account. We were not informed that it was a role account until extensive detective work by Folantin forced an admission that it was so. That account, so it seemed, was largely comprised of 2 people: Paul Wehage (who was often incivil and engaged in pointless POV battles), and Jean-Thierry Boisseau, who removed an inline citation as not having a page number and added inaccurate information to the list. This latter has also accused basically everyone involved in this case as being both sexist and lazy (see Makemi's talk page, link above). For the record, I also resent being labeled anti-Semitic. The imputation that I have a bias against contemporary composers is also wrong.

Jean-Thierry Boisseau's actions have not been entirely for the worse. His badgering led to the addition of 40-odd inline citations to the previously unreferenced list by myself and Folantin. Once this had been done, however, he then engaged in a move war with myself. I moved the list (following an idea endorsed by Jimbo Wales in a similar case) to List of opera composers considered major. My edit summary explained that this softened the POV, though it did not remove it altogether. He immediately, with no discussion, re-moved the list to List of composers of opera, claiming that anything else would be POV. Not only was his solution useless as it duplicated The opera corpus, but in my opinion the primary reason for his doing so was to be able to include spectacularly obscure composers on the Musik Fabrik roster , such as Germaine Tailleferre. After another bout of moves, we wound back up at the original title. Not only did were his moves preemptory and treated me as a vandal by reverting with no discussion, but then he left a flagrantly incivil message on my talk page.

Matters have recently descended from bad to worse after an edit war last night that sparked off this RFAR. Perhaps I should try to explain why there are no women on that list, even though now plenty of contemporary composers have been included. We took a decision, per Jimbo’s suggestion at the link I provided above, to compile our list using extant independent lists. This was done. The female composer with the most number of cites was Judith Weir, with 4 out of a maximum of 10. The cut off for inclusion has decided by consensus at 7 (yes, that may be minor POV, but what can you do?). Historically women have contributed very little to operatic history – not their fault, it’s the fault of past sexist societies, but we can’t change that, and there just hasn’t been enough time to see whether operas by female opera composers currently writing will survive and stay in the repertoire. Musikfabrik only contributed one list, which was quite rightly judged unreliable as it wasn’t a list, but a list of composers done to date on a website under construction. Moreschi 14:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Party 4

First, I feel I must state in the strongest possible terms that I find Boisseau's accusation of anti-Semitism deeply offensive. It is obvious from the context that my interest in the three names was whether they were male composers or not and therefore whether Germaine Tailleferre was the only woman composer on the lists. For instance, it is not clear to English speakers whether "Jan" is a man or a woman. I was unaware of the composers' nationalities (with the exception of Lior Navok). It seems Geirr Tveitt is a Norwegian, not an Israeli. I have no idea about Friedlin's nationality or ethnicity. This kind of trolling and bad faith interpretation has been typical of Boisseau's behaviour.

The main point is that Boisseau (and Paul Wehage and whoever else used the Musikfabrik alias - and it was not clear that it was a collective user) have made major contributions to pages with outstanding NPOV issues arising because of their presence and the presence of other Musik Fabrik composers, leading to a conflict of interest. They did not address such issues before moving on to List of major opera composers. This arosed suspicions as to their motives. I was led to investigate User:Musikfabrik only after he/they began following me round my other contributions and harrassing me. So much for accusations of a "witch hunt". --Folantin 15:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Party 5

Boisseau's bullying is extroadinary. He has, at various times, threatened to delete the "unsourced statements" in the flagship Opera article (stating that all the statements there are unsourced, although this is not true--they're just not in-line cited) and the several Opera Projects lists. The fact is that no female opera composers have been as important to the field of opera as the top 30, 50 or even 70 men, according to the majority of secondary sources. I hope this changes in the future, but Boisseau cannot claim that this fact is POV. The Opera project members searched diligently for authoritative lists of "major" opera composers published by reliable sources and found 10 reputable lists. If one creates a list of opera composers noted in 7 of those 10 lists, there are 53 men and no women. In fact, only one woman opera composer is named on as many as four out of the 10 lists, and there are a very large number of composers named on only 4 lists -- too many to make a meaningful list of "major" composers. Of all the opera composers shown in the opera corpus (hundreds) only 17 are women, and, so far, none of them is sufficiently notable to be included in this list. One editor should not bully the consensus of editors into destroying the NPOV criteria agreed on for compilation of this list, and his incivility and harassment deserve a permanent block on the account. -- Ssilvers 16:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Makemi

It is not entirely clear to me that arbitration is the appropriate step to take at this time, but here is my view of recent events. I blocked the account User:Musikfabrik after it came to my attention that it was being used by multiple people, in contravention of Misplaced Pages policy. There were other problems with this account, but that is the sole reason I blocked it. The account User:Jean-Thierry Boisseau was then created. This account then failed to assume good faith on my part, accusing me of blocking the account in order disrupt discussion at List of major opera composers, and of being a sexist tool of the establishment (which even a cursory review of my contributions should show to be blatantly false and supremely offensive). Jean-Thierry also failed to assume good faith on the parts of other members of the opera project, calling them lazy and sexist, despite that they were clearly working hard to source material and make it neutral.

It is difficult to separate the problems with the Musikfabrik account from the problems with the Jean-Thierry Boisseau account, but I believe we must. Some of the most inflammatory comments made by Musikfabrik I do not believe were made by Jean-Thierry Boisseau. In this case we must also what action to take regarding Musikfabrik's contributions, as it now; it seems that these were made in order to promote a corporation. Jean-Thierry has categorized attempts to discover POV a "witch hunt" which I see as a continued failure to assume good faith. His comments today about anti-semitism simply further show this lack of assuming good faith. I am not entirely pleased with how all the members of the opera project have acquitted themselves in this matter, however I see it as people who have worked hard and diligently to create a more NPOV article who then had extremely offensive names flung at them, despite this hard work and genuine motives. Mak (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by random passerby PurplePlatypus

Shouldn't all of these threaded comments have long since been removed? The top of the page clearly states that such responses should be kept within their authors' own sections, not appended to other peoples', and that arbitrators or clerks can remove them at any time. I'm tempted to do it myself but, being neither an arbitrator nor a clerk nor even an admin, I'd probably be stepping on toes needlessly if I did so. PurplePlatypus 02:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Statements by User:JzG

• Jean-Thierry does not appear to understand the difference between gender and gender bias. This may be a result of differences in English usage.
• Jean-Thierry appears to be escalating the dispute and trying to drag in external parties
• Jean-Thierry states that the lack of women on list of major opera composers is the result of gender bias , but the list cites its sources and inclusion criteria. If there have been no women who are regarded by reliable sources as major composers of opera, that is hardly Misplaced Pages's fault.
• Jean-Thierry seems intent on pursuing this singular view of the dispute to places where gender bias might be considered a hot button, despite the fact that there is no obvious relationship between feminism and opera , .
• List of major opera composers is highly unusual for a Misplaced Pages list in that it has, despite its apparently POV title, an objective definition of what constitutes a major opera composer, based on external authorities whose credentials are well established, see List of major opera composers#Lists Consulted. I wish more Misplaced Pages lists were this well defined and this thoroughly sourced

From a purely personal perspective, as a classical music lover, I cannot name off the top of my head a single notable female opera composer. The majority of truly great operas were composed between the beginning of the 17th Century and the end of the 19th Century, with a few notable exceptions. There are very few known female composers in this time, let alone opera composers, due in large part to the mores of the time. The great opera composers are people like Monteverdi, Mozart, Handel, Rossini, Wagner. I can see the merit of Glinka, and can accept Beethoven despite his limited work in the field (and speaking as a singer, he was not in my view a great or sympathetic writer for the voice!). Britten? Of course. Borodin? No stranger in paradise he. Who are the female composers of this level of fame? I have heard Keiko Abe, met Marie-Claire Alain, know (of course) of Hldegard of Bingen, but in reviewing the List of female composers no names sprung out at me (except for the wrong reasons - is WalterWendy Carlos really a celebrated female composer?). The composers listed are household names and their operas contain tunes which are part of the popular repertoire and conscsiousness; I reviewed my iTunes library and found entries for every single one of the composers listed except Glinka (which I will remedy), and the only entries from the female composers list I found on a quick review were Keiko Abe and Wendy Carlos - and Carlos was playing Bach. The accusation that the list is excluding women on the basis of gender bias is patently absurd. Guy 11:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Thanks to Purple Platypus for the very timely reminder! I've removed extensive threaded discussion from this application. Parties should feel free to restore any brief, relevant statements to their own section in an appropriate (non-threaded) format. --Tony Sidaway 03:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

• Accept. Charles Matthews 16:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Jayjg 22:22, 27 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.

Irishpunktom

Should enforcement point 2 in this case, Enforcement of administrative probation, be removed in light of the fact that Dbiv was not placed on administrative probation? Ral315 (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Does it really matter? David | Talk 11:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It makes no difference, the decision already states, "Should Dbiv be placed on administrative probation". It did pass, it's just irrelevant. Dmcdevit·t 00:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't matter; I was just curious why an irrelevant part would be included. I was under the assumption that even if an enforcement clause passed, it was not mentioned if the remedy didn't pass. Oh well. Ral315 (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually think anyone has thought about it enough to make a convention. :-) Dmcdevit·t 20:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella

I hate to be a pill, but in this case, two arbitrators amended the prinicple

• A set of users or anonymous editors who edit in the same tendentious pattern or engage in the same disruptive tactics may be presumed to be one user. The provisions of an arbitration decision may be enforced on that basis.

with the addition

• Yes to this when the ArbCom has had time and reason to come to grips with a situation. It is not a great idea for individual admins to apply the same reasoning, on the fly. Mistakes then get made.

Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is under a 5 day block for disruption and sockpuppetry. 64.230.112.190 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) today performed characteristic vandalism, including calling Warren Kinsella names and blanking a section of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement . Two other IPs 142.78.190.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 64.230.111.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which are consistent with Ellis' venues and manner, also edited articles from which Ellis is banned. Based on the findings in this case, should this IP be treated as an Ellis sock (in which case triggering enforcement against Ellis), or should they be treated as de novo vandals. Thatcher131 20:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Another wrinkle for clarification. The arbitrators' ruling is

"Arthur_Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from Warren Kinsella and articles which relate to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. Any article which mentions Warren Kinsella is considered a related article for the purposes of this remedy. This includes all talk pages other than the talk page of Mark Bourrie.:

"Today one of the IPs mentioned above made this edit, removing the Warren Kinsella section from the Bourrie article. This edit raises the question whether Mark Bourrie is still covered by the ban. Bucketsofg✐ 22:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume that means he is banned from all related article and talk pages including Mark Bourrie but not Talk:Mark Bourrie. Thatcher131 00:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That is my reading of the remedy. FloNight 05:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Still wondering whether to hold Arthur Ellis responsible for the contributions of the IPs. Thatcher131 05:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Intangible (encore)

I have asked for a clarification on my arbitration , but got no response there, so I will try it here. My comment was:

Intangible 10:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This should read edit-warring. If there are no objections, I'll change this in a day or two. Sam Korn 21:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to combine this with the review of AaronS's arbitration decision. --LucVerhelst 19:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is quite clearly an error of notation rather than any kind of alteration to the decision. Sam Korn 21:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It is, but both for the decision on Intangible as for AaronS's decision, I believe. --LucVerhelst 22:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the consistent wording would then be "for any disruptive edits." That's our convention, I don't recall our ever using just "edit warring" in the probation remedy, even when edit warring is the finding. Assuming there are no objections, I've fixed it. Dmcdevit·t 02:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not see why one should have to wait for User:AaronS to come back to Misplaced Pages. His review is pretty much irrelevant to the above question. Intangible 21:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but is "for any disruptive edits" a convention used when the only thing Arbcom really had a concern with is the two times I was blocked (one block for just putting a NPOV tag to the Anarchism article—an article which has had that same tag now for about two months)? Intangible 13:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I consider your removal of sourced information from Paul Belien disruptive, and was going to ban you from the article until I saw that you and Luc were talking nicely on the talk page. Your interpretation of reliable source policy is frankly ridiculous in this case. You can not exclude newspaper articles as sources just because Mr. Belien says in his own blog that he considers the reporter to be baised against him. Personal blogs are acceptable sources for non-controversial information about a person's life; they are not authoritative regarding that person's perceived enemies. This sort of problematic source removal is part of what got you in trouble before. The alternative to having individual admins making judgements on what is "disruptive" is to fully reopen the arbitration case to consider all of your recent edits, including to Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw. I hope you will avoid removing reliable sources from other articles in the future, as that will only create problems for all concerned. Thatcher131 14:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS says: "Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own name or known pen-name and not anonymously." Belien is professional journalist. He is also well-known, inside and outside of Belgium. Intangible 14:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if journalist A has argued that journalist B is biased against person C, that is not reason to exclude B's sources from the article but to include both A and B. In this case, journalist A argues journalist B is biased against journalist A (i.e. himself). That's an overwhelming conflict of interest and I doubt you would see the same logic accepted at Ann Althouse or Michelle Malkin for example. Maybe Arbcom should reopen your case. Thatcher131 14:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if journalist B writes that paleoconservatives are libertarians, which is refuted by journalist A, I'm not going to give undue weight to journalist B (probably none at all in this case). Intangible 15:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sam, there is a potential problem here. At the moment, Intangible is removing statements with reliable newspaper citations from Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw and Paul Belien; in one case because the version of a person's statement quoted in a French language newspaper differs from the version on Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw's own web site (hence, a mistranslation, according to Intangible); and in the other case because Mr. Belien has stated on his personal blog that the newspaper reporter responsible for the articles is biased against him. "Tendentious editing" was rejected as a finding of fact because it is content based. However, whether Intangible edit wars over his interpretations depends on the number of opposing editors and their tenacity. This doesn't seem right to me. Thatcher131 16:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS tells me that I can use both sources in those articles. Intangible 16:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording should just remove "by tendentious editing". You are quite right, of course, that the issue was more than edit-warring. Any other comments? Sam Korn 16:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, as you can see above he has an interesting view of reliable source policy. If you leave it as, "may be banned from any article he disrupts," my question as an admin would be how it should be enforced. In the case of Paul Belien, can Intangible be banned from the article for his removal of sourced material even though he and Luc are talking politely? In the case of Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw, where there was disruption until the article was protected, should Intangible be banned from the article even though both editors were stubborn? One answer would be to file article RFCs or requests for 3rd opinions, and then ban from the article if he refuses to accept the consensus of outside opinion. That's a "process" answer although the gears grind slowly some times. Any further thoughts would be appreciated. Thatcher131 02:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox:request for clarification of clarification

There is a new ruling that Eternal Equinox, aka User:Velten is limited to a single account; and after a lot of carry-on (some of it appears at the foot of this section), she seemed resigned to following it. However, today she again edited anonymously, supporting herself at Promiscuous (song) and making this sneaky revert. There was no apology or "oops, forgot to log in" or anything of that nature, in fact the IP had already been used for another edit four minutes earlier. I assume not very much good-faith forgetfulness in this case. (I know, I know, but with respect, the arbcom hasn't already spent as much good faith on the editor as I have.) She apparently "foresaw" herethat it would happen soon, even though I can't say I can remember the diligent Eternal Equinox (etc) persona having any tendency to forget to log in. Anyway. Does the ruling have any teeth? It doesn't specify any penalties for editing anonymously. Can she be blocked for it? If not, I foresee she soon won't log in at all. (As above, on the good faith already spent.) Bishonen | talk 19:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC).

"All edits by Eternal Equinox under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user." This was intended to mean enforce as per WP:BAN. Revert on sight, dole out whatever blocks are necessary to get it to stop. It's rather like fighting vandalism. Dmcdevit·t 05:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to Bishonen: yes, I predicted that I might edit anonymously and I did. (Occasionally it happened when I used Hollow Wilerding, but that was long ago, so I can't remember.) If I do this again and another edit following from the Velten account occurs, I'd appreciate that I don't have to explain myself. Like I said, it happens because the browser logs you out sometimes and I didn't realize it. So I don't want to have to explain each time; because I've told everybody here, you'll know that it's me accidentally editing anonymously.

However, I was editing Promiscuous (song) and Loose (album) as early as these edits:

• Promiscuous 1
• Promiscuous 2
• Promiscuous 3
• Loose 1
• Loose 2
• Loose 3
• Loose 4

To EM: indeed I'm a fan of Nelly Furtado, but Gwen Stefani is still the best; don't be silly now. I wasn't harassing you and please don't block me if you aren't aware of the details. Discussion should always be incorporated and consensus might be achieved.

By the way, the 64.231 cannot be blocked upon sight since it's from a library. If it's musically-related, it's likely me, but there's still a chance it won't be. I'm saying this just so everybody knows. Velten 21:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Your previous edits to Promiscuous (song) consist of nothing but updating chart positions and minor rearrangements of the text, which is what you have done for dozens of song articles. Are you meaning to tell me your decision to revert one of my edits and completely overhaul a whole section of the article wasn't because I'd edited it just six hours before? This edit to Say It Right is equally worrying. Strangely enough, your first non-chart edits to any Nelly Furtado-related article occurred right after I told you I was a fan of her and owned her latest album (and the tone of your reply indicated you weren't even sure who the woman was). Coincidence? I think not; let's not forget, from the same period, and , and , and , and , and . Or, from before that, and , as well as , and . Or how about and less than three weeks ago: piddling edits made to then-FA of the day Simon Byrne, to which user:Giano made major contributions that led to it becoming an FA. And I haven't even dug up the diffs that show you making equally trivial edits to articles watchlisted by Bishonen, Bunchofgrapes, and whoever else you've decided to harass. It's quite clear all of these were made with the intention of irritating other editors and scratching away at their patience, and regardless of whether you'll admit it, you're doing this again. There's nothing vague or open to interpretation about it. Not only that, but you're edit warring on Promiscuous (song) over the same issues you edit warred about on Cool (song), from which you were banned from editing for a period after you attempted to assume ownership. You're on extremely thin ice here. Extraordinary Machine 14:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

1. That's what you do to; rearrange and/or rewrite the text. I still edited it before you, so you have no defense here.
2. I didn't know who Furtado is until you mentioned her? Stop being silly.
3. You never told me you had her album. Stop creating excuses to prove a point.
4. Those diffs were explained offline. The consensus of those edits were either coincidence, intentional, or I had information to update. Incase nobody has noticed, EM and I edit the vast majority of music-related articles and because of this, that's obviously not stalking. If it was, then all the edits you made directly after mine on a music-related article would be considered stalking.
5. I already explained that I had no idea Giano authored Simon Byrne. I knew he had edited the article featured days before, Belton House, so I didn't touch it. The fact that another Giano-article was featured three days later was relatively questionable. I've already explained the details.
6. It's quite clear all of these were made with the intention of irritating other editors and scratching away at their patience, and regardless of whether you'll admit it, you're doing this again — it's quite clear? Really? What's your source?
7. You are edit-warring on Promiscuous (song). You are responsible for not providing answers and removing content (which you are basing upon the Billboard format).

Velten 16:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

1. EE/Velten's claims above shouldn't be read under the assumption that they're true; sadly, she's once again defending herself with falsehoods and misrepresentations. As the diffs above show, the harassment goes back to January, at least, and the main reason I've mostly ignored it until now isn't that there wasn't an ArbCom ruling at the time that would allow me to "have my way" whenever I disagreed with her (which is what she's claiming on my talk page), but because I thought sooner or later she'd come round and reconsider her behaviour and attitudes towards other Misplaced Pages users. This wasn't the reason I didn't provide evidence at the RFAr; I was just too burned by the whole affair to think about it anymore.
2. Fast forward to a few months later, and EE/Velten's still trying to pull off his usual shenanigans. Now, it didn't occur to me to take the novel (at least to me) course of ignoring overwhelming evidence (including an MSN chat I had with EE herself, in which I told her I owned the album) that proved beyond reasonable doubt she had harassed myself and other users, allowing her to have things her way and letting her claim ownership over even more pages, and then not doing a thing as she mysteriously parachuted her way into an article I had just edited. If that's what's now being endorsed as Misplaced Pages policy, I'll know in future, and will call on admins (and be prepared for others to call on me) to assume someone is telling the truth even in the presence of clear and present evidence to the contrary. No, actually I'll not do that; even if the ArbCom were to approve of it, I find it incredibly foolish, and I'll not go along with it.
3. The "edit war" to which Velten is referring involved me restoring an edit identical to one I had justified and explained to death on another talk page (Talk:Cool (song), from which she was temporarily banned for causing more disruption, quarreling and attempting to assume ownership). After she reverted, I asked her to provide a source for a claim she made on the talk page that she said justified her revert; she instead opted to set up a straw man argument against me and accuse me of "making excuses" and "not providing answers". This alone isn't exactly EE at her most disruptive, but it gets quite close once one factors in her main reason for starting the edit war. Extraordinary Machine 21:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Anonymous IPs aren't accounts, so if Velten is limited to one account, she's following that rule. Mistakes happen. Do whatever is needed to protect Misplaced Pages, but don't punish someone for forgetting to login. It's easy to do (I do it myself regularly). - Mgm| 04:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • From the ruling: "All edits by Eternal Equinox under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user." The ruling was in fact entirely about getting him or her to stop editing from a cloud of IPs. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution