Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Halo (talk | contribs) at 11:49, 25 June 2006 (→[]: The Halo's comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 11:49, 25 June 2006 by The Halo (talk | contribs) (→[]: The Halo's comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut
  • ]

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).

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

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


Purge the server cache


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

user:Nagle

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

User refused any type of comunication. this is what this request is about. No DR is possible with users who refuse to comunicate:

Statement by user:Zeq

WP:Civility is a core important policy of wikipedia.

WP:Resolving disputes encourage users to communicate in order to resolve disputes. This is a basic first step.

WP:Probation clearly specify that "striking out on user under probation" is not allowed.

WP:NPOV and also good faith attempt to edit only with information known to us as truth (without political POV pushing) are also important pillars of wikipedia.

WP:NOR prevent using un sourced claims on wikipedia. (I am using the word "unsourced" to avoid using "lies" - since we are not arguing here what is true or what is not.)

WP:AGF is a core policy governing how wikipedia editor should treat other editors.

WP:Not clearly state that Misplaced Pages is not a battle field


The issues outside content dispute. This arbcom request is not about resolving an edit dispute with user:Nagle - it is his behavior that is a violation of civility to a level that require your attention. No other mechanism in wikipedia is able to handle such behaviour.

Facts of the issue

user:Nagle made an edit that either was a gross error or was done in bad faith. I attempted to communicate with him (on his talk page) but he have turned down all attempts at basic, civil communication taking advantage of the fact that I am on probation.

The attempted communication is here:

The reason for the attempted communication (this is not what this arbCom request is about but is described just for completeness was the caption user:Nagle made in this edit .

While the original caption of this image clearly identify this section of the wall as being on the border between Israel and the west bank (and as such a legal place to build a wall – even according to the UN int'l court) the editor has tried to use a different caption to enhance his POV that the wall in the photo demonstrates separation inside Palestinian territory. (His efforts were quickly reverted by another editor here: and he persisted with a different image (same problem) here: (this time with a better caption).

Btw, this was not his first attempt at mis-captioing this photo, see here: and here

But this request is not about his blatant edit-war in pushing this image, nor specifically about the mis-caption but about the lack of basic civility to a user who could not edit the article directly yet was merely trying to communicate with him to correct his error. Zeq 18:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I just want to add that the editor is deliberately trying to misrepresent facts in his edits such as this one: - this is clear political POV pushing that violates WP:Not. (for example there are no "Jewish-only" roads in the west bank as someone who took part in creating the Betslem report he tries to quote (double reference to Israeli settlements I am deeply insulted by his use of the report Btselem issued. But all that is besides the point, it is his violation of WP:Civilitay that stands between me and any attempt to correct his grossly wrong edits in any way - this is where your intervention is needed. Zeq 17:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

In this edit Nagle writes: "For Israel, good PR is a survival issue. If the US ever stops supporting Israel, the country will go broke and might go under. This justifies extreme measures on the PR front. Zeq seems to see himself as in the forefront of that battle. " - this edit shows that user:nagle not only accuse me of not operating with good faith (for what ? - for trying to point out his error to him on his talk page ?) but also tell us how he looks at wikipedia (as a battle field) does he think that it is his job to implement change in how the US public see Israel ? Is he using wikipedia for that ? If he is in fact doing (what he accused others of doing) he violates WP:Not as well.

user:nagle is described as civil and I hope he will continue to be this way. I have tried to comunicate with him. He choose to ignore me again and again There is no mechanism in wikipedia (other than Arbitration verdict) that can impose a change in his behaviour (back to his normal "extremely civil and willing to try all forms of dispute resolution". This RfA if asking to make him to engage in comunication and edit according to Misplaced Pages policies.

Note

The fact that I am allowed to use talk is already part of the ban notice ("The user is not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page.") - which is the top of the article talk page. clearly anyone who "takes authority" from this ban notice must have read it.

I am not asking ArbCom for any calrification of the ban (or to review the ban itself that is IMHO not in good cause) - I am asking ArbCom (the only possible body which can decide such matters) to induce a change in user:Nagle behaviour toward me and in his edit practice (which violates wikipedia policy) in said article. Zeq 18:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

According to the large box at the top of Talk:Israeli apartheid, Zeq (talk · contribs) is banned from editing the article Israeli apartheid until March 5, 2007. "The user specified is on probation and has edited this article inappropriately.". So I've been ignoring his comments related to that article. After his comments on my talk page, I put "Edit by banned user ignored. Ref: Talk:Israeli apartheid --John Nagle 17:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)". This is apparently the "uncivil behavior" referred to.

Actually, after some cleanup, the article seems to be getting back on track. Several people are now editing in a reasonably cooperative way. They don't all agree, but the changes are getting smaller and more focused, and there are few reverts now. I've been trying to nudge things towards convergence, with some modest success. Check the edit history and talk page for that article. --John Nagle 18:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

(This dispute seems wierd. A banned user is complaining about being ignored. That's the whole point of banning, isn't it? If this goes to arbitration, I'll say more, but for now, enough seems to have been said. Meanwhile, back at the article, things are going moderately well despite some disagreements. This article was locked for a while due to excessive disruption, but with some of the sources of trouble removed, things have calmed down. --John Nagle 20:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

Comment by Ideogram

I don't understand this RFAR. In my dealings with John Nagle he has been extremely civil and willing to try all forms of dispute resolution. Ideogram 17:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

The Hunger Project

Involved parties

(Provide links to the user page of each party and to all accounts they have edited with. Briefly summarize case. No details.)

User:Jcoonrod

User:Smeelgova

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
(Provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration.)
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
(If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)
  • I have engaged in an enormous amount of good faith discussion and applied for mediation on June 8, but escalating actions by Smeelgova lead me to believe that mediation is unlikely to work. Smeelgova has disputed edits by User:Danny (although they are now restored on the page). And my decision to request arbitration was reinforced by comments to Smeelgova on Danny's discussion page by User:BradPatrick, "I'm really not sure what you are up to except grinding an axe."--Jcoonrod 15:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Jcoonrod

(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.)

For the past month, user Smeelgova has daily inserted large amounts of negative material to The Hunger Project (THP) and related pages such as Joan Holmes, Robert K. Fuller and others. All of this material has been presented in ways to imply an improper relationship between THP and one of its founders, Werner Erhard. Most of the material consists of references to anti-cult websites which, in itself, casts aspersions on our integrity. We endeavored to negotiate a fair representation of her POV in a criticism section based on the model of the Unicef entry, but Smeelgova insists that only complete listings of every incident of anyone expressing her POV must be included in order to achieve "balance." The Hunger Project has always been an independent organization which has never used its resources for any purpose other than ending hunger, as verified by independent auditors every year of our existence. To state or imply otherwise is false and libelous, and could do material harm to The Hunger Project by raising doubts in the minds of current or potential donors. This issue was litigated in the courts from 1986-1989 (see | press release). The court found the allegations to be false and unfounded and awarded damages to The Hunger Project. We request the arbitrators to establish and freeze accurate and non-defamatory entries on The Hunger Project, Joan Holmes and other individuals associated with The Hunger Project and remove the history and discussion sections. We provide a sample for the arbitrators to consider at my sandbox.--Jcoonrod 15:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Smeelgova

Quoting Misplaced Pages Administrator --Jmabel :

I realize that I'm not a party to the mediation -- perhaps I should be,

since I seem to be becoming engaged, if only indirectly. The answer is: we're an encyclopedia. The origins of the organization, and what it was 30 years ago, should be of as much relevance as what it has become. The organization was, if anything, higher profile at that time. It was innovative, for better or worse, in being an organization that decided that fighting hunger did not necessarily mean feeding people. It innovatived a tactic on college campuses to get students to fast for a day and donate the money that they otherwise would have spent on food. It was part of a transformation of activist politics away from confrontation and more toward a focus on transforming oneself. I honestly think that the story of the Hunger Project in its first 10 years is of much more significance than its history since, and not in terms of a hatchet job. It was something new, it had its pluses and minuses, it is worth understanding as part of the history of charity and activism. Its present is much less interesting, basically "just another non-profit".

Again, you may feel completely free to quote me, again preferably in full.

  • I have taken the liberty of correcting the spelling in the quotation from me above; it is otherwise accurate (and the misspellings may have been in the original). - Jmabel | Talk 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, I see that the context of my remarks is unclear here. This was in answer to a question to the effect of "why should we be interested in things that happened 30 years ago?" - Jmabel | Talk 16:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally resent the negative-faith attacks that Jcoonrod has made against me in the past month. I do apologize for copying a comment from a prior editor back into the article, stating that "The Hunger Project regularly edits Misplaced Pages." However, I have attempted to utilize reputable sources for all of the historical documentation, and to cite said sources with endnote references and blockquote citations. In this manner, I have tried to let the language used by the sources speak for themselves, rather than paraphrasing my own POV into the mix. As to the relevance of the history of the organization and legality of sources I refer to comment above. Recent debated sourced citations have come from Raising Hell: How the Center for Investigative Reporting Gets the Story, by David Weir and Dan Noyes, published by the Center for Investigative Reporting, and not from The London Times.Smeelgova 15:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

Orthomolecular medicine

and perhaps other ongoing alternative medicine disputes

Involved parties

(Provide links to the user page of each party and to all accounts they have edited with. Briefly summarize case. No details.)

User:Ackoz - critical of the current layout and POV balance in Orthomolecular medicine
User:Lumos3 - creator and editor of Orthomolecular medicine
User:69.178.41.55 - frequent editor of Orthomolecular medicine

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
(Provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration.)

and

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried (If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)

I have listed the article at the RfC and medical topics, with no response, I have also asked another editor to comment , with a response that he had already tried to edit that article but it is impossible because of the other editors. User_talk:Ackoz There is actually no hope that mediation would bring something, the positions are too different, and there have been mediations on many more alternative medicine articles, but they didn't bring anything.

Statement user:ackoz

(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.)

I am listing this particular case of Orthomolecular medicine, but I hope for a ruling that would be universal for all alternative medicine articles. The effectivity of alternative methods is a view held by minority of experts. On wikipedia, however, the articles frequently reflect the viewpoint of supporters and practicioners of these methods. A small criticism section is usally added to the article somehow, but there are constant efforts to cut it down. . External links that lead to criticism are being removed without notification in the edit summary or on talk page. . Other articles, like Niacin, Megavitamin_therapy are being edited by the same people to the point where they don't reflect the real-world majority viewpoint. The articles should use the majority viewpoint as a backbone, and have an "advocacy" section, not the other way round. However, any efforts to rewrite those articles in that sense would lead to edit warring. User:Lumos3 argumented, that the other approach (presenting the majority view in the article) is not used in any articles on wikipedia, and because it's an Orthomolecular medicine article, it should represent the Orthomolecular medicine viewpoint . I would like the arbcom to rule that these two editors are violating the WP:NPOV by presenting a minority view as a backbone of the article. ackoz 15:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC) (sorry forgot to sign and date)

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.)

User user:ackoz claims are confused he tries to blur the distinction between Orthomolecular medicine (OM) and a range of unrelated articles. I can only speak for the OM article as I don’t edit on any other alternative medicine ones he mentions . My response only applies to OM. He is dogmatically opposed to OM as an approach to medicine and trying to use NPOV to put a negative slant on the article claiming a critical majority view of the subject should be stated even before it has been described. OM is a science it represents a minority view in a debate amongst scientists and qualified medical practitioners. He tries to portray it as an Alternative therapy as part of his campaign to silence a scientific opinion opposed to his own views. A decision here to always put the majority view first in an article will impact not only alternative medicine article but any area where there is a debate between scientists. He sees science as a set of doctrines not a debate. I believe where there is a minority scientific view which has its own article it should be presented with a qualification that it is a minority view. This is what already exists in the article. User user:ackoz has also made little attempt to change the article and exists as a critic not a participant in it. He claims an edit war but none exists. see history . Lumos3 11:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. I am not dogmatically opposed to OM. Give me two three controlled randomized trials that would prove that it works and I will believe it - there's no hate in my voice :) To quote you, I see science as seeking the truth and new facts, not as a debate on wikipedia talk/article pages. But without regard to my or your beliefs, the minority view you are describing here represents 90% of the article. I didn't claim an edit war, I said that it would start if I added some non-orthomed views to the article. That's why I currently act as a critic and not as an editor. As I don't believe than anything except from arbitration would change the situation, because the editors who created and maintain the article are strong OM supporters. ackoz 12:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 3

I concur with Lumos3 assessment, I am currently writing my own response. I see Ackoz's edits as hyperaggressive POV. I went to lengths in Talk to explain my view & edits; when directly challenged for counterfactuality, he explodes. He misinterprets WP:NPOV and WP:NOR to push us around. Again he was repeatedly, directly challenged, he failed to meaningfully answer, and he has now pursued my edits elsewhere in niacin and megavitamin therapy with a counterfactual vengence that I will detail & reference later. I am absent 36+ hours, he trojans a RfC, and claiming he's been ignored (without giving us *any* notice), files a meritless RfArb unless it is to be on heinous edits from Ackoz and his behavior. I have worked successfully with ~10 conventional medicial editors before this without complaint, also I always make strong effort to use conventional science/medical sources.

Here I referred to articles such as from the National Academy of Sciences (2005), National Institute of Health on vitamin C; also from *the* US conventional medicine expert on niacin and dislipidemias, and all I get is "pseudoscience", unjustified tagging, personal attacks, & now gratuitous deletions out of Ackoz. Again I am working on a more detailed response to document his "radical skeptic" POV and abuse of process.--69.178.41.55 17:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There were no personal attacks. Prove it if you can. ackoz 19:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
uncivil labelling to describe my authoritatively referenced edits, "08:37, 23 June 2006 Ackoz (rv no pseudoscience per WP:NPOV)" for a long known "gold standard" conventional & orthomolecular treatment of dyslipidemias, discussed at Talk:Niacin.

Clerk notes

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

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

Portal:Taiwan

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by party 1

There is currently a dispute over the naming of the portal Portal:Taiwan. I want to leave the portal name as it is because the portal name does not suggest a political agenda as to whether Taiwan is part of the Republic of China, People's Republic of China, or Republic of Taiwan. The political opinion of what Taiwan is should be left to the individual visiting the portal. User:Chiang Kai-shek insists on moving the portal to Portal:Republic of China and offered a compromise of Portal:Taiwan Province and Portal:Taiwan Province, Republic of China. I did not accept either suggestions because such a portal name includes "Republic of China" which disrupts the neutrality of the portal name. Also, although "Taiwan Province" is favorable to the governments of ROC and PRC, it is not favorable to people who support Taiwan independence. Hence the portal name Portal:Taiwan avoids these conflicts in political agenda.

Since Chiang Kai-shek and myself won't compromise over the portal name, I have decided to request the Arbitration Committee to settle the portal naming dispute once and for all so that future complaints and conflict over the naming of the portal can be avoided.

Edit: What I understand from User talk:Captain0 is that ROC is not a firm geographic concept because it claims territories controlled by PRC, it can confuse people interested in different time periods of ROC, and the ROC name is disputed by Chinese (PRC, ROC, Independence). I've never pushed a political agenda because I didn't put a PRC flag, ROC flag, nor the Taiwan independence flag on the portal. I've also clearly stated in the portal introduction box that Taiwan is governed as Taiwan Province, Republic of China. But Chiang Kai-shek has said this is not enough because viewers won't understand that Taiwan is a province of the ROC (doesn't make any sense to me because the info box is what people will see first)

However, after I read the Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV, in terms of political context "China" and "Taiwan" should not be used to refer to the governments governing the territory (ROC and PRC both claim the territories of China and Taiwan). I suggested a compromise of creating a Portal:China to be a geography portal to match Portal:Hong Kong and Portal:Taiwan, then have Portal:People's Republic of China and create Portal:Republic of China to be the political portals.

This way the political mess can be avoided as China and Taiwan are not political but state clearly which government has jurisdiction, and it can be about other topics: China (about different dynasties; chinese writing; culture; territorial rule by Mongols, Korean (Manchu/Jurchen); inventions, trade (Silk Road); political history (emperor, revolution, semi-colonial/imperialism, republicanism, communism) it can then link to ROC and PRC portals (no bias)

As for Taiwan (about different periods of rule by Dutch, Spanish, Qing, Ming, Japan, ROC; the inhabitants of Chinese and how they view themselves as Taiwanese after 4 centuries history, the different aborigines and their culture; influences by aborigines, Chinese, Dutch, Japanese, American on culture, way of life, etc). Portal:Taiwan (no tagging of "Province", "ROC", "Island") avoids a political bias which is so sensitive to people who have different opinions about it. It is my personal belief that all controversial topics can be within the portal and given equal treatment because those topics are an ongoing reality past and present. It only serves to broaden our understanding and knowledge about the island of Taiwan whereas imposing ROC or other tags to the portal name (in my opinion) suggests ROC-era or invites dispute, which is now happening. (Sorry total word count: 618)

Statement by party 2

For the entire time, Nrtm81 did not wish to compromise at all. I have no idea why he applied for mediation when he did not want to compromise. The mediators and I have come up with various ideas for compromising, however, Nrtm81 has shot down all of them. I was quite flexible on the naming, although I still do not think Portal:Taiwan is appropriate. I came up with Free Area of the Republic of China, Taiwan Province, Republic of China, or Taiwan, Republic of China. They are all acceptable to me. Halo came up with Taiwan Island, which is also accepted by me. None of these compromises worked for Nrtm81, due to the fact that he wanted the name "Taiwan" the whole time, so the mediation debates were pointless.

The simple term, "Taiwan" is a politically sensitive issue. Is it a country? a province? What is it? The status is quite ambiguous. Nrtm81 has stated that he wanted a portal exclusively on all history about Taiwan, from the Dutch/Spanish occupation to the ROC on Taiwan. That can be done. Just the naming has to be correct. So I suggested Taiwan Province, Republic of China or Taiwan, Republic of China. Since right now it is a province of the Republic of China, it should have that name. Nrtm81 said that in history Taiwan was many things (under Dutch/Spanish/Ching rule, etc.) However, The Halo made a point in saying that it's only refering to its present name and that we can still include history under it, no matter what because it's the same thing.

What is so bad about Taiwan Province, ROC? Is it not currently a province administered by the government of the Republic of China? It certainly isn't a independent republic. "Taiwan" is too bland and plain. In general, the majority of people, when thinking about the word Taiwan, believe that it is an independent country. But, it is not. If you said Portal:New Jersey, people know it is a state. You don't have to specify New Jersey State. We need to cut out the ambiguity in the status of Taiwan. Nrtm81 says province favors the ROC/PRC. Well, Taiwan was returned to China (Republic of China) by Japan after World War II. What is so hard to grasp? And don't play the what if guessing game about Taiwan's status. Right now, the flag of the Republic of China is flying over Taipei. And the constitution that the residents of Taiwan abide under is the Constitution of the Republic of China. People born in Taiwan automatically acquire citizenship of the Republic of China. And then he goes on to say that it doesn't satisfy the view of "Republic of Taiwan." Hardly anyone supports that view point. This is just a portal. There is a separate article on the ROT, but we can't politicize Taiwan-independence on a portal.

We should just stick with the name Taiwan Province, ROC or Taiwan, ROC. When the bland term "Taiwan" appears, people start thinking about Taiwan independence or that Taiwan is a separate sovereign country. When Taiwan, ROC or Taiwan Province, ROC is used, the pro-Taiwan independence people might think that is wrong. But, the last time I checked, the state was still called the Republic of China, not "Taiwan." So even if you don't agree with the name, you can't contest it, because it is a living fact. I believe Nrtm81 is attempting to push the pro-Taiwan independence viewpoint. I am just pushing the factual, current, and correct name. What is so wrong with that? I'm not pushing unification or Taiwan independence, only just the facts. -Chiang Kai-shek 00:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:Improv

  • I have no strong opinion on the proper resolution of this case, but would like to suggest that our existing NPOV naming policy for articles relating to Taiwan has a very complex potential application to this case. NPOV might be considered to apply, to the extent that portalspace is like articlespace in NPOV requirements. The degree to which NPOV aims to protect the neutrality of the encyclopedia is at least partly at stake here to the degree that Portals act as encyclopedic OR community content. Even if NPOV does not apply directly, if we assume that NPOV is minimally inflammatory to presumably-neutral parties, (it is an interesting question if this is the case) then for the sake of preserving the community, we may wish to nudge for our existing comprimise (if we accept that that comprimise is indeed a suitable embodiment of NPOV, also possibly arguable). The arguments made by party 1 above suggest that he believes that the term "Taiwan" is a proper embodiment of NPOV (a claim presumably at variance with the existing comprimise, but one which I personally am lightly inclined to agree with, as I can't see how "Republic of China" is better, as opposed to much worse, than "Taiwan" to the mainland Chinese perspective). If this case is to be accepted (and not given summary judgement), it would be in effect a review of the status quo on the naming of Taiwan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. Whether this is the time and place to do so is up to ArbCom. --Improv 22:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:BlueShirts

I like The Halo's idea of ROC (Taiwan). Taiwan (ROC) and Taiwan Island look okay too. Even though party 1 has stressed that the article is about the geographical entity, the layout and the information presented in the portal thus far all point toward a format similar a regular national portal. Right now the Portal:China page is a disambiguation page with specific links to the PRC, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Thus, for format's sake, I'd say Portal:ROC is better than simply Taiwan. If I want to link stuff from Republican China, where do I put it? Taiwan? I don't think so. So I think renaming the Taiwan portal might be a good idea. BlueShirts 01:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Deryck C.

Compared to other commentors to this article, I've a relatively strong stand that the portal be named either "Taiwan" or "Taiwan Island", because from the suggestions above, only these two refer solely to the island, with or without political POV. Whenever inclusion of "ROC" is made, there would be an ROC-biased sense that Taiwan is an (totally) independent part from mainland; if simply "Republic of China" is used, it would look like a portal about the 1912-1949 China. "Taiwan province", on the other hand, would look as if PRC has already taken over ROC in the administration of the island, as Beijing has always been calling Taiwan a "province".

Every portal about a place has a country layout, because every country is simply a territory in its underlying philosophy. It is proper for the Taiwan portal to take the country layout.

The Wikipedian naming policy concerning disputed territories have always been disputable itself: Senkaku/Pinnacle/Diaoyutai (which the result completely violated the naming policy: Senkaku was made the article name "assuming" that the Japanese military control of the island means it owns the island, despite that the most commonly used English name of the island is Pinnacle), Taiwan/ROC, etc. I've just never thought that some would have the perseverence to argue all the way up till the ArbCom. --Deryck C. 01:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Ideogram

This is a delicate political situation. The naming dispute goes back decades and is unlikely to be solved by appealing to a broader audience or verifiable sources. I believe Misplaced Pages needs to establish a policy and stick to it, although perhaps ArbCom cannot make that policy.

I personally believe the best solution is to have two portals, one named according to User:Chiang Kai-shek's preference, and one named "Taiwan Island". This is a compromise because Chiang Kai-shek prefers only one portal, while User:Nrtm81 prefers two portals with one named "Taiwan". I note that Chiang Kai-shek has already created Portal:Free Area of the Republic of China and is shaping it to his liking.

I must comment that I tried to mediate this case and was unable to succeed due to the fact that Chiang Kai-shek repeatedly accused Nrtm81 of pushing a pro-independence POV even though Nrtm81 readily agreed to changing the color scheme of Portal:Taiwan away from green (the color of the pro-independence party), asserted that he too had originally preferred "Portal:Republic of China", and flat out denied being pro-independence several times. I feel that this failure to assume good faith has made further mediation impossible. Please note that we have also filed a Wikiquette alert here, and asked at the Village Pump here, and User:Cowman109 is willing to continue mediating the case should ArbCom refuse to hear it. Ideogram 06:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Nrtm81 also accused me of doing other things and attacked me viciously as well. It is not NPOV for you to "note" what I did when you made no mention of the other guy's actions. Just because I said you were hardly doing anything as a mediator, doesn't mean you can go around spreading BS about me. -Chiang Kai-shek 15:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Threaded conversation in the area for other people's comments is frowned on. Ideogram 17:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have proposed a compromise of naming it "Portal:Taiwan (island)". This proposal was accepted by Nrtm81 but rejected by Chiang Kai-shek. We are now arguing over two characters. Ideogram 03:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

We have filed an RFC here. Ideogram 12:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by The Halo

As the current mediator of this issue, I would urge the Arbitrators' to not accept this case. This request was made at a time of high tension on the portal talk, and while I am not saying that this tension and disagreement has gone, I feel that we are now in a place where we can move forward with mediation. Further more, a RfC has been achived, and the Mediation Committee has not yet been brought in to try and resolve this issue.

Thank you very much for your time. The Halo (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

UCRGrad

Involved parties

List of Dispute Resolution Avenues NOT attempted

Avoidance - NOT DONE (In most cases, editors made blanket reverts or edits without any justification!)

Talk to the other parties involved - NOT DONE I have always had an open dialogue with Amerique and ALL other editors of this article!!!

Informal mediation - NOT DONE

Misplaced Pages:third Opinion - NOT DONE

WP:Requests for comment - NOT DONE

WP:Straw polls - NOT DONE

Mediation - rejected by one party.

Requesting an Advocate - NOT DONE UCRGrad 00:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


This request for arbitration concerns the behavior of UCRGrad (talk · contribs), who primarily posts to the article University of California, Riverside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). UCRGrad’s conduct with respect to other users and with respect to the article has been considered in violation of Misplaced Pages principles Assume Good Faith, WP: Civility, WP: No Personal Attacks, WP:POINT, WP: No Legal Threats, and WP:OWN. UCRGrad began posting to the article on 18:46,19 February 2006 and was blocked (for 3 hours) by William M. Connolley 11:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC) for violating the 3 revert rule. Later, on May 1, 2006 Mackensen indefinitely blocked UCRGrad from using confirmed sockpuppet 909er. These attempts and others to resolve disputes with UCRGrad’s posts to the article and to its talk page have failed to resolve ongoing disputes concerning both the neutrality of the article and UCRGrad’s behavior with respect to other editors. UCRGrad has refused to consider RfC or other forms of mediation leaving this editor no choice but to submit this RfA in the interest of all still concerned with the quality of the article.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  1. suggestion from Szyslak to "please consider changing the way you work with others here at Misplaced Pages."
    • UCRGrad: Continued confrontational attitude:
  2. suggestion from Tifego to "please stop violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL ... It is not necessary or helpful" (about this edit)
    • UCRGrad: Refusal to acknowledge: "There is no violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL at all."
Misplaced Pages dispute resolution procedures

Avoidance

  • 3RR Violation
  • Personal attacks
  • "4) I'm sorry, but I think you're way out of touch with reality here. UCRGrad 17:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad"
  • "However, in the off-chance that you are indeed psychic and a mind-reader, you might consider working for the Psychic Friends Network. Otherwise, please keep your baseless inferences to yourself.64.54.92.76 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad"
  • "I therefore question your literary ability and consequently, your aptitude to contribute at all to this article. 64.54.91.177UCRGrad"
  • "Quit whining. 64.54.91.177UCRGrad"
  • "There you go again with your psychic mind reading. 64.54.92.76 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad"
  • "You clearly have nothing to contribute here. 64.54.92.76 19:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)UCRGrad"
  • "Quit pussyfooting around and respond to my counterargument. UCRGrad 03:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)"
  • WP:AGF Violation

First step: talk to the other parties involved

  • Ignoring problems brought up by other parties
  • Failure to acknowledge problems after talk:
  1. UCRGrad:"...In particular, numerous people (most recently ElKevbo) have attempted to express why they "feel" that the article is biased, but in the end, none of their arguments really pass basic scrutiny or merit -- this is because there really is no bias, there is only their "opinion" and "gut impression" due to their own personal biases..." UCRGrad 23:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. UCRGrad: "With regard to the lack of a football team, I am appalled that you and another individual do not appreciate how critical it is to mention this. Perhaps you are not in tune with college sports, or you attended an undergraduate institution that did not have a football team."

Discuss with third parties

  • "I've been asked to come back and clarify my third opinion. As DtEW says, the burden of proof lies with the editor that wants the edits to stand. UCRGrad has provided sources for some of their assertations, but not for others - for instance, the nickname, 'University of California, Rejects', undoubtedly exists, but those sources do not show that it is because of the admission critera - this is speculation or original research at best. On a related note, be careful that sources show what you are claiming that they do - the MDapplicants.com one doesn't say anything about the relative merits of the university; you need to do a certain amount of research to figure that out, so it's unacceptable (or at least, that page of it is). --Scott Wilson 13:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)"
  • "Insert-Belltower, please do not revert to the version with the disputed assertions. The burden of proof is on the editor who wishes the edits to stand, and more evidence is still needed. --Scott Wilson 14:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The same goes for you, too UCRGrad - reverting it umpteen different times won't make them any more acceptable to WP:V. You made no attempt to discuss my comments, as well as many of DtEW's before reverting. --Scott Wilson 14:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)"
  1. (Evidence of attempts at Third Party Intervention) David Gerard: "I had a look too and spotted the sockpuppet without prompting from Mackensen. Your pattern is obvious. You appear to have mistaken Misplaced Pages's tremendous tolerance for stupidity. Please don't assume that if it would fool you it must fool everyone else" - David Gerard 17:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • (Evidence of failure of attempt at Third Party Intervention) UCRGrad: "I don't fricking believe this. And what kind of pattern might this be? Two users who obviously know each other using the same computers back to back? UCRGrad 17:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC) And did you check as far back as the day 909er initially registered (right after my 3-hour "ban")? I understand that it must feel satisfying and rewarding when you think you've "caught" what MUST be a "typical sockpuppeteer," and yeah it probably seems like it first glance, but did it ever occur to you that you might be incorrect??? What type of evidence would it take to prove my case to you?" UCRGrad 17:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Conduct a survey

  • Won't work because of the following:
  • "Naturally, if 10 freshmen from the A-I dorm decide to "vote" here, you're going to see a natural skewing here. UCRGrad 22:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)"

Informal Mediation / Mediation

  • "Yo, man. "If you disagree, I invite you to bring this matter up in arbitration or mediation" is a useless response that sidesteps your obligation to justify your statements. I mean, dude, you're basically saying that Alternet is NOT a reliable source per WP:RS, yet the WP:RS page doesn't specifically have any restrictions against Alternet, yo. On the other hand, I'm going to cite WP:RS as NOT specifically mentioning anything that would absolutely make Alternet an inappropriate source. You get a revert, UNLESS you can back it up. Eat it. 909er 02:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)"
  1. (Evidence of attempts to request Mediation, including Request for Comment) ElKevbo: "It's clear there are several disagreements which are not being resolved to anyone's satisfaction. I recommend we call a truce, cease editing the article for a bit, and look into one of the mediation options such as an Request for Comment. What say ye?" --ElKevbo 02:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Evidence of failure of attempt 2) UCRGrad: "I do not agree to mediation, and here's why..." UCRGrad 02:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


I would like the ARBCOM to note. Most all of these comments are several months old. Insert-Belltower 20:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Amerique

I began posting to the University of California, Riverside article in an attempt to mediate between UCRGrad and others involved in long term disputes concerning its quality. I thought I could possibly get parties involved on the same page by promoting a collective initiative to edit the article to featured status. However, this initiative has failed in that UCRGrad has continued to exhibit the same interpersonal behavior and attitude toward the article which has lead to its talk page filling over 6 archives of protests, complaints, and dedicated informal interventions largely against his activities there. UCRGrad's insertions of negative information about UCR, when appropriately referenced, are to this editor not the problem so much as his absolute insistence on phrasing this and otherwise neutral information as a means of casting the worst possible impression of the university. On the article's talk page, he continually makes speculative assertions attacking the personal expertise and qualifications of others to edit even minor points of the article, belittles editors he disagrees with as "confused" and makes a rhetorical show of "agreeing" with the suggestions of some editors towards improving the article in order to justify including some items only of importance to his personal agenda. Several editors have ceased working on the article due to UCRGrad's conduct both on the talk page and in the article, and other than some contributions I made to attempt to propel collective development, there has been little progress in the article other than in lateral directions. It seems to some editors, including myself now, that attempts to impartially improve the article further would either be met with outright hostility or else be incorporated as a means of justifying or allowing for UCRGrad's particular point of view of the subject, which in effect becomes rendered as the point of view of Misplaced Pages. As the likelihood of this situation changing soon without a formal arbitration hearing seems minimal, I hereby request the intervention of the arbitration committee towards resolving this ongoing conflict.--Amerique 15:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by ElKevbo

Definitely proving that UCRGrad has blatantly violated Misplaced Pages policies may be difficult. However, I believe through his or her edits to the UCR article (the only article that he or she edits) have established a pattern of POV-pushing, article ownership, and uncivility (including several ad hominem attacks). I attempted over the course of several weeks to make good-faith edits to the UCR page and reach consensus with UCRGrad and another editor who exclusively edits that article but my edits were almost uniformly rejected. Attempts to reach compromise were also fruitless as he or she rejected all of my arguments and unilaterally edited the page to reflect his or her views. I also asked if it would be appropriate to use the RFC process to deal with these issues but my query was never answered. I regularly edit several highly contentious and high traffic articles, including many universities and schools, and this is the only article I have removed from my watchlist out of frustration as UCRGrad was completely unwilling to reach consensus (as documented above, he or she even rejected my plea for some form of voluntary mediation, thus rendering nearly all of the options listed by UCR as "Dispute Resolution Avenues NOT attempted" moot). In my interactions with this user I have found him or her to be unwilling to live up to the Misplaced Pages community's standards of compromise and collegiality. This has resulted in a very POV article about the University of California, Riverside. I think UCR and the Misplaced Pages community deserve better. --ElKevbo 14:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by WHS

After following the progress of both the UCR article and its talk page over the course of the past few months, it appears to me that UCRGrad has continued to violate numerous Misplaced Pages policies, as referenced by the two above statements. Due to his or her actions, the quality of the article has dropped significantly and many editors have ceased work on it out of frustration. I myself have been reluctant for some time to make any contributions to it since I, after seeing the confrontational attitude displayed by UCRGrad throughout the article's archives, have become convinced that any change which he or she doesn't agree with would just be reverted in any case. Indeed, even tags on the page which indicated that the topic is a heated source of debate or that there is a POVdispute have been removed, presumably to give the reader of the article the impression that edits made by UCRGrad were the consensus of all the editors working on the article. This sort of alienating behavior serves only to the detriment of Misplaced Pages and its community and should not be allowed to continue. It seems unlikely to me that these transgressions will cease without any formal intervention, and I am therefore concuring with the request for arbitration on this matter. WHS 23:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by calwatch

I agree with the above. Calwatch 02:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Insert-Belltower

I have been editing the UC Riverside article for sometime now and I wish to make a few brief comments on this action take by the above members.

I do NOT think UCRGrad’s actions, comments, or discourse on Misplaced Pages warrant a Request for Arbitration.

The above comments by Amerique, ElKevbo and WHS, which are intended to indict UCRGrad, present a very slanted view on the situation. More simply, they selectively pick out comments from the discussion and spin them to fit their own intrepretations. One particularly troubling misrepresentation is when ElKevbo says that UCRGrad is “completely unwilling to reach consensus,” a statement that is totally inaccurate based upon the discussion in TALK there has been numerous times when UCRGrad has agreed with other editors 1. In comparison, ElKevbo’s own remarks have been the most profane and confrontational written to date on the TALK, with one such example 2. I would suggest that member look at how his/her own actions are contributing to a lack of consensus, rather than baselessly accusing a single member (UCRGrad) whose only “mistake” is being a careful and thorough editor. Interestingly, Amerique makes the remark that he/she’s intention is to “get parties involved on the same page by promoting a collective initiative to edit the article,” which, after some thought, I think to mean “form a consensus.” Although when he/she didn’t agree with a particular edit, Amerique labels the other editors as “clowns” 3—a remark I find extremely reprehensible and inconsistent with someone who is attempting to promote a “collective initiative.” Another comment by WHS, “tags on the page…that there is a POV dispute have been removed,” is also completely inaccurate because the NPOV tag dispute has been previously discussed with UCRGrad, as well as other editors, and it was agreed upon to be removed. WHS would have not made this comment upon a more thorough investigation of the achives.

After reviewing UCRGrad’s remarks for several months now, I can agree that he/she has unique writing style that is “to-the-point.” This reflects a true commitment for the truth, and a desire to edit articles in an efficient and precise manner. His/her actions and comments do not suggest anything more than this. Indeed, I have NEVER felt intimated or threatened by these his/her comments whenever we disagreed on any issue related to the article.

In light of these observations, including the misrepresentations of the aforementioned USERS, I strongly do NOT support a request for arbitration because it lacks no substantial basis and it would be a waste of time for all members involved. Insert-Belltower 02:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Reject for now. I don't see sufficient evidence that this needs to be taken to arbitration, nor do I see much attempt to resolve things in any other way. Furthermore, the contention around the UC Riverside article seems to have produced a pretty decent college article, devoid of a lot of the fluff such articles tend to attract, so I don't think any contention between the editors has damaged the encyclopedia. Being difficult to work with is not sufficient to be brought to arbitration, IMO. Besides, a quick read of the talk pages and article history shows that a number of editors on all sides have been stubborn, hard to work with and contentious; I don't see that this is completely a 'one impossible editor' situation. I would enjoin all parties to work better at assuming some good faith and attempting to write an accurate and neutral article. However, UCRGrad should consider himself warned to never attempt sockpuppetry again; if he does so, then he may indeed find himself on the censured side of an arbcom case. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject Fred Bauder 20:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Hodge

Involved parties

User:Stephen Hodge
User:RandomCritic

User:Stephen Hodge attempted to invade User:RandomCritic's privacy by posting information that he believed would reveal User:RandomCritic's identity on User talk:RandomCritic.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
User talk:Stephen Hodge#RFAR
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
In the course of discussion at Talk:Anatta#Response to RandomCritic I repeatedly told User:Stephen Hodge that I would not reveal personal information about myself and requested that he cease his demands that I do so. Further details are in the statement below.

Statement by User:RandomCritic

In the course of a content/POV dispute at Talk:Anatta, User:Stephen Hodge began by criticizing my use of Misplaced Pages handle that was not my actual name:
"On the other hand, as you are one of these people who conveniently chose to hide behind a childish pseudonym..."
I responded by explaining why I did not use my real name:
"I am sorry that you find my handle childish, but it is a matter of no significance at all and I see no reason for you to bring it up. I am disinclined to provide any personal information on Misplaced Pages, as it easily opens up opportunities for abuse."
User:Stephen Hodge replied:
"I bring up the question of your pseudonym because it conveniently conceals your identity and prevents others from checking your credentials which, as in this instance, you choose not to share. Credentials are important when evaluating a person's articles and critiques thereof -- if one challenges the accuracy of some article, it would be nice to know what a person's qualifications are for doing this. Unless one has real fears of persecution, this habit of using pseudonyms is rather childish in my opinion and more suited to informal chatrooms."
I again rejected his call for my personal information:
"As for your demands for personal information about me and my history, they are impertinent and immaterial, and I have no intention of satisfying your curiosity and opening myself up to hate mail, the entire spectrum of internet harrassment, and other forms of attacks. You may stop asking."
User:Stephen Hodge responded with the following two messages at User talk:RandomCritic:
"I also note from Fanart-Central Net that you and Yoji are known to each other outside of the Misplaced Pages pages, as well as giving your actual identity and some other interesting information about yourself, if that can be believed.--Stephen Hodge 22:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)"
"Gosh, got that down quickly -- but it was a only pseudonym ! Don't worry: I won't divulge your real name, though it wasn't too hard to find -- I'm only interested in your Misplaced Pages input. Still, nice pictures. Have you done any more ?--Stephen Hodge 02:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)"
As a note of explanation, "Yoji" is User:Stephen Hodge's nickname for User:Vapour, a person entirely unknown to me outside of Misplaced Pages. The person User:Stephen Hodge discovered at Fanart-Central is not me and is a person unknown to me. However, I do not believe this is relevant to User: Stephen Hodge's attempt to find and publicize personal information about me, which (he believes) is accessible at this site. I note that Misplaced Pages:Harassment states that posting personal information is harassment, "regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct". I regard this as a form of intended harassment, and I take his message on my talk page as an implicit threat to continue to try to find information about me and publicize it on Misplaced Pages. And although there is no actual link to any correct information about me, I am concerned that User:Stephen Hodge's message may lead, or may have already led, to harassment of the person he has incorrectly identified as me. Given that this attempted harassment follows my explicit request not to seek personal information about me, I have reason to believe that User:Stephen Hodge will not respond to my own requests to cease his efforts to find and publicize my identity, and therefore request arbitration.RandomCritic 14:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

This dispute has arisen at the end of a long and acrimonious POV dispute involving a third party. User:RandomCritic made ad hominem attacks on this third party user's Pali language expertise on largely POV grounds. I questioned User:RandomCritic's own linguistic qualifications, since the attacks had a substantial POV slant. The argument then shifted to a question of my own linguistic qualifications. I responded that these may be easily ascertained, as I am reasonably well-known in my field and use my real name, and mentioned that his/her claims to this specialist knowledge cannot be similarly ascertained. To corroborate this, I mentioned results that a Google search would yield on my name. While doing this Google search myself beforehand, I also did a Google search for "RandomCritic" and found mention of a second RandomCritic on a graphics/animé website. I do not believe that this second RandomCritic is the same person, but nevertheless, the minimal amount of purported personal information that may be found there, is a) in the public domain and thus accessible to anybody without restriction and b) is insufficient to identify any actual person.

User:RandomCritic has asserted several times that myself and another user are the joint creators of a certain website, thus:

"both Page and Hodge are co-creators of the Parinirvana Sutra site listed in the External Links list" User:RandomCritic 05:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

to which I replied:

"I am categorically not a co-creator and I have nothing whatsoever to do with it, beyond the fact that Dr Page uses material he has paid me to translate for him. Would you please retract that statement ?" User:Stephen Hodge 22:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As no retraction was forthcoming, despite several denials of this from both myself and the other user and a request that this false claim be withdrawn, my messages to User:RandomCritic were intended humorously as a satirical ripostes to this allegation. It is regrettable that these jocular ripostes have been misunderstood.

The suggestion that I might send hate mail to this User:RandomCritic or anybody else is a malicious and unsubstantiated slur.

Prior to posting this RFAR, User:RandomCritic posted the following to my user page:

I pity whatever poor person you have me confused with when you start sending her (or him) hatemail. You really don't have it together, Hodge. I recommend a vacation. User:RandomCritic 12:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have been advised that this statement is probably defamatory as I use my true identity. I replied (before reading his RFAR):

For heaven's sake, lighten up ! Do a RandomCritic google and you'll get the joke. As for hate-mail, sorry you wouldn't get any from me even if I knew your address: you might be a bit of a schmuck but hardly hateful. User:Stephen Hodge 15:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe User:RandomCritic's RFAR possibly to be based on a misunderstanding of what was meant as a humorous riposte. But, additionally, because of the sequence of messages, I believe it is possible that this RFAR is a subterfuge to have my editing rights curtailed in an attempt to suppress information from me with which User:RandomCritic disagrees, even if written NPOV, as evidenced by the following:

I wrote previously:

"I am minded to re-write or start anew with this article and produce something that will hopefully be agreeable to most reasonable and fair-minded users"

to which User:RandomCritic replied:

"I have concerns about your ability to present a neutral point of view, as I understand you are not a disinterested party".

Then very recently, User:RandomCritic wrote on User:Vapour's talk page:

"I think the whole page is no good from beginning to end, and I've been endeavouring to put together a version with proper citations and a neutral point of view, but it is likely to be some days or weeks before I can finish it". RandomCritic 05:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

to which I replied:

I see that User:RandomCritic is also writing another version of the anatta page. Let's see how our versions compare -- perhaps they can be merged. I presume you will not include any non NPOV assertions based on Theravadin material and translations. I shall challenge you all the way :) User:Stephen Hodge 22:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It is my impression that User:RandomCritic does not relish the idea that his/her contribution will be subjected to NPOV scrutiny. --Stephen Hodge 21:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

Añoranza

Involved parties

Añoranza has edited hundreds of Misplaced Pages articles removing "propaganda terms" and apparently will not rest until they are all gone. He quickly assumes anyone opposing him is engaged in a personal attack. He never accepts no for an answer and always has to have the last word.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried (If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)

Statement by Añoranza

Ideogram's first edit at my talk page was informing me about this request for arbitration.
NSLE blocked me with an absurd summary, then for "evading a block", committed by anonymous IPs signing with my name. Checkuser showed they were unrelated to me. I am very glad an admin behaving like NSLE who never apologized for what he did to me got desysopped.
The countless misdeeds of Zer0faults are noted at his RFC case and started well before the operation name disagreement. As an illustration, of his last 1000 edits more than 5% were at the administrator's noticeboard. I find his continued attempts to discredit me by misrepresenting facts extremely tyring and note that jointly writing an encyclopedia is not about wasting each other's time.
Several users personally attacked me when I noted the obviously propagandistic nature of military operation names like "operation just cause", "operation iraqi freedom" or "operation peace for galilee" that should be avoided for the sake of neutrality. I even got blocked for a 3RR violation that was none by an admin who was in a conflict of interest. He never apologized either and instead invited others to block me. For the sarcastic comment that he should learn to count I got a whole week block while others could vandalize my user page, call me "rabid anti-American", "disgusting", "intolerable troll", "POV pusher" and whatnot without any penalty. As to the admins who allegedly all agree about my naughtiness, please note this: . I see that some people have hot feelings about their military, however, official policy is to avoid propaganda names as article titles, and the explanation as well as the mere policy of NPOV clearly show they should be avoided if possible altogether. Añoranza 23:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Zer0faults

After noticing Anoranza attempting to remove operation names from Misplaced Pages, I filled an incident report. I was hoping to find out if this was permitted action and to seek clarity. THe whoelsale removal of the term Operation Iraqi Freedom from wikipedia seemed to be a form of censorship, it was also never discussed prior to the action. I filed a second one after it seemed the first wave had ceased and a second had begun, this is after reverting some of the edits and tellnig the user I feel they are doing something they should not. During this time User:Cyde had stated Anoranza edits were overzealous. Another debate took place in that incident report. After the user became aware of the two incident reports they filed a RfC against me. This user has also filed an RFCU against me since then and a 3RR violation report, where I was stopped an anon user from creating a redirect that had not been discussed. The anon aol user has since been banned and continued to evade their block afterwards. I have tried to resolve the RfC with this user but they became hostile and ceased to participate. Myself an admin have asked Anoranza to participate in a discussion regarding the oepration names however they have not yet and continue to cite a guideline that is focused on titles, as proof articles should not contain operation names. I am personally at my wits end, this user does not seem to want to take advice, or even find middleground. I have offered numerous starting points for a compromise, however they have not even taken then into consideration it seems. --zero faults 14:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:NSLE

User talk:NSLE/Archive 12#Warning for personal attack - shows the user's incivility, as well as unco-operativeness, despite a logical and clear defense of my actions by both Gmaxwell and Ian13. This edit summary shows more of the above. I had blocked Anoranza for personal attacks and incivility for a week (during which the desysopping incident occured), after a complaint had been made to WP:ANI. This user has made absolutely no attempt to get along with others. While I admit "intollerable troll" was incivil on my part, this user needs to stop assuming bad faith.

The way I see it, there are two parts to this request.

  1. The user's constant assumptions of bad faith and incivility.
  2. The user's refusal to co-operate and insistence on making his non-constructive edits.

NSLE 09:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Haizum

Since the editor in question has cited me (disingenuously) in his/her defensive reponse, I believe I have a right to comment. Any attempt to question this editor's intent on his/her talk page, or even an article talk page results in bombastic NPA and AGF warning templates and unenforcable blocking threats. Attempting to remove these unwarranted templates has resulted in the reversion of the cleanup and the addition of more templates. This user then weaponized an Incident Report against me that was quickly deleted by an Administrator . The links to my talk page history are as follows: -- Haizum 00:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Ecophreek

Actually I have no idea what to write, any disagreement with this user and it immediately starts posting NPA tags everywhere, then when you remove them it gives you empty warnings, that it can't back up because there were no personal attacks to begin with. This was translated into "POV Pusher" which is somehow an "attack", "trolling behaviour" was translated as an "attack", "rvt vandalism by blocked user" was translated into an "attack",... you begin to get the picture? This user is on a "holy crusade" and any infidels in it's way are to be dealt with in an incivil and uncompromising fashion. Once it gets on your nerves so bad by constantly changing your userpage to add crap and useless threats and you DO get a little incivil it starts bemoaning your incivility. Frankly, I'm just tired of the stuff this user starts up. It's day just isn't complete unless it manages to tick someone off. IMHO it should be like it is with English (British) vs English (American) vs et al. Whatever country the subject is dealing with, the article should be in that language, if it's about American operations, it should use American Operation names. (Actually both should be in the article.) If it was written by an American, then the American usage should apply. It's really simple, however this user refuses to reach a compromise. I can guarantee that the discussion the user is involved in below is going nowhere, if it's agenda is not met or the consensus reached does not agree with it's goals it will continue in the same vein it is currently engaged in. And when shown the WikiProject MILHIST guideline/proposal so that it could join in the discussion instead started posting selected parts of it as it's new mantra as you can see above in it's statement as "official policy" when it is no such thing. This has been explained over and over ad nauseum to no effect. That's really all I have to say on the matter, except for the fact that statements like "I am very glad an admin behaving like NSLE who never apologized for what he did to me got desysopped." is typical, even though the user is suddenly pushing the POV that what happened to NSLE was in direct correlation to it rather than what actually happened.← ΣcoPhreek 07:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Kirill Lokshin

First, a minor clarification: the "policy" Añoranza refers to is (a) just a WikiProject guideline, with explicit warnings about not applying it blindly and (b) in reference to article titles.

The original cause of the dispute here—that Añoranza had not been willing to discuss the issues with using operational names—seems to have been resolved, since he has joined the ongoing discussion regarding a guideline for their use. While there may indeed be a potential case here based on civility and general behavior issues, I suspect that this affair can be concluded more-or-less amicably if the underlying content dispute is resolved. I would therefore ask that the Committee allow more time for discussion—and possibly Mediation—before allowing this request to proceed. Kirill Lokshin 11:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Habap

Having just been accused of vandalism by Añoranza, I feel compelled to add my name to the list of complainants. I did not remove a dispute tag twice (as the quoted description of types of vandalism states). Importantly, the policy states "Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism".

Añoranza is quoting a proposed project guideline as Misplaced Pages policy, which is very deceptive. His edit summaries have been sometimes POV and other times deceptive. I think WP:POINT may be a good read for him. --Habap 04:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Ideogram

My attention was drawn to this case by this. Upon examining the RFC I noted a long threaded conversation in defiance of basic RFC policy. In response I created the talk page and posted this. You can also see Anoranza's initial response there.

You can see all the ensuing discussion on Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Zer0faults.

My initial impression of Zer0faults was positive, so I posted this to the project page.

I observed that the threaded discussion was continuing, so I posted this.

I also noted that the primary participants seemed to be Zer0faults and Anoranza, so I posted this.

I thought I would drop a comment on User:Gorgonzilla's talk page, and found Anoranza and Zer0faults already there. So I posted this.

In response I received this.

At this point I got curious, so I looked into Anoranza's edit history. I found it very disturbing. Ideogram 14:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Cyde Weys

I haven't looked at Anoranza's edits in detail, but I do agree with him that, in the interests of neutrality, we refer to events by their colloquial names rather than their propaganda names. Notice how 2003 invasion of Iraq isn't located at Operation Iraqi Liberation. Besides being chosen for propaganda purposes, the military opreational names are not used by other countries involved in the conflict and will be almost totally unknown in countries other than the United States. Someone from Australia might reasonably be expected to find Iraq War or 2003 invasion of Iraq. The articles are already located at these appropriately neutral names, so they should be referred to correctly from other articles as well. --Cyde↔Weys 19:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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


User:8bitJake

8bitJake's continued edit warring, misuse of various mediation tools, lack of civility, and neglection of community consensus has caused disruption in WP's article space, and the situation as such has caused at least one editor to consider leaving leave the project entirely.

Involved parties

(Provide links to the user page of each party and to all accounts they have edited with. Briefly summarize case. No details.)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

In my statement, I link to the results of a mediation request w/User:Dan100 from December of 2005. I am unable to find the diff for the actual request at this moment, but I will add it as soon as I'm able to. Mediation request. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by badlydrawnjeff

(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.)

Essentially, 8BJ has been disruptive to the point of driving an editor to leave the project . . 8BJ was first involved in a mediation dispute about content in December 2005, where thoughts about notability, verifiability, and published sources were given to him. They didn't matter, as he began warring recently at Henry M. Jackson , eventually being blocked for 3RR twice in a three day span, and three times in less than 10 days, and at Christine Gregoire . 8BJ has also shown incivility in his edit summaries ("Biased gang-bang editing", "Someone has an axe to grind", "Sour grapes editing") misleading edit summaries (Citing nonexistent talk consensus here as well), and various false and often incivil arguments on article talk pages ( ). He has consistently ignored consensus at both Jackson and Gregoire, and has also been known to blank warnings on his talk page, making it difficult for passing admins to deal properly.

Statement by Bazzajf

I find this RFA a futile ego-driven exercise. It is evident that 8BitJake has a useful contribution to make if you look at his list of contributions. It is churlish of you to take a dispute to this arena. Disputes over content of an article should take place in the discussion page of the relevant article, you are as guilty of as many reversions as himself on disputed articles. I find your recourse to this action pathethic and not worthy of further investigation as it reflects a personal witch-hunt on your part without any substance of note. I move that you apologise to 8bitjake for taking this action and desist from your ill-conceived and foolhardy finger-pointing forthwith.

Bazzajf 12:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by 69.178...

I have no knowledge of 8BitJake or his edits, but I take issue with badlydrawnjeff's statement above, "...driving an editor (User:FRCP11) to leave the project". Also see FRCP11's prior page. I agree with Bazzajf's assessment of FRCP11's demeanor ("galling", "self-righteous", "...imposing one's opinion on others relentlessly") here. FRCP11 appeared to self destruct with obliging help (strict enforcement) from several admins after many, many tirades. I have had extremely contentious edit situations on alt med, and although FRCP11 responded with some formal civility, he was among the worst to repeatedly rush past simple facts, without investigation, to try to cram his opinion down without any meaningful discussion, most intransigently, and in preference to previous, other far better qualified, vociferous critcs of orthomed. Apparently FRCP11's opinion and prejudgement are more important than basic subject definition in the articles (according to his points in talk).--69.178.41.55 01:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

\

Statement by 8BitJake.

Badlydrawnjeff is the worst example of an editor that I have encountered on Misplaced Pages. He is petty, loves to wikistalk, is prone to edit wars, and enforces a heavy right wing POV in almost every article he graces with his "Edits". He is a troll and I don’t use that phrase lightly.--8bitJake 18:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I would say that 8BitJake has personalised a series of content disputes to an unnecessary degree. I commend to him William Pietri's essay on strong beliefs and their place on Misplaced Pages. As to his counter-assertions against Badlydrawnjeff, thay are, to my mind, absurd. Jeff is a solid contributor, to the extent that I rceently nominated him for adminship despite disagreeing with him on just about everything. Just zis Guy you know? 15:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

Requests for Clarification

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

Dyslexic Agnostic

Is the ArbCom probation restricted to article/project pages, or does it extend to talk pages as well? Titoxd 05:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Any appropriate page at all, talk pages included. Dmcdevit·t 07:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Article probation remedy for Election

Does the ArbCom intend that Phil Sandifer, a party to the Election case, have the same power to ban other editors from the articles involved that the ArbCom is granting to administrators in general in Remedy 2.1? If not, could that please be made explicit? I am concerned about the chilling effect on editors such as myself who wish to continue editing the articles but do not agree with Phil in certain respects which could invite the abuse of this new remedy. I'm not opposed to the remedy for other admins in general; nor am I suggesting that Phil would likely ever take part in such a clear conflict of interest. It's just that I, and I think others, would be more likely to help improve the articles if this unlikely possibility were considerably more remote. 71.132.140.65 08:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Administrators involved in a conflict are never supposed to use their adminship to gain the upper hand in the conflict. If he were to, arbcom decision or no, it would be wrong. I don't see any reason to make a specific remedy to this effect, especially since there has been no evidence presented of him abusing adminship in this case. Dmcdevit·t 15:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Phil did threaten to block me for disagreeing with him, describing my conduct erroneously as 'vandalism', on a related article (the 3rd, aborted VfD, if I recall) on which he was an editor. I believe that diff was presented. However, since he didn't actually follow thru on his threat, I guess that's been taken to mean that there's been no evidence presented. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

PoolGuy

"User PoolGuy shall use one user account. That user account may be PoolGuy or a new account which he may create in order to get a fresh start. Should he create a new account he need not disclose its name."

If he's allowed to create a new account without telling anyone, doesn't that make probation rather difficult to enforce? --Sam Blanning 14:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Another thing: PG is continuing to request the unblock/unprotection of one of his other accounts, GoldToeMarionette, claiming that no policy violations were cited. Can someone clarify to him that the most important clause of the decision is "...shall use one user account"? 15:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
If he choses to create a new account, and continues with the same problematic behavior we will have no difficulty in identifying him for enforcement of probation. Fred Bauder 20:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I am currently having a conversation with him in which I'm making it clear that "restricted to one account" means he can have one unblocked account, and I don't care which one it is (see User talk:PoolGuy). It's not sinking in as far as I can tell, but that's been his problem all along. --ajn (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
In light of his behavior after the RfAr closed, it is my opinion (and I hope an ArbCom member will do this) that the RfAr should be reopened to impose further sanctions. --Nlu (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
What is making people think I am using more than one account or trying to use more than one account? I just want the original problem that GoldToeMarionette should not of been blocked be remedied. ArbCom would have included the violation in the findings of fact had there been one. There wasn't, the account should be unblocked. I can't believe after all of this, that this is still somehow hard to understand.
Nlu, I am still disappointed in your attack mentality. I am sorry for you that I don't put up with it, but it is extremely unbecoming in an Admin. I still don't understand why ArbCom did not penalize you for your role, especially since I was right in what I posted. How the world would be different if you would remedy rather than attack. PoolGuy 04:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You have chosen to use the account "PoolGuy". There is no sense unblocking an account you can't use unless you wish to no longer use "PoolGuy". We are not going back and hashing over a stale matter. Fred Bauder 11:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Archives

Category: