Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ideogram (talk | contribs) at 04:58, 7 September 2006 (→Statement by []: Pan Gerwazy's inability to read). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• ]

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

Splash's unsemiprotects

Initiated by Cyde Weys at 01:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Splash (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Cyde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Splash notified

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This is too urgent to wait for two or three weeks at RFC.

Splash has been repeatedly unsemiprotecting high-profile articles and then forgetting about them, resulting in repeated vandalism that other people have had to clean up.

Statement by Cyde Weys

Steve Irwin recently died. Since then, his article and the related article stingray, which have been linked from the front page, have been repeatedly and viciously vandalized by anonymous users, to the point that vandalism to Steve Irwin was picked up by the largest media outlet in Australia. In the span of 31 hours Splash unsemiprotected both Steve Irwin and Stingray four times. Each time he simply unsemiprotected and walked away, not bothering to monitor to ensure that the vandalism wasn't returning (it was). By the fourth time you're unsemiprotecting an article that has been repeatedly vandalized every previous time it was unsemiprotected, you had better be watching it like a hawk to quickly remove vandalism and be prepared to reprotect it if necessary. But Splash wasn't. Here, we see Stingray being vandalized anonymously soon after Splash's unsemiprotection, but apparently Splash had already turned his attention elsewhere. Here we see penis insertion and other miscellaneous vandalism following Splash's unsemiprotection. Splash's only edits to the articles were repeatedly removing the {{sprotected}} tag after he repeatedly unsemiprotected them. This behavior is utterly inappropriate and places Misplaced Pages's reputation in real harm, as the news story from ABC indicates. I tried to get Splash to understand, but his responses on his talk page have just been combative and have displayed no cognizance of why over half a dozen other admins think what he is doing is reckless and wrong.

It wouldn't bother me so much if Splash was actually being responsible with his admin tools and carefully watching the pages he had just unsemiprotected to guard against vandalism, but he appears to simply not care. Splash was also informed about many OTRS complaints about penis vandalism on Steve Irwin, but he shrugged them off too. The article on Steve Irwin is our number one article right now and it is getting 1,000 views per minute on a 24 hour average (according to Greg, who has access to such sampling data). Thousands of readers have turned to that article only to see a penis or other vandalism, solely because of Splash. It's time for this administrator to face the responsibility that comes with the position. Splash is engaging in wheel warring, and to boot, he is effectively aiding and abetting vandalism by repeatedly stripping Misplaced Pages of necessary protections on the article of a man who just died and allowing in high-profile, vicious vandalism that demonstrably puts Misplaced Pages in disrepute. Many of us have lost faith in Splash's ability to exercise proper judgement in his use of admin tools, especially unprotection. Also, I would ask for a temporary injunction to prevent Splash from unprotecting any pages during the duration of this arbitration. --Cyde Weys 01:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Splash

Cyde seems over-excited here. El_C has helpfully documented the series of talk page messages; those messages to me were Cyde's only edits during that period: apparently he was logging in specifically to make threats without actually checking to see if I was actually doing anything. In between those edits, I suppose he must have been working up the rage that led him here. Seems a little bit vociferious to me. I thought his final message was interesting: "Per your continuing lack of any cognizance...", as if there is any remedy for my hypothetical idiocy. Even the desysopping he craves wouldn't make me any cleverer, but it would make me markedly less useful (or maybe it would give me some article-writing time).

The notion that I am the sole cause of the vandalism is really pretty overblown, since it wasn't me doing any of it. Sure, I allowed people to edit the article. Vandalism is part of that deal. The statistics posted on my talk page show that 54% of semi-protectable edits to the page were allowed to stand; I'll take the credit for making sure we got them if I'm to take the blame for the bad ones too. There is no counterweight to the terrifying scrolling of the list of questionable edits in IRC; the bots and vandalfighters only see half (or, specifically, 46%) of the story.

It's not a wheel war. Protection naturally has cycles, and on Main Paged articles it is naturally shorter than in the depths of the encyclopedia. Indeed, this is evidenced by the fact that (count 'em ) 7 other admins did unprotects on Steve Irwin, not counting those that look accidental. It wasn't a war, it was natural cyclicity. I for one can tell the difference.

Those who think I ran away after unprotecting are speculating. In fact, try as I might (for only a few minutes, granted) I was beaten to the reverts on both articles: I don't have access to the IRC channels (I refuse to ask permission to vandal fight) and there's simply no matching it with diff watching, or Special:Recentchanges. I didn't persist in an unnecessary operation; it was under control.

There's the key: under control. OTRS beholds the project to the most complaining sector of the internet population, even assuming all 36 emails were actually complaints, and whacking semi-protection on anything someone vandalises from the Main Page beholds the project to the lowest common denominator rather than the high ideals that underlie the project. I'll take the latter; Cyde can play with the former. The project is big enough and ugly enough and popular enough and good enough to face down any negative press (and anyway, the article Cyde is in some awe of is pretty good for us, I thought, saying how quickly everything was repaired).

Ansell's comment here is interesting: that he doesn't remember such vandalism in his time is because he doesn't remember a time when George W. Bush was freely editable, either. -Splash - tk 14:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC) (Excluding these parentheses, MS Word tells me my count is 498.)

Statement by (mostly) uninvolved party, Konstable

First of all I would like to say that my only involvement in this was being the first user to suggest to Splash that the page should be re-protected due to the heavy number of edits including a heavy number of vandal edits. He replied on my talk page and I made no futher attempts to argue with him or persuade him. And of course I am not an admin so I was not involved in the wheel wars. So I consider myself to be uninvolved.

The vandalism was heavy with unprotection, and the high edit rate making it hard to revert without edit conflicts or accidentally overriding other editors. I personally think semi-protection is quite important for extreme cases like these, whether it is on the main page or not. I did find Splash's unprotection disruptive to users trying to keep the page from turning into an unreadable mess, or worse into a penis gallery instead of an article on a respected man whose fans have been flocking to the site to read about him. In fact vandalism of this page has been featured in the media. I do find it concerning that while Splash was keen enough to unprotect pages against the will of other admins he was not so keen to help with the vandalism. For Stingray Splash has unprotected the page 3 times but has not reverted a single vandalist edit on that page! Same goes for Steve Irwin - 3 unprotectes and NO help with reverting vandalism.

However, even though I think Splash has made some mistakes of judgement here I don't see how this warrants a Request for Arbitration, rather than an RfC, nor do I see why this is an urgent issue as Cyde has put it. I think more effort could have been put into other, more peaceful, solutions to this problem.--Konstable 04:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Quick addendum. I thought I should eloborate on my final paragraph a bit more. Though he's made bad errors, I think Splash has acted in a civil way throughout this afair; he has never yelled at anyone and has always explained his reasoning - so I don't see him as being an unreasonable person at all. Perhaps brash, maybe a bit stubborn, but not unreasonable. I honestly think an RfC, or another debate other than Arbitration, would get more oppinions and perhaps give Splash a better picture of what the community thinks of his actions. I personally don't think any punitive actions are needed against him.--Konstable 04:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Kelly Martin

We have received, at OTRS, not fewer than 36 complaints regarding vandalism to either Steve Irwin or Stingray in the past two days. Given that Steve Irwin is getting at least 240 views per minute and Stingray at least 100 views per minute averaged over the past five days (a very conservative estimate based on data from Wikicharts), even a short period of vandalism exposes large numbers of unsuspecting readers to inappropriate content. Semiprotection of these articles is essential to ensure that our readers are not subjected to useless or offensive content. Splash's repeated unprotections of these articles are plainly contrary to our primary goal of providing a useful encyclopedic reference. His actions are irresponsible and must stop. If he refuses to voluntarily stop unprotecting high-traffic articles which are actively attracting vandalism, the Committee has no choice but to remove his ability to unprotect articles. I join Cyde in the call for a temporary injunction, and urge that that injunction be worded such that any violation will result in immediate desysoping. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by El_C

Splash un-protected Steve Irwin three times and protected it once. The last two un/protection actions are as follows: On Sept. 4, at 17:54, he un-protects the entry; on Sept. 5, at 14:06, he protects it. On Sept. 5, at 14:48, Cyde writes on Splash's talk page to cease and desist unprotecting Steve Irwin at once. Splash's second reply, at 20:07, reads: you seem confused. I haven't used my unprotect button since your last visit here. Cyde's next edit on Splash's talk page, at 21:51, is the filing of this RfAr El_C 07:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Haukur

Quoth Cyde: "Thousands of readers have turned to that article only to see a penis or other vandalism, solely because of Splash." I think you have to assume that the vandals play some roll in causing this too :) More seriously, Splash has worked for a long time on making sure articles aren't unnecessarily protected. Protection and semi-protection is often applied prematurely or left to linger too long and very few admins are active in cleaning that up. It's also worth noting that Splash basically wrote the semi-protection policy. Sure, maybe he got slightly overzealous in the case under question but it must be viewed in the context of his overall work on this issue. Haukur 09:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved MacGyverMagic

As can be seen in Splash's protection log, he did these unprotections because he believes articles should be editable as per wiki ideology. However, doing this to high-profile articles that are subject to repeat vandalism to the point it gets picked up in the media is a serious lapse of judgement. If the Arbcom decides to take punitive action, I would suggest using a suspended sentence. - Mgm| 09:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Followup to MgM and Kelly Martin, by El_C

I urge against punitive action anywhere on Misplaced Pages, whose enforecment ideals should be based upon preventative measures. I also urge to tone down needlessly polemical, aggressive, and generally prosecutorial comments, such as the ones evoked by Kelly Martin's comment (my own impression), especially if the basis for the concerns are as isolated as they currently appear to be. El_C 11:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Sjakkalle

The Irwin article was linked to from the Main Page, and that is more a reason to not protect than to protect. That the article was dealing with a current event and might need a number of updates during the day also suggests that protection has some very real negatives. To compare, the daily featured article is not supposed to be protected, something I learned about a year ago. (My apologies to Raul if I'm using his post to argue for something he disagrees with.) An article like this is naturally going to be subject to a lot of vandalism, along with a lot of other high-profile articles, but RC-patrollers usually catch and revert attacks against these articles pretty quickly. All in all, I support Splash's desire and endeavours to keep these articles as unprotected as possible and certainly would not call them irresponsible. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Ansell

As I have been involved in this on Splash's talk page I feel I should comment on the matter. I feel that the user was acting in good faith, although possibly not fully understanding the consequences of their actions. The article was experiencing the highest sustained level of viewing and editing that I have ever seen on Misplaced Pages. To unprotect it, and instantly bring multiple vandalism edits per minute, mixed up with good faith efforts to improve the article, was misguided to say the best of the action. My suggestion for full protection to enable cleanup during the worst period was strongly dismissed, and in hindsight it may not have been the best idea. Also, I had been against protecting due to an edit war on Stingray at a similar time. So I am guilty of a similar viewpoint in relation to at least the Stingray article. In summary I would say that if in doubt go with reality, not a wiki-philosophy. Ansell 12:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by not-that-involved The Land

I think this is mainly an issue about semiprotection policy and the balance to be struck between damage from protection and damage from vandalism. Splash seems to have acted against a consensus of other admins (which, on IRC, I was vocally calling for) that those pages should remain sprotected for a while but i nthe circumstances this is more RfC material than RfAr. The Land 21:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply

If you'll forgive me a small amount of threading (I prefer threading to keep things with their context):

• I wasn't on IRC and had no idea, until this very moment, that the mythical consensus beast had magically appeared there. Being vociferous is merely modish; it's the only way to get your LOLs and /me toos, and the more vociferous a user is, the more people tend to big them up.
• Seven (7) other admins, at a pessimistic minimum, have also unprotected Steve Irwin. So there were plenty of people unprotecting it as well; which fact rather dissolves the mythical consensus beast back to whence it came. -Splash - tk 21:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• This is a difficult issue. I respect the balance that Splash is seeking to bring to the use of semiprotection, which is in and of itself undesirable. Conversely, I respect other users' attempts to prevent vandalism and damage to Misplaced Pages's reputation. All in all, I see no evidence of bad faith here: all parties are seeking the best for Misplaced Pages. I suggest personally to Splash that it would probably be best to let the incident lessen in prominence before desemiprotecting, but that is only my opinion :-). Reject. Sam Korn 11:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo

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

Involved parties

• Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs)
• Piotrus (talk · contribs)
• Cowman109 (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Template:Wp-diff
• Template:Wp-diff

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

Statement by Cowman109

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

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

Statement by Piotrus

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

Statement by uninvolved party Grafikm_fr

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by uninvolved party Giano

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by User:Ghirlandajo

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

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

User:Ideogram presented a third set of diffs. Some of these refer to the anonymous stalker, who reverted my every edit, until, after a prolonged discussion on WP:ANI, he logged in as User:Truthseeker 85.5 and continues to sporadically stalk me. It is remarkable that User:Ideogram never questioned or discussed these edits with me before this arbitration was filed. I take his accusations of "paranoia" and "incapability to assume good faith" as personal attacks. I don't see how Ideogram's massacre-talk on Russo-Turkish War, 1877–1878 relates to the rest of this "case". This matter started on 16 May, when one Turkish user posted allegations of massacres against Turkish population in Bulgaria, citing a non-academic source. In order to proclaim that "more than half the Muslims in Bulgaria" were massacred, we need better sources than that. I browsed Google Books and failed to find any corroborating evidence. After that, Suicup's addition was removed on grounds of irrelevancy to the war itself (see the talk). I didn't take active part in the ensuing discussion, because I'm not really interested in the subject and because more patient wikipedians (e.g., User:Mikkalai) nicely summed up my arguments. I see no rationale in mediations with people who proclaim that half the population of a country was "massacred", because I've seen too much of this nationalistic talk in the past. My experience with such mediations is strictly negative. User:Bonaparte once attempted to mediate between me and Piotrus, although I clearly told him that I don't accept mediation by trolls — much to the chagrin of those admins who persisted in defending him as a good-faith mediator. Although he later got me blocked by posting a misleading delation on Adminstrators' board, Bonaparte was later accidentally exposed as running a sockpuppet-farm and permablocked, although he continues to molest me from time to time. As I know that he logs in occasionally and a number of his sockpuppets have been since exposed by me and others, I tend to distrust users who force me into mediation Bonaparte-style, while incessantly revert warring in support of one of the parties. Judging by Ideogram's edit warring campaign on Russo-Turkish War, 1877–1878, I can't accept him as a mediator on this issue, which was settled anyway more than a month ago. Furthermore, there was nothing to mediate. Inflammatory and not properly sourced statements have no place in encyclopedia articles, much less in articles not direcly related to the subject. If Ideogram likes to proceed with this any further, he should start a separate case, involve Mikkalai, Suicup, Khoikhoi and all other interested parties, rather than casually throw in liberal accusations of "paranoia" into an unrelated arbitration case. --Ghirla 07:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Tony Sidaway

On my brief acquaintance with him, Ghirlandajo seems to be prone to making inflammatory and grossly uncivil statements about administrators . On being asked politely by me to "Please tone it down" he again ratcheted up the belligerence, accusing me of trying to "intimidate" him .

Such casual, insulting bellicosity makes normal discourse impossible. I blocked him briefly but he does not seem to have got the message, but has now accused me of being involved in a dispute with him over Carnildo (fictitious, I've never discussed the matter with him) and said "It's getting routine to be blocked for nothing (or for expressing one's disagreement with Carnildo's company, in this case)" . And now on the basis of some improbable concoction I'm accused by Ghirlandajo of "an attempt at revenge". This is absolutely unacceptable. I am assured that this was not a freak incident (see Dmcdevit's comment). --Tony Sidaway 23:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to Irpen's query, of course I'm recused. I have never had read access to the Arbitration Committee's mailing list. --Tony Sidaway 01:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to suggestions that the statements by Ghirlandajo for which I warned him and then blocked him were acceptable, I propose the perhaps astonishing principle that No personal attacks, Civility and Assume good faith are not normally considered optional. There may be mitigating factors, but extremely belligerent behavior is never acceptable.

"Misplaced Pages is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Misplaced Pages discussions goes directly against our policies and goals." (What Misplaced Pages is not) --Tony Sidaway 23:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Ideogram

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

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

Threaded conversation in the place reserved for other people's comments is frowned on. --Ideogram 08:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Incivility: sarcastically asks if his opponent has any arguments

Personal attacks: edit summary

Revert warring: ; , , ;

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

Ghirlandajo's paranoia and incomprehension is evidenced by the fact that he thinks I am some kind of Turkish Nationalist bent on proving that Russians massacred Turks. He cannot imagine that I have no opinion on the issue and reverted his edits simply because he was revert-warring and refusing to discuss. He neglects to mention that I did not revert the edits of another editor who made the exact same revert but engaged in discussion. Finally, if Ghirlandajo didn't care to discuss the matter, then he certainly should not have reverted the article. --Ideogram 11:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo has now made a spurious statement in the RFAr below out of some desire to make a WP:POINT. --Ideogram 11:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to Alex Bakharev: Yes, Ghirlandajo is a great contributor. The question before ArbCom is whether he is above the rules. You say he has written 1,000 articles. Who wrote the other 1.2 million? Ghirlandajo has driven many editors away from Misplaced Pages, and will drive off many more if he doesn't change. No one contributor is more important than the community. --Ideogram 12:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Grafikm_fr: No, I don't have any proof. I withdraw the statement. Happy? Are you now going to argue that Ghirlandajo is kind and welcoming towards those he disagrees with, that he attracts more and better editors to the project? --Ideogram 12:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Replies: Ask yourself whether Ghirlandajo's behavior is more likely to attract or drive away new editors. That's the point of my statement. I know I personally try to avoid Ghirlandajo as much as possible, and others have told me the same in private. --Ideogram 13:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Pan Gerwazy: For the last time, this has nothing to do with the mediation case. Everyone who has read the Medcabal page knows Ghirlandajo had every right to reject my mediation. Ghirlandajo had no right to revert-war and refuse to discuss. Have you read anything I wrote? --Ideogram 15:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

More to Pan Gerwazy: The diff clearly states that I advocate editing the article as a prod to discussion. Once discussion has started there is no need to edit further, as I have stated many times. And if you are going to refer to my part in this matter, I will thank you to read the issues I raised in my statement instead of assuming that Cowman for some reason is acting as my meatpuppet. --Ideogram 16:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano's histrionics about how this process differs from a court of law are pointless. It has been stated many times that the RFAR process is not a court of law. --Ideogram 04:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Pan Gerwazy's interpretation of my statement is completely false, as anyone with the ability to read should be able to tell. --Ideogram 04:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Alex Bakharev

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

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

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

Statement by non-involved party User:Pan Gerwazy

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

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

I did not exactly see eye to eye with Ghirlandjo at that page (] just for those who may still think I am a meatpuppet user guilty of occasional support of Ghirlandajo). However, the attempts at "mediation" were obviously only exacerbating the story with Ghirlandajo claiming User:Ideogram to be a troll or a sockpuppet, so I did some digging into past encounters between Ghirlandajo and Ideogram and told Ghirlandajo on his talk page what I had found and advised him not to react to a rather ambiguous comment by Ideogram before, which sounded like an invitation to a revert war. (] and subsequently ]) Under these circumstances, I think Ghirlandajo had indeed the right to refuse mediation by Ideogram.

Now User:Piotrus is flabbergasted to see himself presented as an interested party. I am not. In fact, this "affair" as I called it at the beginning of my statement, has been going on for some time, since the end of June: ]. Why do I get the impression that this is a cabal of two who have waited for Ghirlandajo to be trivially blocked on incivility to present a Request for Arbitration? A request that is rather untimely, because Ghirlandajo has recently decided to keep to writing and improving articles and leave the bickering to the dwarfs like me - and is trying to keep himself to that proposition.--Pan Gerwazy 15:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to Ideogram: I see now that you had the right to invite Ghirlandajo to a revert war but he did not have the right to accept it? In my book, this is also an invitation, by the way (not to Ghirlandajo directly, so much is true): ]. And I fail to see why his refusal of your mediation does not matter now, since Ghirlandajo's attitude towards your mediation on both the Russo-Turkish War and the Crimean war features rather high in the reasons quoted by User:Cowman109.--Pan Gerwazy 16:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Second response to Ideogram: I never accused User:Cowman109 of being a meat puppet of User:Ideogram. I actually used the words "cabal of two". I know I have to assume good faith, but I am afraid that User:Ideogram may be trying to create the impression that according to me, the "cabal of two" somehow included User:Piotrus. Of course I never meant that. I meant to say that Piotrus was dragged into this because on that fateful day in June he happened to write someting on Ideogram's talk page. Which by the way shows how weak the proposal is, if nothing more damning can be found. I therefore second User:Bishonen in asking User:Cowman109 to withdraw this Request for Arbitration.

Commenting on the points made by User:Ideogram is in fact rather difficult without discussing his own conduct too much. But I will try. Ideogram basically says: Ghirlandajo was incivil because 1) he called me a stalker 2) he accused me of trolling 3) he called me a sockpuppet. 4) he refused my mediation.

Did Ghirlandjo have some reason to believe User:Ideogram stalked him? I think I proved that on Ghirlandajo's talk page (note that I did not even mention there that Ideogram followed Ghirlandajo onto the talk pages of User:Giano and User:KNewman, as Ghirlandajo had found that out himself: ]). Was Ideogram really a stalker? Of course not, he probably did not know that what he was doing is strictly saying "not done" (OR on my part, based on his question at the village pump).

The trolling: well, Ideogram did come to Ghirlandajo's talk page a lot, threatening him with doom and eternal hell fire if he did not submit to mediation. Perhaps it would have been a better idea to get the first cabal mediator (Geo.plrd, whom Ideogram replaced) to confirm to Ghirlandajo that this was in fact a genuine attempt at mediation. I cannot find any evidence that that was done, but my first diff shows that Ghirlandajo did respond to User:Cowman109's request to go to the talk page of the Russo-Turkish war. OK, it would not have got him a step closer to submitting to mediation in this case, but it may have stopped him accusing Ideogram of trolling.

The sockpuppet charge: I had trouble with that one too, but I can understand Ghirlandajo now; since he, with his many edits, had a better view of what was going on around him. And something strange WAS going on on many of these pages: the Ghirla stalker. Evidence that this guy was very "interested" in the Russo-Turkish War, even BEFORE the mediation attempts: ] and ]. Again, he was wrong to think that was User:Ideogram, but I wonder how most of us would react if they saw such things happening. As for being unwilling to participate in the mediation process, that was of course caused by the suspicions about stalking et al.--Pan Gerwazy 21:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by non-involved party User:Renata3

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

Some examples of Ghirlandajo incivility:

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

Some examples of POV edits:

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

He even thinks that he owns articles:

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

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

Statement by uninvolved party Bishonen

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

Statement by uninvolved party user:Geogre

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

Clerk notes

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

• Threaded dialog removed: wait for the case to be accepted and you'll have all the rebuttal opportunities you ever might want. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC) (acting as assistant clerk)

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

• Recuse, but urge acceptance per my statement on ANI. Dmcdevit·t 00:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Kven-users

Initiated by Fred-Chess at 16:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Fred Chess (talk · contribs)
• Art Dominique (talk · contribs) a.k.a. Digi Wiki (talk · contribs), Drow_Ssap (talk · contribs), Factual_approach (talk · contribs), Helpful1 (talk · contribs), Stop_false_nationalism (talk · contribs), Swedish_girl (talk · contribs) and about 10 CheckUser confirmed other names (see User:Mikkalai/arkven), as well as many other suspected, most recently Steve Wondering (talk · contribs).
• Mikkalai (talk · contribs)
• Drieakko (talk · contribs)
• Leifern (talk · contribs)
• Labongo (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Leifern:
• Mikkalai:
• Drieakko:
• Labongo:
• "Steve Wondering"

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Kven users RfC, May 2006
• Requests for assitance at several regional notice boards, e.g. , 31 January 2006
• The issue was mentioned on the WP:AN, 5 May 2006:

Statement by Fred-Chess

A user with many sock-puppets has for 10 months pushing unsupported POV on articles related to the Kvens.

addendum to Tony Sidaway

• I was adviced by administrator user:Bishonen to take this to arbitration. Administrator user:Mikkalai also told me that the Kven-User did not technically committ anything warranting a hardblock. But yes, the wish to block the user indefinite has been made by several users. If you think this is the correct action, please tell me. / Fred-Chess 16:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

If this is such an open and shut case, why not just take it to WP:ANI with a proposal for a community ban on the nuisance editor? --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion withdrawn. I'm satisfied with Fred Chess's response. --Tony Sidaway 17:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Leifern

I can only confirm Fred Chess's account of the situation. This editor has made a habit of making a mess out of an article about a distinct, non-controversial topic (the minority in Norway known as Kvens), accompanied by rather pathetic attempts at intimidation with sockpuppets, e.g., : . This editor does not appear to be interested in any kind of reasonable resolution to the disputes he has. The result is that an article - about this particulary minority - is compromised from time to time, not to mention my talk page and probably others. --Leifern 17:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Drieakko

Reasonable discussions have been rather difficult recently in Kvens of the past and Kvens because the user fills the discussion forums with meaningless rants and personal remarks. Vandalism in those articles as well as in Kings of Kvenland and Kven language are of less nuisance, but of course annoying. There is something to admire in his almost religious determination to mess those articles, but at the end of the day his place is not in Misplaced Pages to do that. --Drieakko 17:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Labongo

My impression is that the user has given up any attempts to discuss or cooperate with other editors several months ago. Currently, he uses his many sock-puppets to revert the Kven articles to a version (s)he wrote several months ago, and to post long personal attacks on the talk pages. However, my biggest concern is that his long comments, lately posted on multiple talk pages, will discourage new editors from improving the Kven articles. Labongo 06:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 6

(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 uninvolved party User:Ghirlandajo

I'm not sure whether I am a party to this case, as well as the preceding one. Actually, there are some parallels between the two. Last year I was one of the first to encounter the Kven editor, as these diffs illustrate. My first rection was to delete lengthy and obvious original research without further discussion. Such was my strategy when a similar nonsense was pasted in Russo-Turkish War, 1877–1878. Since User:Ideogram thought it appropriate to file an arbitration case against me on this account, I suggest these two cases should be merged. --Ghirla 11:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to Ghirlandajo by User:Ideogram

This statement by Ghirlandajo is utterly bizarre. I cannot see what this case has to do with the one above. I did not file the arbitration case against Ghirlandajo, and the case against Ghirlandajo is not about a particular content dispute but about Ghirlandajo's conduct in general over a period of many months. This statement by Ghirlandajo is simply a waste of time. --Ideogram 11:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The material behind the diff links provided by Ghirlandajo are undeniably from the "Kven-user". Otherwise I'd see best these cases handled separately. --Drieakko 11:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

Juro

Initiated by VinceB at 13:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• VinceB (talk · contribs)
• Juro (talk · contribs) notified

• content POV pusher, pro-slovak, or anti-hungarian, the same. any edit, wich is not prior his "views" is hungarian propaganda for him.

Statement by User:VinceB

See his discussion page. Always the same, he only contributes pages, wich are related to these. From slovakizing hungarian names to these. See his list of "irredents", or the whole discussion page.

I suggest banning him from articles, related to Slovakia, or Hungary. - PS: burocracy is so high, i didn't find where to put this kind of thing, so I put it here. Hope this is it. User: PANONIAN is kind the same. --VinceB 23:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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.)

Clerk notes

Having discussed this with User:VinceB, in my role as an arbitration committee clerk, it's clear that he does intend to bring this case to arbitration, and I have helped him by formatting this application. I will notify User:Juro. --Tony Sidaway 13:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Tankred

Since I am editor active in the same field as Juro (and Juro cannot respond to the request for arbitration because he is currently blocked), I think I should provide some insight into the background of this case. First, I failed to find any talk page with a personal dispute between User:VinceB and User:Juro. As far as I know, Juro has never been mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, so I do not understand why VinceB filed RfA before trying other means. Second, VinceB's claims are clearly unfounded. As to the claim that "he only contributes pages, which are related to these", Juro has made 7,124 edits on 1,840 distinct pages (data no longer updated). The "slovakization of Hungarian names" claim in fact concerns an ordinary content dispute. Inhabitants of the Kingdom of Hungary used Latin forms of their names and spelling often varies from one document to another. Hungarian editors prefer use of modern Hungarian versions of those names in Misplaced Pages; Slovak editors prefer modern Slovak versions in the articles about people living in present-day Slovakia. The third argument ("list of Hungarian vandals" on Juro's talk page) is related to the accusation that several Hungarian users (responsible for vandalism and personal attacks) are in reality sockpuppets of User:Árpád. There is some evidence for it, so I hope these charges will not become a reason to block a prolific and valuable user Juro. Tankred 16:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:PANONIAN

The true problem that we have here is with one (or more) Hungarian nationalist who editing numerous articles related to Slovakia, Romania and Serbia and posting insulting nationalistic content. Juro was involved in dispute with this user (or users), known as Hun Tomy, Arpad (and much more sockpuppet accounts that he have), and the way how Juro sometimes reacted to comments and edits posted by this user is triggered by the insulting nature of these edits and comments. Let just illustrate some of these comments made by this Hungarian user like those when he said that Slovaks are "shepherds" or that Serbs and Romanians are "culturally inferior", "backward", etc. Those are clear racist comments and we all can imagine how one Jew or Afro-American would react if somebody say that he belong to "inferior race". Would this Jew or Afro-American have right to tell to this racist to "See a doctor" or something even worse? By the way, I suggest that User:VinceB is checked for sockpuppetry, since there is good chance that he is sockpuppet of Hun Tomy and Arpad (The fact that he know me and I do not know him is a good proof that he have sockpuppets). PANONIAN (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

And furthermore, if you check the contributions of User:VinceB, you will notice that his last edit before 4 September was in 12 July (!!!): http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20060905122251&limit=50&target=VinceB Do I have to say what that mean or you all can read my mind? PANONIAN (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I also don't know VinceB but taking a look at his userpage on hu-wiki he seems to be an established editor there. Zello 10:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but is it little strange that last edit of VinceB on English Misplaced Pages was in 12 July and suddenly he came here to complain about Juro, while his contributions do not show that he had any dispute with Juro recently. PANONIAN (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a bit strange. Unfortunately nobody knows the truth about the above mentioned sockpuppet charges, because the lack of Checkuser evidence. Theoreticaly it is possible that VinceB only read the disputes between Juro and other users like me. Zello 16:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Vivaldi

Initiated by Arbusto at 08:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

Vivaldi (talk · contribs) Contacted on user talk page

Arbustoo (talk · contribs) I as bringer of the RfA

Vivaldi has been uncivil, has wikistalked, tedious editted, harassed, broke POV, and edit warred after agreeing not to in a RfC.

Statement by Arbustoo

In May 2006 the disputes began at the Jack Hyles article when Vivaldi began removing cited criticism from the article. My interest in the article began solely because people were removing documented facts about a pastor and a molestation at his church. This progressed into edit problems in related articles Hyles Anderson College, Jack Schaap, Preying from the Pulpit(ongoing view history), and First Baptist Church of Hammond.

I opened Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Vivaldi in May hoping to settle the disputes. I closed the RfC with basic agreements about editing warring, harassment, breaking civil, and other wikipedia rules. This user signed agreeing to cease this behavior. Yet, the harassment and wikistalking has continued. When this user knows I've actively edited he visits something I have editted to harassment me. Examples in the last few days: and keeps claiming I am pushing a POV and Vivaldi removes material in those edits Vivaldi uses wikilawyering tactics (see many on the RfC) citing policy in obtuse incorrect, POV, and illogical ways (again see the RfC for details).

User also lies/misleads to the community about me to attack me. Most recent example was today: An anon. IP voted and made comments on only four AfDs (all mine). I removed this comments noting "rv this IP that has hit every single one of my AfDs" (which I believed to be the banned user who created the articles and Use Your Naugin (talk · contribs) went to AfD the day before) and Vivaldi put the comments back and claimed, the IP "has participated in a number of AfDs not nominated by Arbustoo, so that accusation is baseless and without merit." However, the only AfD votes made in the last five days (the day in question is Sept 4th), are ONLY my four AfDs see: history205.157.110.11 (talk · contribs) the last previous vote the IP made was 30 August 2006.

Wikistalking is not acceptable, and the adminstrators I've contacted can't do anything. For further evidence see: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Vivaldi Arbusto 08:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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 now involved User:205.157.110.11

Since Arbusto has brought me into this matter, maybe I can leave a comment without him blanking it. I am an anon-by-choice former user who tickles his wiki-itch from time to time mostly in AfD. I happen to leach off a public IP that is shared by employees of Office Depot. Early this morning I was intrigued by the AfD of several well known envangelicals (David Jeremiah, Darrell Bock, John Hannah, and Andy Stanley) I posted my support to keep them. The theme of the AfD and the obvious pattern their nomination had intrigued me.
On all the AfDs, Arbusto subsequently deleted my comments. He would later go back and insert strike marks through my votes. On two of the AfD, Vivaldi reverted back my comments and noted my history of commenting on other AfDs. I thanked Vivaldi for his actions and noticed the Rfc and mentioning of the AfD so I made a comment here to give some background. Arbusto also took it upon himself to blank that comment.
While I can not offer insight into the heart of the disagreement between Vivaldi and Arbusto, I consider Arbusto's actions of blanking my comments and manipulating them with strike mark vandalism of my comments and wholly inappropriate and uncivil. As an anon-user, I understand that in items like AfD discussions that my comment may carry less weight and even be viewed with suspicion. It is appropriate for other users to voice those supicions and even, if they wish, choose to tag the IP with a suspected sockpuppet tag. While I personally would say that's wiki-paranoia, it is still appropriate. What is not appropriate is to vandalize other user's comments and to treat them in an uncivil matter. While Arbusto's actions are not bannable, I do request a warning reprimand for him and believe that his comments and actions in relation to this RfA should be evalulated in light of his demonstrated behavior. Thank you. 205.157.110.11 11:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Response

205.157.110.11 (talk · contribs) voted on only four AfD, which included edit summaries that said "strawberries". Prior to this the IP's last AfD votes that were not Gastrich-my AfDs was on August 30, 2006 (five days before). These articles created by Gastrich 1 anon Gastrch 2user who made 5 edits. Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs) was caught pushing POV and is banned from wikipedia.

The previous day my AfDs also go hit by a sock: Use_Your_Naugin (talk · contribs) whose first and only edits were on my AfDs and were Gastrich related (note user's edits on Lousiana Baptist University--the basis of the banning). This was brought to an adminstrators attention and those votes were lined out my me.

With that in mind from the previous day and that banned Jason_Gastrich (talk · contribs) watches some of his articles still, I warned an admin to expect socks. This was before this anon appeared. Then this IP directly came to my four AfDs, and being an IP I removed the material with a edit summary explaining that he only voted on 4 AfDs, which are all interrelated by the same user. The last previous edit at this IP was nearly a day before, last AfD vote was 5 days before, and his AfD vote summary said "Strawberries"(whatever that meant?). I removed the vote with notation of why, and Vivaldi clearly was looking at my edit history, and felt compelled to revert it (and as of now a day later; Vivaldi has not editted since). Arbusto 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny, the anon. has removed my comments explaining. Arbusto 19:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

Wiki-vigilante

Initiated by Richard George at 07:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• FilipeS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Richard George (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It's impossible to deal with this sir. This request comes about a personal persecution and extendends beyond a single article. Mediation is commonly related to one solo article. This is now focused on deliberate attacks to my edits by user FilipeS so I can't but just notifying him as in and proceed here.

Statement by party 1

As stated on his talk page, this FilipeS is extremely disrespectful and has decided to track down my contributions. His conduct is miserable. He does not discuss and acts like Misplaced Pages being his private page. My surprise when I've seen him reverting all my edits simply with "rv vandalism". I won't allow myself to be stomped by dictatorship and contemption. I added, he erased, and there he went on editing like there was no tomorrow. If he wants to add, discuss my adds first before erasing, then proceed.

I made simple adds on Portuguese language on account of my experience in investigations about portuguese culture. He stomped me there because his page was in his watchlist (maybe he's confusing Watchlist with Private Property) then he decided to hunt all my related contributions. He appears to be one of those new fashioned wiki-vigilantes who seek status on tracking down other users.

The edits I made in Portuguese Language, Voiced uvular fricative‎ and Portuguese phonology were based on educational material teached in portuguese schools and universities. It is the accepted and approved material by idoneous professors like Edite Estrela and portuguese academies and book editors.

It seems to be easy nowadays to annihilate contributions here, asking almost impossible things like "citation needed". Alas!! These kind of books are not available in free PDF's hither and thither in Internet. Do I have to scan the books and show them here to him?

I request for solutions. Thank you. Yours sincerely --Richard George 07:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

Richard George made some edits to Portuguese language, Portuguese phonology, Guttural R, and Voiced uvular fricative which are, to the best of my knowledge, incorrect, so I reverted them. These were substantial changes, so he should have discussed them in the Talk page before reinstating them, which he did not do. I guess I could have told him to discuss the changes first, but unfortunately he has no User Talk page, and I confess that I was not very motivated to talk to him, given the level of language he had used in his edit summaries. By the way, I don't think this is a matter that would require arbitration. He should have just put up a "factual accuracy" dispute in the relevant pages, if he wasn't satisfied. I would sure love to see what sources he based his edits on. FilipeS

Clerk notes

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

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

• Reject. Very premature, please use dispute resolution. Dmcdevit·t 16:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. Premature. Jayjg 19:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Human Rights in Israel

Initiated by MauroVan at 10:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Humus sapiens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Okedem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Markovich292 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mediation attempts made (check Talk:Israel#NPOV_Tag_for_Human_Rights).

Since it's been questioned whether the issue has undergone formal or informal procedures prior to the request for aribtration, I will give some extra information on that:

1. 8-25, Talk:Israel#NPOV_Tag_for_Human_Rights: ... If I did wrong, please explain me why before redeleting it. --MauroVan 13:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
2. 8-29, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Politics: There's disagreement between two editors about the reliability of Amnesty International as a source about human rights issues when talking about democratic countries. A part suggests to use statements from both Amnesty International and other, more pro-Israel, sources, while the other part suggests to use only statements not originated from Amnesty International reports.--MauroVan 12:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
3. 8-29, Talk:Israel#NPOV_Tag_for_Human_Rights: I'm here in response to MauroVan's request for comment. I recognize that you all know the subject matter better than I do, but can offer some suggestions. ... Thanks, and good luck, TheronJ 14:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
4. 9-1, User_talk:TheronJ#Trying_to_cool_down_the_Israel_issue: Hi, again on the Israel page, especially the Human Rights controversy. I think that your mediation attempt was very good, and I did my best to follow your advice. ... I'm not so fond of Amnesty International, I just think it's unconceivable to exclude such a cite just because this editor doesn't like AI. Therefore, please do something, I think an arbitration could be useful since this is a very sensitive issue and such an unbalanced section will always generate disputes ... --MauroVan 09:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
5. 9-1, Talk:Israel#NPOV_Tag_for_Human_Rights: I am responding as an outsider to the controversy, as requested. This seems to me to be a simple case. In the vast majority of nations, Israel is regarded as highly controversial because of the persistant accusations that they violate human rights. The argument that all this criticism stems from anti-Semitism is not credible. The groups listed, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc., are controversial, but anyone who follows the links will find the criticism of those groups. Therefore, the views of those groups should be included (and linked.) --ManEatingDonut 21:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope this helps. --MauroVan 08:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by MauroVan

I think that the section Israel#Human rights should be shorter, refer to the main article and give some links with significant and well-known sources; among those sources, I would list Amnesty International and the United Nations, even though some strongly pro-Israel users don't seem to like those organizations. Some users, especially Humus sapiens, instead of trying to solve this issue on the Talk page, just revert any change. Two external mediators did their best to sort it out, but it was useless since these users refuse to cooperate.

I know that this is not the right place to tell this, so please forgive me for the off-topic but I find it very important for personal and political reasons to clarify that I am a strong opposer (in deeds and not just in words) of any form of anti-Semitism.--MauroVan 10:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In his statement below, editor User:Humus sapiens "forgets" to say that this was my definitive proposal, after the advices of the mediators, and not the one he linked. Creating a straw man is not a serious way to face this issue which I still believe can be easily sorted out. I think it's quite clear that my proposal is not a reflection of my POV on this issue, nor a misrepresentation of the everyday life of Israeli citizens (that I described as near to "Western standards"). I just think we should not hide some aspects of the situation there that contradict the positive aspects already well underlined by my "opponents". BTW, I'm not asking for any measure to be taken against anybody, I just would like to have a balanced article there. --MauroVan 08:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Humus sapiens

It seems that I am not the only one unaware of previous mediation attempts: in this content dispute. MauroVan (talk · contribs) is a new user who tries to turn article Israel into a clone of Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Israeli-occupied territories. He was reverted by a number of editors - he called that vandalizing, and branded me a "vandal" (later retracted), requested that you need to be blocked and got increasingly agitated. Ironically, whithout knowing that he was filing this case, I made a compromise (included links to Amnesty Intl and Human Rights Watch, but without MV's huge quotation ), but he still keeps insisting that WP should comply with his POV and his style preferences only: . ←Humus sapiens 22:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I made another attempt to explain my position in this content dispute at Talk:Israel#Human rights. Part 2. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens 09:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Markovich292

Based on the actions of some editors, especially Humus sapiens, I firmly believe that continued discussion on the talk page will not produce an acceptable solution, for either party. The most recent additions to the article as mentioned above do not include a large amount of information that should be contained in a section entitled "Human Rights..." I have observed that MauroVan repeatedly makes attempts to resolve this issue quickly and fairly, but editors that seem to be very supportive of Israel do not constructively address the contributions, much of the time deleting entire portions of it instead. In particular, Humus Sapiens is not adhering to NPOV policy, as he continually rewrites the section to minimalize the human rights issues in Israel. In short, I don't think Humus Sapiens will accept any version of the section that makes more than a passing reference to human rights violations, and as a result the quality of the article is suffering. Markovich292 23:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Blnguyen

At the time of writing, MauroVan has been on Misplaced Pages for three weeks and has some 130 odd posts. The section of dispute resolution is roughly the size of a moderate topic on WP:ANI. I don't see any formal or semi-formal procedures to try and solve the problem prior to this request. There are surely more pressing and otherwise intractable issues that the ArbCom could go before prematurely wading into this case. I think that this is premature and should be dismissed.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 23:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Okedem

The current version (after Humus' attempt at a compromise) seems to me to be very well balanced, with about the same number of critical claims as "positive" claims. The section gives a good picture of the current situation - with its positives and negatives. A few "tweaks" could be made, certainely, but nothing major. MauroVan has not attempted any of the measures suggested prior to calling for arbitration, and has consistently changed the section in the article, instead of trying to discuss it first, before implemnting changes. This has led to a small edit war. I'm sure this issue can be resolved on the talk page, as the differences between the versions are not major. okedem 08:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Reject, per Blnguyen, premature. Not all talk page discussion is mediation, and the evidence of prior attempts is skimpy. Dmcdevit·t 16:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Honda S2000

Initiated by — AKADriver ☎ at 15:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• AKADriver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SpinyNorman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zunaid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jsw663 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jnbwade69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Comments regarding this request for arbitration have been added to:

• Talk:Honda S2000:
• User talk:SpinyNorman:
• User talk:Zunaid:
• User talk:Jsw663:
• User talk:Jnbwade69:

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• A request for comment was posted approximately two months ago:
• Mediation was requested from the Cabal:

• A cabal mediator suggested arbitration upon reviewing the temperament of the parties involved:

The case is a revert war regarding the encyclopedic value of criticism of a sports car.

Statement by AKADriver

My position is that the "Criticism" section of this article is unencyclopedic editorial, and presents a biased POV by only representing negative opinions. Any attempts to alter the content, add positive opinions, shorten the section to improve the flow and readability of the article, add POV-check flags, or remove the section are reverted within hours by SpinyNorman alone. Consensus built by the RFC seems to indicate all editors except for SpinyNorman support shortening or removing the section.

The article's history shows frequent reverts of this nature:

Zunaid condensed the section and removed the offending content following the RFC. This version is acceptable to me, even though there is no precedent for criticism in an automotive article.

Statement by Jsw663 (cabal mediator)

After reviewing the case history, I thought about mediating. However, given that the user SpinyNorman has been imposing his version of his edit repeatedly over some time already, as well as his history being chequered by bans, as well as his statements on the discussion page, suggest that mediation will be useless, especially as others have agreed to compromise (e.g. AKADriver agreed to compromise on a shorter criticsm section, even though he didn't like such a section). Moreover, SpinyNorman is unwilling to participate in any form of mediation or compromise of his written work (see the talk page of the entry concerned). Informal mediation has been tried but has been completely ineffective. I thought that the arb. committee would be in a better place to judge for themselves whether penalties, sanctions and/or just a warning would be most appropriate in this case. (After all, only arbitrators can effect binding decisions and take more serious steps). Thanks. Jsw663 17:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I realize that the ArbCom primarily resolves interpersonal disputes rather than that over content only, but this has spilled over into a SpinyNorman versus every other editor on the Honda S2000 page. How can content be resolved until the ArbCom decides whether SpinyNorman's persistent and constant edits are fair (ie just defending his views) or unfair (ie going overboard in making the page one essentially written by SpinyNorman instead of a genuinely encyclopaedic page). Jsw663 20:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by SpinyNorman

This case seems to be about the attempt by a handful of disgruntled POV-pushers to censor references to legitimate criticism of the vehicle by the motoring press. Despite repeated attempts to maintain balance in the article that are thwarted by various editors who will tolerate no criticism, they have resorted to escalating this issue in an attempt to get their POV enforced by inducing the arbcom to impose it by some sort of executive fiat. Personally, I would ask the arbcom to reject the case as a waste of their time --SpinyNorman 18:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Also, the claim that I have been unwilling to compromise is patently absurd. I have accepted many valid concerns about the content of the criticism section and modified considerably - as well as acceppting considerable modification of it by others since it was originally added. It is true that I won't accept the removal of legitimate criticism, but that's not being uncompromising, that's resisting the imposition of bias. To paraphrase Barry Goldwater... compromising with POV-pushers is no virtue and being uncompromising in the defense of objectivity is no vice. --SpinyNorman 19:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

(to address the points made by Jnbwade69): If the S2000 only oversteered with unskilled drivers, then why does the automotive press comment on that characteristic so widely? Do they all send unskilled drivers to test the cars? I think not. That being said, I don't think that the tendency to oversteer is, in and of itself, a problem and I certainly don't understand why you're comparing it to exploding Pintos or rolling Explorers. Oversteer isn't a safety issue and none of the comments in the criticism section say otherwise. But the fact is that the car has a pronounced tendency to oversteer. Speaking from personal experience, I can say that the tendency is far out of proportion to the car's power and design. I have driven cars with far more power and even lighter weight but with less tendency to oversteer. Also, the criticism of the car's power curve, gearing and NVH is perfectly valid. These are valid criticisms of ANY car. How can you justify your apparent desire to censor criticism of the car because you don't agree with it? Honda got a lot of things right with that car, but they did get some things wrong and since this article isn't intended to be a hagiography, it should include the good with the bad. --SpinyNorman 18:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

(to address new points made by Jnbwade69): I find it interesting that the user is complaining about my inclusion of critical remarks from an otherwise generally positive review. If I was really looking to do a "hatchet job" on the article in question, would't my agenda be better served by including remarks from negative reviews? I also find it interesting that there is any complaint at all about criticism in an article so inherently subjective as the discussion of a popular sports car. --SpinyNorman 06:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(to address comments made by JoshuaZ): I would like to point out that the majority of the 3RR blocks made against me were completely unwarranted and based on inaccurate claims made about me by others - basically people who are pissed off at their own POV being challenged. If anyone has any substantive questions or concerns about ANY of my edits, they are welcome to post such questions on my talk page and I will be happy to answer. Unlike so many people here, I don't make changes that I can't objectively and rationally defend. --SpinyNorman 06:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

--

I am going to request that Jayjg recuse himself from the proceedings as he has a history of bias in dealing with me. --SpinyNorman 10:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Jnbwade69

As I said in on the talk page, I am willing to compromise on the criticism section. I would concede to allow a statement on the car's tendency to oversteer if a reference can be found from the mainstream automobile press, or even the mainstream general press. This only seems to be a problem with unskilled drivers. Were not talking about exploding Pintos or rolling Explorers here. There is no widespread social impact to the car being "tail happy". The changes in the car to address daily driver comfort are already found in the Models section. All the stuff about the torque, horsepower and engine noise has to go. This is not valid criticism. Honda's intent was to created a car in the spirit of it's S800 roadster from the sixties. A car with a 0.8 liter engine, 70hp, and an 8000rpm redline BTW. Anyone who test drives an S2000 before buying would know this in about 30 seconds. The very nature of a VTEC engine is that all the torque and horsepower in at the top end. What does he want, for Honda to put another engine in the car. Many bought one because on these characteristics, and do not consider them shortcomings. It is a four wheel superbike, if you will. To address the revert war, I think the only alternative is to revoke SpinyNorman's privilege of editing the article. Evidently he owned one, hated it, and now has some sort of axe to grind. I respect that he has very strong feelings on this, but it seems to have clouded his judgement. He states that he has considered other editors opinions, but the Criticism section gets longer and more convoluted every time he edits it. Please review the article history and the talk page. They speak for themselves. Thank you for your time. --Jnbwade69 11:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Also, I find his repeated use of this review of the car on Pistonheads.com to be disingenuous at best. He is basically picking and choosing certain phrases and quotes to build a negative picture from a generally positive review. (4 out of 5 stars) Why? To make a point the reviewer had no intent of making. Not what one would expect from a trustworthy wikipedia editor. --Jnbwade69 23:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Zunaid

Repeated attempts to encourage SpinyNorman to accept the consensus of all editors involved in the article (as is the Misplaced Pages way) have been met with accusations of "censorship". SpinyNorman seems to take any edits to the Criticism section personally and wants to turn what is a purely editorial conflict into a personal one of "me vs them". The initial Criticism section introduced by him was extremely long compared to the rest of the article, did not "flow" neatly with the content, and was filled with extreme POV language. My attempt to summarise it and introduce a consistent writing style, as well as rewrite it in more neutral terms without removing any of the specific criticisms mentioned was summarily reverted as "censorship" and has started a revert war which shows no sign of ending without the intervention of the ArbCom. Zunaid 08:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Outside party Swatjester

It should be noted by the arbitration committee that I recently attempted to mediate a revert/POV pushing attempt by SpinyNorman against SlimVirgin on the Animal Liberation Front page, to no avail. I make no claim to being a party to the dispute over S2000, merely asserting that SpinyNorman has a history of trying to influence articles with his POV through reverts. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 08:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Outside party JoshuaZ

I would strongly urge the ArbCom to accept this arbitration to focus on SpinyNorman's problems. As a glance at his talk page will show he has been a repeatedly problematic editor. Furthermore, he his blocklog shows four 3RRV blocks since May 22. He has recently engaged in further tendentious and problematic editing, such as at Matthew Shepard where he is edit-warring against the inclusion of the category Hate crime and similar editing An Inconvenient Truth. JoshuaZ 14:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Accept to examine behavior issues. Jayjg 05:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Dmcdevit·t 05:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. SimonP 12:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Charles Matthews 13:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for clarification

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

Onefortyone

According to the arbcom results Onefortyone (talk · contribs) was placed on Misplaced Pages:Probation with respect to the biographies of celebrities. He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research. He appears to have shifted to inserting such material into album/CD articles . Does this probation extend to such pages as well if they are inappropriately edited? - Mgm| 20:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It is very interesting that a user, who didn't contribute to Presley-related topics in the past, has totally removed my well-sourced contributions from two different Misplaced Pages articles (see and ). This supports my suspicion that there are several sockpuppets at work who are harassing me and seem to be related to multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes alias User:DW. I have discussed this problem elsewhere. See, for instance, . MacGyverMagic has falsely claimed on the Nicholas Turnbull talk page that my contributions are "unreferenced POV stuff" about Elvis. Truth be told, I have quoted from George Plasketes, Images of Elvis Presley in American Culture, 1977-1997: The Mystery Terrain, p.37, and from a university site. What should be wrong with this? Onefortyone 01:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This edit seems inappropriate. The only problem I see is that sometimes it is not clear what the source is of the material Onefortyone is inserting. Fred Bauder 13:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Highways

Misplaced Pages:State route naming conventions poll may have been set up as a majority-wins poll, but the ArbCom clearly encouraged consensus on the matter. There is a clear lack of consensus on the poll, and yet so far three of the "admin judges" are treating it as a majority-wins poll. --SPUI (T - C) 06:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your side has 41%, which is definitely not consensus for your side. Also, we have to have some convention. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no consensus, thus no convention. --SPUI (T - C) 06:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Back to self-law. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This a case which failed, specifically failed to adequately deal with the problem of SPUI's behavior. It should probably be reopened. Fred Bauder 13:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel that we've just avoided nuclear war. There is relative peace at highways for now, but if SPUI's behavior does not change, a further arbcom case could be inevitable. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Specific Highways clarification request

I would like to ask the arbcom for clarification. Specifically, I would like explicit endorsement or repudiation of the following principles (which form the basis for how I have been operating since I got involved in trying to shepherd the process along:

• ArbCom does not normally get involved in content disputes, but chose to in this case to try to get to closure on what had been a source of much contention and ill will.
• ArbCom in their finding said "consensus is encouraged"... I interpret that as "== consensus is NOT REQUIRED" meaning that if consensus cannot be achieved, othre means should be used. IS this a correct interpretation of ArbCom's wishes in this matter
• There has been a long process of evaluation of alternatives and after some discussion, a majority vote was held on principles. one principle won, with 59%. It is not our norm to accept majority votes as binding (see Polling is evil).
• I perceive The majority of participants seem to have arrived at a consensus to accept the majority, this once, without necessarily being happy about it, or thinking that this means we are changing general principles. IS this perception correct? If so, does ArbCom endorse it as a principle in this matter?
  • It is rather clear that the main troublemaker, SPUI, is not of this view and wishes to continue his campaign of disruption. I would focus on those who view failure to achieve consensus as a victory. Fred Bauder 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• There have been a minority of participants who have continued to argue that there is not a normal consensus here and who have ignored the above consensus to accept majority. Their actions have, in my view, been disruptive. DOES arbcom agree that arguing against this principle constitute disruption of the process?
  • Yep, playing games. Fred Bauder 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• The forum participants have developed a process in which everyone votes to determine opinion, and then a set of (admin) judges interprets the vote and decides what the outcome (what principle shall hold) shall be I adjudge consensus for that process. DOES ArbCom agree? Is agitating against the process disruptive?
  • disagreeing, no. agitating , yes Fred Bauder 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Some participants are saying that any objection by anyone to any judge knocks them out. I view there is not consensus for that viewpoint. DOES ArbCom agree?
  • Of course not Fred Bauder 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• This discussion has spilled over to many other places. That is not a good thing in my view. In some cases it smacks of forum shopping to me. It would be best if it remained in one place DOES ArbCom agree that it should remain in one place and that bringing it to new places (here and ANI perhaps excluded) is forum shopping and should be viewed as disruptive?
  • Yes Fred Bauder 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have made some statements that not everyone agrees with. The following references may be of some use.

• too harsh? (see the rest of that thread as well, I made some other statements.
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#59.25_.3D_consensus.3F thread

I have handed out a block to SPUI in this matter for what I viewed as disruption. It was reduced but not overturned. I feel SPUI returned to his disruptive ways last night but perhaps has settled down today. I would nevertheless welcome review of my actions and I seek clarification in the form of yes/no answers to the questions I pose above. I was counseled by some to let this go, to let someone else implement but i am one of the 6 "judges". Comment on whether I should leave enforcement to a non judge admin welcomed as well. ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a split in the Arbitration Committee on this question. Only one arbitrator, me, supports coming down heavy on SPUI. It will take a few more months of disruption before the rest will come around. Fred Bauder 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort, Lar. Please note that the opinions I expressed above are my own, not those of the Committee. Fred Bauder 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points in response. First, I think it would be best if I got a unified response from the whole committee, although I value your input! But if I get mixed yes/nos it may not be as helpful as a more definitive answer. Second, I'm not anti SPUI. And I'm not advocating that we "come down heavy on SPUI". Or anyone else. I just want to get to a resolution. Third, to the points raised elsewhere about new spirits of consensus, and does that contravene what I said about more new proposals being not helpful... well if everyone previously blocking working to a solution shifts, and with some compromise, everyone comes to a consensual acceptance of whatever state of affairs works for most everyone... great! That would be awesome, trust me when I say I would love to see that more than anyone. But if this lull goes back to disruptive behaviour, then I will seek to apply remedies. Hence my seeking clarification, even if the lull apparently continues, I don't want to (or whoever shouldn't have to) come back here later because I (or whoever) don't have what is needed. OK that was three things. :) ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of the proponents of Principle II in the recent Highway naming poll are trying to comeup with a Manual of Style that addresses most of the concerns of Principle II supporters while keeping in line with the decision by the majorit to use the style of Principle I in the article title. This is being done at WP:USSH. I am under the impression that Lar and a few others think this is disruption. We are trying to gain real consensus by addressing specific problems with the chosen Principle without overturning it. I strongly believe that is not disruption. I hope most of thr ArbCom agrees. --Polaron | Talk 16:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not view creating a style guide to help people edit, and that helps them apply the accepted principle rationally, as "disruption", rather I find it highly useful. What I find disruptive is tagging an early stage proposal as a guide rather than a proposal. I think that's fixed though. Once the highway people reach clear consensus that it's accepted and that it's the way that people should edit I'd welcome it moving to style guide in state and getting added to the list of style guides in effect. ++Lar: t/c 19:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The state of affairs on Misplaced Pages is such that when we say consensus, we can't mean complete agreement among all parties. Our processes like AfD, RfA, and others, instead, have lowered the standard to a norm that the community sees as acceptable. Therefore, a bureaucrat can promote an administrator or an administrator can delete a page even with dissenters, provided that the amount of dissent is within that community standard. This is not the strict definition of consensus, but Misplaced Pages-brand consensus. Under that system, it is possible to identify this 59% vote as "consensus" provided that the community (especially administrators) is willing to enforce it. Especially in light of the fact that arbitrary decisions are better than indecision, I believe that we ought to do so; if we enforce it, it's as god as done. While there is no reason to stifle productive discussion and comprommise, I'm fairly certain that the community, as well, is at the point of enforcing the result of the poll as the less disruptive of the available options, in an effort to end the agony of this debate. Dmcdevit·t 22:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding highway participants' brand-new cooperative spirit

Would it be acceptable to the ArbCom if the members of this entire debate just sat down and had a civil conversation, and reached a virtually unanimous agreement on a compromise? They seem to be on track to do this now, but some are raising concerns about being outside of the process of the naming conventions poll, and that the judges of said poll have already ruled that there is a consensus. Personally, I don't think that matters, because it's always good to have more people agree, so there's no harm in having more discussion. At worst, it's just more incivil discussion and you won't be able to tell it apart from the rest anyway, but it doesn't seem to be heading that way, and is currently being rather productive. What does the ArbCom think? --Rory096 16:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to the ArbCom if the members of this entire debate just sat down and had a civil conversation, and reached a virtually unanimous agreement on a compromise? This is exactly what should happen. It is exactly what should happen for decision making on Misplaced Pages. Sam Korn 16:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me too Fred Bauder 16:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, we made a few concessions in exchange for their support of Principle I. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think any of the 'judging admins' object to sanity either. :] --CBD 11:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Internal spamming/campaigning

There's an ongoing discussion at WP:SPAM about what constitutes acceptable talk page contact between users regarding discussions, votes, polls, etc. Prior rulings that have been pointed to are this prior ruling and this one. Could you offer any more specific information about what is and is not allowed/discouraged, for example: is it the use of mass userbox messaging that is disallowed (if it is), or is internal spamming/campaigning disallowed only if disruptive? Thanks. IronDuke 17:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article. Fred Bauder 16:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Zeq wikistalking and block count

I've been having a difficult time applying arbitration enforcement for Zeq and feel I have since been targetted by him. For example, after I blocked Kelly Martin for her B-list attack page, Zeq just happens to come along so as to caution me from blocking a user with whom you have a dispute" (what dispute? he fails to mention). Or, after removing and protecting the attack page by Sarasto777, Zeq just happens to come along, again. These are not isolated examples. Then today, Zeq questions my administrative compotence and speaks of an "edit conflict" after I delete his copyvio entry, twice. Many blocks later, how should I proceed with the tendencious edits by the user? Should I implement Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Enforcement_by_block next time — it will be the 6th block. Or will it? I am inclined to count article bans as blocks, and am seeking clarification as to this approach, and Zeq's conduct overall as illustrated above. Thanks in advance. El_C 13:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do take the time to examine this request's threaded dialogue (it was removed without an accompanying diff being cited). Thanks. El_C 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

To answer your original question: article bans are not considered to count towards the escalating block periods, only vioations of bans. Having said that, if an editor is incorrigible, perhaps a general admin-discretionary block rather than, or in addition to, an arbcom article ban is warranted (by an uninvolved party of course, which I am not sure you are). I'd say take it to ANI, and try to avoid scaring admins awy with long-winded, dead-end discussions like the one that happened here. Dmcdevit·t 00:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I plead for minimal respect on Dmcdevit's part. El_C 12:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with Zeq is difficult; he won't let anything go. Just concentrate on doing the fair thing and expect that if you do, others will back you up. Consultation on ANI won't hurt, but is not mandatory to ban or block under an arbitration decision. Fred Bauder 13:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Moby Dick's article ban - projectspace?

"Moby Dick is banned from editing articles which concern Turkey or Kurdish issues." Does this include Articles for Deletion discussions related to those issues? Cool Cat believes the diff above is part of a pattern of harrassment on AfDs, according to a post of his on the admins' incidents noticeboard. The simplest way to sort this out in my view would be to confirm whether his article ban does or should cover projectspace pages. --Sam Blanning 12:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify my reasoning. While one keep vote does not constitute as stalking, Moby Dick's continuing pattern of behaviour does.

The pattern of behaviour presented in the Arbitration cases evidence page is in my view continuing for one and a half years now. Two arbitration cases have been filed over the issue. Now those arbitration hearings need to be enforced.

--Cat out 14:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the ambiguous term "article" is to cover all namespaces. Sam Korn 22:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed per Sam. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he needs to just leave the subject alone. Fred Bauder 13:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

To be fair to all parties, I propose that someone alter the decision to read "page" and make an annotation to explain why the change was made (referring to this clarification with a diff). I could not make the change myself because I was an involved party in the case. --Tony Sidaway 01:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

May an administrator take into account prior behavior?

I recently imposed what seemed to me to be a straightforward article ban on an editor who had been disrupting the article over a period of several months. The arbitration remedy is in a case that was closed yesterday and the ban doesn't seem to have been opposed for any substantive reason; only the procedure is questioned.

The case is Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom and the ban is on Karl Meier editing Islamophobia, on which he almost invariably edit wars.

I would like to see the Committee clarify whether it is pertinent for an administrator, in making a decision on whether to impose a restriction under a remedy passed in an arbitration case, may take into account the behavior of the editor prior to the closing of the case. --Tony Sidaway 01:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:Netscott

This WP:AN thread is pertinent to this question. (→Netscott) 03:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say that under most circumstances, the day the case closes is the day the restrictions start and the day the behaviour has to change. Why else do we have injunctions? However, if an editor attempts to get their digs in just before a ban, I suspect the committee will be quite willing to extend a ruling. In this case, I think, Karl will either behave - or not - in which case I'm sure the community will ban him quickly. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with the notion of judgements being applied retroactively; if the Committee had wanted to ban Karl Meier from editing an article for 3 months, it certainly could have done so as one of its remedies. Jayjg 02:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've rescinded the ban. On reflection I think this ban was not acceptable to the community. --Tony Sidaway 01:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, certainly, I think that "justice is blind" is not a useful process to use on Misplaced Pages. Sysops should use their common sense.

James F. (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Karl had not edited on en since 15th, and his only edit since then has been to reply on User talk:Karl Meier that "I don't care. I've lost any serious interest in the project." . He has quit before, though , and came back within the month. --Tony Sidaway 19:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In reply to James F., I think I agree. There were other issues of fairness here that convinced me that the ban was seen as too aggressive. --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed summary of consensus (comment by User:Newyorkbrad)

As Tony indicates, there has been a certain amount of discussion on this issue, which the community might as well profit from rather than just lose when this specific case ages off the page. I think a fair synthesis of the reaction to this general situation would run more-or-less as follows:

1. An admin should not impose a block based exclusively on behavior occurring while (or before) an ArbCom case is pending, because the ArbCom presumably considered all of that behavior in determining the sanctions that ArbCom itself would impose and the user should have a chance to modify his/her behavior in response to the decision.

2. However, in the event of misbehavior after the ArbCom case has closed, an admin would of course take the prior behavior that was the subject of the ArbCom case into account (subject to the strictures of the ArbCom ruling itself).

3. There could be borderline cases where behavior occurred after the outcome of the ArbCom case was clear but before the case was formally closed, but these should be relatively rare and one might want to run the situation by the Arbitrators.

Just my thoughts, FWIW. If anyone wants to discuss this further, perhaps this thread should refactor to the talk page. Newyorkbrad 00:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think it's necessary to formulate this as a policy but I do think we learn from this kind of situation. My concern here was that, knowing that the arbitration committee had decided that his edit warring was problematic, and intended to proscribe his activities, Karl Meier persisted. The enactment simply provided me and other admins with the capacity to act. However this offended the general feeling that arbitration remedies should be applied in a manifestly fair manner. It certainly doesn't do any harm, in this case, to wait for the editor to respond and become accustomed to working with the remedy. --Tony Sidaway 01:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If a user is brought to arbitration over behavior, which he continues during arbitration, and after arbitration, the remedy addressing the behavior may be immediately applied. This assumes simple continuation of disruptive behavior. Fred Bauder 13:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

A question on "Article Probation"

By what process does an articel get probation ordered on it revoked? I'm assuming it'd have to involve the Committee or member(s) of it, but the exact details don't seem to be specified anywhere. 68.39.174.238 20:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Generally one must make a specific appeal to the ArbCom by way of a further request for arbitration. However, in case of good general behaviour, a probation may be spontaneously revoked, see below for an example. Stifle (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

But it requires a "motion in a proir case", rather then a period of time or descision of one person (Unless explicitly declared as such to begin with)? 68.39.174.238 02:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Either that or a new request for arbitration. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As you know, only arbitrators are empowered to present a "motion in a prior case." I don't know whether the individual arbitrators would appreciate accept user requests to consider making such a motion. Presumably such a request would have to include strong evidence that the problems that led to the user or article being placed on probation have been resolved, and that there is cause to lift the probation (or other restriction) at this time. I don't know whether the ArbCom members would consider dealing with a request to an individual arbitrators to make a motion, to be more or less efficient and/or burdensome than presenting the matter via a whole new Request for Arbitration on this page. Perhaps one of the arbitrators or clerks will express a view on that. Newyorkbrad 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Typically, I think the most reasonable thing to do would be for someone to make their appeal right here in the clarifications section. If the appeals strikes a chord with me or any other arbitrators, we will make the necssary motion, otherwise we will reply in the negative. In some cases (though perhaps just one I can think of att the moment), we have initiated a new case if it is complex enough, but in general, that's not necessary. Dmcdevit·t 07:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

So (Getting to the original point), is this a fair summary and update to that page? 68.39.174.238 03:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Article probation is a new remedy for us. We are not sure how to deal with it in a number of ways, including how an article would get off probation. I assume that if the problems which got it on probation are over, it could be removed, should it constitute a problem for the current editors. Realistically I think we would only entertain a motion to remove it if it was causing a disruption in current editing, so I think we generally will not be removing article probations, since so long as there is not pattern of disruption, there should be no basis for intervention. Fred Bauder 13:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sweet, thanx. This seems to have cleared up the problem. 68.39.174.238 16:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of the rejection of the Rainbow Gathering case

Sorry for asking such a seemingly foolish question. I am still rather new to wikipedia and entirely new the arbitration. Does the "reject" decision from the arbcom mean that the "A Gathering of the Tribes" will *not* be allowed on the listing of Annual Gatherings? Thanks for the feedback. Bstone 00:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, just that the Arbitration Committee will not decide the matter one way or another. Fred Bauder 01:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Fred, for the reply. I wonder what you might suggest in the meantime? Since Lookingheart has entirely rejected mediation and the edit war continues I am wondering what the next step might be? Thanks. Bstone 02:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I, too, have the same question. Will the page remain protected? For how long? You state, "local Rainbow Gatherings don't belong in a list of the national Gatherings" which is my contention. But that hasn't stopped them from being added again and again. You, "suggest an article on local Gatherings." So did Aguerriero during informal mediation. Lookingheart rejected that suggestion. That didn't stop the on-going edit war. What happens if lookingheart adds 10 AGOTT gatherings before next year's National as he said he might in discussion? At the moment I see only 2 options, continue the edit war or let lookingheart post what ever he wants. Oceankat 03:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

How about a nice article about A Gathering of the Tribes (Rainbow Family) explaining what that is all about together with a full listing of meetings? It might be nice to explore some of the issues. Misplaced Pages has no opinion about internal Rainbow Family issues. I have always had a lot more fun at smaller local gatherings myself. Fred Bauder 17:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Has this become a mediation session? If so, I agree with your suggestion as I did during informal mediation when Aguerriero suggested it. Unfortunately I don't know enough about AGOTT to feel competant in writing that article. Perhaps you would like to? The only "internal rainbow family issue" I'm concerned about is whether gatherings that in my opinion are not notable, not verifiable and in the case of the WV AGOTT and most likely the GA AGOTT violate wikipedia's policy concerning the posting of future events are appropiate additions to this article. And whether wikipedia has some means to resolve this issue. Apparantly there is none and since I'm not inclined to waste time in an edit war, I'm content to see anybody add any gathering they like to the list of national gatherings. Oceankat 20:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Oceankat. If this arbcom attempt has turned into a redirect for mediation, we have already done that. How is it possible that the arbcom is forcing us to use a mechanism which simply will not produce a result? Sorry if I seem irritated, but arbcom is supposed to be the final mechanism since all others have failed. I await a response. Bstone 04:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not involved in this dispute, but rather in the next one listed above (Gillberg affair). At present, my request has received two votes to reject (and no other votes), on the ground that it is largely about a debate over content. So nothing is decided yet, but if the final vote is to reject, then I would have the same question as Bstone: if the other party has entirely rejected mediation and the edit war continues, what is recommended as the next step? What mechanism does Misplaced Pages have for dealing with a (hypothetical) situation where some editors are dishonest and unrelenting?  —Daphne A 09:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't mean to leave you hanging. I have unprotected the page for evaluation of the situation. As to the request above, I have been waiting for some response by the other parties. Fred Bauder 09:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is entirely disheartening. A case is brought before the ArbCom specifically and solely because mediation failed and an edit war would simply continue. Based on the fact that mediation failed entirely because one of the warring parties (Lookingheart) entirely ignored and rejected all attempts at official mediation, I can see no benefit in ArbCom rejecting the case, removing the page protection and "evaluating" the situation. Is there no mechanism in Misplaced Pages to resolve such disputes? Bstone 14:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If he starts edit warring again I will block him. Any administrator could have done that. That is why the request is being rejected; there is no substantial issue to consider. Fred Bauder 14:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears as though we have reached a resolution of this issue and for that I am grateful. Most likely and hopefully there will be no further edit wars over this as it was never my desire to see anyone blocked or banned from editing this article. Thanks Fred, for your time and your help.Oceankat 03:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Mass changing on style issues (dating)

user:SuperJumbo has been mass changing articles to use the British dating system. The relavant manual of style entry is as follows

"If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country... For topics concerning the UK, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, most other member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, and most international organizations such as the United Nations, the formatting is usually 17 February 1958 (no comma and no "th"). In the United States, it is most commonly February 17, 1958. Elsewhere, either format is acceptable"

SuperJumbo's edits have been to articles pertaining to a non-Commonwealth nations (such as France and Suriname). The arbitration committee's ruling in the Sortan case (in which Jguk was doing similiar editing with regard to BC-AD/BCE-CE) says

Misplaced Pages does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Misplaced Pages does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Misplaced Pages to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.

SuperJumbo's editing, however, appers to totally disgard this ruling. He claims that converting articles to the dating system used in those countries justifies per the first line of the MOS entry allows him to make these mass changes, when the more specific statement (3 sentences later) explicitely allows a number of styles. A number of admins, including myself, have objected to the changes he is making. I would like the arbitration committee to inform him that his claim is false, and have him reverse all the changes he made to non-commonwealth nation articles. Raul654 14:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that this SuperJumbo should be warned to stop making these make date format changes. Jayjg 15:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, another trip down a bad road we have been on before. Fred Bauder 14:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Can they not just wikify the dates and then the engine will render it appropriately to people's settings? Stifle (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Does revert parole apply to edits of banned users?

User:Leyasu has been indef banned under the terms of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker for persistently violating his paroles with sockpuppets. He appears to be continuing to edit music-related articles from a series of British Telecom IP addresses. Deathrocker has been reverting these edits, frequently also using IP addresses rather than logging in. I know that reverting simple vandalism generally does not fall under the one revert per day limit; what about reverting edits from IP addresses suspected of being a banned editor? (Additional current discussion at Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Update I am not at all convinced that the revertions performed by several anon IPs were in fact Deathrocker. However, I still think it would be useful to clarify this issue, even if it is not immediately pressing. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I would let whoever is reverting Leyasu continue. I know I don't want that chore. Fred Bauder 14:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Khoikhoi's probation rescinded

Since being placed on Probation for edit warring in the Aucaman case in May, Khoikhoi has demonstrated that the restriction is no longer necessary or warranted. He has been very prolific, invaluable in tracking down banned users Bonaparte and -Inanna-, contributed to at least one recent featured article. Most importantly, I see no signs of the edit warring that caused him to be included in the ruling.

I propose that, in view of good behavior, the probation placed on Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) be lifted so that he is no longer under any Arbitration Committee restrictions.

• Support. Dmcdevit·t 23:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Fred Bauder 02:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Sam Korn 08:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Jayjg 15:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Archives

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution