Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests - Misplaced Pages

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) at 14:51, 23 December 2004 (→Everyking). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:51, 23 December 2004 by Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) (→Everyking)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Shortcut
  • ]
Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

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

The last step of Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution is Arbitration. Please review the Dispute resolution for other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request for Arbitration 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.

See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy, Misplaced Pages:Arbitrators, /Admin enforcement requested, /Standing orders, /Template

Structure of this page

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. Important points:

  • Be brief - put a quick list of the nature of the complaints. Link to detailed evidence elsewhere if you need to.
  • You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.
  • Please sign and date at least your original submission with '~~~~'.
  • New requests to the top, please.

The numbers in the Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/0/0/0) section corresponds to Accept/Reject/Recuse/Other.

Current requests for Arbitration

Everyking

For the past couple of months, Everyking has been blanket reverting most edits from other people to Ashlee Simpson-related articles, as illustrated most clearly on Autobiography (album). Though he's been an editor with a wide body of good work outside of this area, this area seems to have hit a bit close to the bone. There's been repeated attempts to try and work out a solution, involving numerous editors and at least one failed attempt at mediation. None of these have been successful, and Everyking is still insistent up to this day that he will not give any ground in accomodating the concerns of a significant number of editors. He's also taken to assuming bad faith, accusing several of those that disagree with him of being biased either against him personally or against the topic at hand. (see Talk:Autobiography (album), Talk:La La, Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/La La, the three attempts at putting Autobiography (album) on FAC for examples of these issues).

I don't think much action is needed in this case, considering Everyking's good record elsewhere, but based on what I've seen so far, I've come to believe that Everyking is unable to work cooperatively on topics related to Ashlee Simpson.

I would hope that this request spurs some sort of outside agreement, as happened with Anthony DiPierro some months ago, as I'm reluctant to request strong action against a contributor with Everyking's record. If this fails, however, then I believe that a ban - not necessarily a long one - from editing articles on this topic may be an appropriate action. Ambi 14:15, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please dismiss this. This is preposterous. I have frequently and sincerely tried to compromise and settle others' objections, but I have a right to an opinion, an opinion that factual information should not be removed from these articles, and I believe that I am entitled to my opinion. Am I not entitled to revert edits that I consider bad if in doing so I adhere to the 3RR? What sort of precedent would this set?
Moreover, this hasn't been going on for "months". It hasn't even been quite a month now; I believe it started on or around Nov. 27, give or take a day or two. Note also that I have written virtually all of the content in the articles Rebecca wants me banned from. Everyking 14:34, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In practice, however, this has amounted to reverting most edits to these articles. We all have opinions, but Everyking has simply declared that the concerns of several users (I think there's about six or seven on the current FAC, and there's been a lot more elsewhere) are off-limits for discussion, and has reverted any attempts at dealing with said concerns. This, I believe, is unacceptable. I'd much rather it not be resolved in arbitration, but I believe the above response shows that the mass reverting is not likely to stop in the near future unless some sort of action is taken. Ambi 14:39, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I do reserve the right to revert edits that I disagree with. I believe that is a fundamental right of an editor, provided the 3RR is respected. I want to talk, not to fight, but I'll simply quit the project for good if I am banned from editing any articles. Everyking 14:47, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In mitigation, I'll say that I have worked successfully with Everyking in recent weeks on Autobiography (album), although we did hit a bit of revert warring this morning. My changes to the album and singles tables and the summary of album sales were not challenged. Although he has reverted the article three times this morning and seems to think it his duty as a responsible to revert rather than improve bad edits, I think this may well be due to his getting away with it for a long time. I could be wrong, but I think he will cooperate whenever those who disagree with his blanket reverts outnumber him. As remarked elsewhere, he is a good editor and has contributed lots of good work. The prospect of turning the album entry into a featured article should be strong enough motivation to get us all working on improving it with that end in mind, and I'm sure Everyking will then have no choice but to join in. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/0/0/0)

Jguk

Jguk, previously known as Jongarrettuk, edits in the Misplaced Pages namespace with too little regard for communication, cooperation and consensus, and too little understanding of what constitutes consensus and when it is called for.

  1. Despite requests from two users, he blanked and redirected a mass of guidance that he consolidated at Misplaced Pages:Guide to writing better articles.
  2. But my main complaint concerns his editing of Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style. For the purposes of this request, I will try to make a long story short. Since October 17, he has been trying to weaken the style guide. He has been pushing for changes to a couple of elements especially, concerning the abbreviation "U.S." and serial commas. He has not gained consensus, but he reverts changes that he disagrees with, even when they are as benign as a reference. His stated purpose is for what he calls "neutral" language, favoring neither British nor American preferences. But some of his actions are contrary to his avowed preference. For example, he has changed "serial comma" to "Oxford comma".

Previous attempts to resolve this problem include:

  • Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (jguk's changes), which is now 111 kb.
  • An RFC about the more-recent style guide changes.
  • An RFC specifically about his behavior. That RFC expired. I was the only person who signed to show that I tried and failed to resolve the dispute. However, three people did endorse my summary, and no one showed any support for jguk at the RFC.
  • I asked jguk whether he would be open to mediation about the changes. He said he would only accept mediation on the condition that I agree "that Misplaced Pages should allow any form of standard English".

I should acknowledge that in between the two RFCs, jguk once contacted me on my talk page in a more concilatory tone. He proposed that the two of us have a cooling-off period of about two weeks and that the two of us discuss our differences. But:

  1. He suggested this after he reverted changes to the style guide for which he appears to be the only person objecting.
  2. After about a day and a half, he had not responded to my reply, although he had edited on Misplaced Pages.
  3. His past behavior has not exemplifed or encouraged patience. For example, he deliberately deleted my comments from a talk page. His rationale was: "Essentially, I didn't like any of the three points you added - rather than expand the section into a point by point rebuttal, I thought it would be easier just to revert".

Maurreen 07:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/1/0/0)

  • I think we could do something with this, as the disputed matters do not involve article content, but content of suggested guidelines for editing. Please make a request for mediation at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation, and only if, with the help of the Mediation Committee, you are unable to establish terms for mediation, return here. So, reject for now but keep us posted. Fred Bauder 12:58, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Alterego

User:Alterego continues to make repeated Ad hominem attacks agaist me. He has repeatedly attacked me personally on both the commentary for Graffiti and the discussion page. I have repeatedly asked user to stop pushing his specific picture to the top of said article due to its width. I have also stated I am more than willing to use his image should he crop it to a useable size per discussion on FAC (which complains about overlarge images overlapping TOC). User STILL continues to revert image. Refers to discussion he had on IRC as rule of law. Someone please step in here and do something. I just want to reach over and strangle the guy and I know I'm at the point where i'm gonna start being nasty. Alkivar 05:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alright, look dude. You are you can cry ad hominem until earth freezes over. The facts of the matter are that a) you said it was a superior photo b) you just sent me to RfA without attempting any other form of dispute resolution c) the photo does not interfere with the TOC and has never interfered with the TOC. this is because i am quite familiar with wiki syntax and used the |center| command which takes it out of being inline with the TOC d) i have asked eight people in IRC if they think it looks nicer than the other one and they all accord and lastly e) the article in question is currently a FAC, submitted by you, and you have been pretty snooty with the people in their. my point is that this is all a manifestation of your subconscious protecting your ego. f) for anyone's reference here is a version of the article looking quite nice --] 06:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that Grand Canyon features an even wider photo, which he has no problem with, making this whole discussion ridiculous. --] 06:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by Arbitrators (0/4/0/0)

Rienzo and his sockpuppets

Rienzo has in the past committed homophobic vandalism to various user's talk pages

  • This resulted in an RfC (last July) - A
  • Toward the end of the RfC, Rienzo promised to cease such attacks to an admin (as recorded in the RfC)

Rienzo (who claims to be from Sweden) has since created (at least) the following sockpuppets

The following issues then arose

  • "Lady" Tara has predominantly engaged in homophobic and religious personal attacks
  • Nasse/Piglet has predominantly engaged in childish taunts
  • Baffinisland's only edit to date is personal attack vandalism
  • Rienzo has attempted to fake evidence at an RfC
  • 148.136.141.172 has only edited so as to cause homophobic user talk page vandalism

Connecting these sockpuppets is a consistent phraseology, including the use of the term "cheesycake", and "This is your funeral, ha ha ha, etc...", including consistent choice of victims

I request the arbitration committee deal with this problem user, and enact steps to permanently prevent any continued act of this form CheeseDreams 01:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good luck, C(Cispyl) D(Dumris)! :-D Lady Tara 04:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For the benefit of Jwrosenzweig

As stated elsewhere,

  • This resulted in an RfC (last July) - A
  • Toward the end of the RfC, Rienzo promised to cease such attacks to an admin (as recorded in the RfC)

Please note that he has not ceased such attacks.

On my talk page, you will find confrontation with the issue, which, as you will see further down this page (in the Slrubensteing RfAr), the sock puppet of the day is completely ignoring, and continuing to misbehave.

The action by this particular sock puppet was so severe that a comment made by it on my talk page resulted in a ban.

Further virtually 100% of its edits are of this kind. Also the other sock puppets, in particular, Baffinisland, and the IP, engage in total vandalism.

An important thing is to for you to read the contributions lists for each sock puppet to see the severe extent to which this raises.

No, I do not think Jwrosenzweig is an "interested party" in this issue, and see no reason for him to recuse. Unless Lady-Tara/Nasse/Piglet/Baffinisland/Rienzo does?

You're so cute, CheesyFlissy! Please sign your "comments" next time, sweety! Lady Tara 02:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Votes and Comments by Arbitrators (2/0/0/0)

  • Before I vote (and I'm not sure whether you would consider me an interested party in this dispute -- if you would, I'll recuse), I would like to know what attempts at dispute resolution have already been made. (i.e., have the sockpuppets been confronted, has mediation been requested, etc.?) Jwrosenzweig 22:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks, CheeseDreams -- as far as I am aware, I am no longer an arbitrator (I did not seek reelection, and the results have been announced), but if my vote does still count, consider it a vote for acceptance. Jwrosenzweig 22:16, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • You are an arbitrator til the end of your term, December 31, 2004 Fred Bauder 14:58, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Accept, it is not clear who the parties are but it might take the arbitrators (with help from the developers) to determine the identity of the alleged sockpuppets Fred Bauder 14:58, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Accept ] 16:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Matters currently in Arbitration

/Template

Rejected requests

  • John69 - Rejected - text archived at user talk:John69
  • Avala vs various users - Rejected - try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Avala
  • Matter of Hephaestos - Rejected - due to lack of community desire or allegations. Case referred by Jimbo Feb 19, 2004, rejected Feb 26, 2004. Discussion moved to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Hephaestos.
  • Wheeler vs 172 - Rejected - please try mediation first. Discussion moved to user talk:WHEELER
  • Cheng v. Anonymous and others - Rejected - refer to wikipedia:username for name change policy. For content dispute, try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Nathan w cheng.
  • WikiUser vs. unspecified others - Rejected due to lack of a specific request.
  • Simonides vs. "everyone" - Rejected - referred to the Mediation Committee.
  • Sam Spade vs. Danny - Withdrawn
  • Sam Spade vs. AndyL - Withdrawn
  • Raul654 vs Anthony DiPierro - Withdrawn after agreement of both parties (see standing order).
  • RickK - Rejected - referred to the Mediation Committee.
  • Mike Storm - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
  • Lir (IRC blocking claims) - Rejected due to either a lack of jurisdiction (the IRC channels are not official), or a failure to follow earlier steps.
  • Sam Spade vs. 172 - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
  • User:JRR Trollkien 2 - Inconclusive deadlock: 3 votes to reject, none to accept. Archived at User talk:JRR Trollkien
  • Tim Starling - Rejected.
  • VeryVerily - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
  • Xed vs. Jimbo Wales - Rejected - lack of jurisidiction over Jimbo, private email, lack of initial litigant's involvment, and various other reasons.
  • Emsworth vs. Xed - Rejected
  • Gene Poole vs. Gzornenplatz - Rejected - please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process.
  • Mintguy - Rejected
  • VeryVerily vs Gzornenplatz - Rejected
  • Request to re-open Anthony DiPierro - Rejected - October 27, 2004, see discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Anthony DiPierro
  • Chuck_F, 203.112.19.195 and 210.142.29.125 - Rejected, consolidated with /Reithy
  • RickK - Rejected
  • Aranel - Rejected
  • Jayjg - Rejected by 6 arbitrators, 1 recusal, 10 Nov 2004.
  • UninvitedCompany - Rejected, our temporary injunction holds.
  • CheeseDreams - Rejected , please make requests precise, clear, and focussed.
  • Quadell - Rejected, please follow the dispute resolution procedure rather than trying to taking this straight to Arbitration
  • Arminius and Darrien - Rejected
  • Slrubenstein - Rejected

Completed requests

  • /Theresa knott vs. Mr-Natural-Health - Decided on 11th February 2004 that Mr-Natural-Health would be banned from editing for 30 days (i.e., until 12 Mar 2004). The vote was 6-2 in favor of banning, with 2 explicit and 1 de-facto abstention.
  • /Plautus satire vs Raul654 - Decided on 11th March 2004 that Plautus satire is to be banned for one year, up to and including March 11 2005. The vote was unanimous with 8 votes in favour and 1 de-facto abstention; a further vote in favour of extending the ban indefinitely was held but not met.
  • /Wik - Decided on 15th March 2004 that Wik would have a three month probation during which he may be temp-banned in certain circumstances. There were six votes in favour, three opposed, and one de-facto abstention. Further decisions and minority opinions can be read at /Wik.
  • /Irismeister - Decided on 31st March 2004 that Irismeister would be banned from editing all pages for ten days, and banned from editing Iridology indefinitely. Decision can be found at /Irismeister/Decision.
  • /Anthony DiPierro - Decided on 25th April 2004 to instruct Anthony with regards to his VfD edits, and refer other issues to mediation. The vote was unanimous with 6 votes in favour and 4 de-facto abstentions. Note that the case was accepted solely to investigate use of VfD.
  • /Paul Vogel - Decided on 10 May 2004 to ban Vogel for one year. Further discussion and proposals are available at /Paul Vogel/Proposals.
  • /Wik2 - Decided at /Wik2/Decided on 21 May 2004.
  • /Irismeister 2 - Decided on 03 July 2004 to apply a personal attack parole. For discussion and voting on this matter see /Irismeister 2/Proposed decision.
  • /Mav v. 168 - Closed on 03 July 2004 with an open verdict.
  • /Cantus - Decided on 01 Aug 2004, apply a revert parole to Cantus and other remedies.
  • /Lir - Decided on 23 Aug 2004, blocked for 15 days, revert parole applied, and other remedies.
  • /Mr-Natural-Health - Decided on 26 Aug 2004. There was an earlier partial decision on 25 June.
  • /User:Guanaco versus User:Lir - Decided on 30 Aug 2004.
  • /Lyndon LaRouche (Herschelkrustofsky, Adam_Carr, John_Kenney, and AndyL) - Decided on 12 Sep 2004.
  • /User:PolishPoliticians - Decided on 18 Sep 2004, personal attack parole applied to PolishPoliticians and all new accounts on affected pages.
  • /ChrisO and Levzur Closed on 20 Sep 2004 with an open verdict; no ruling necessary, as Levzur has ceased contributing to Misplaced Pages.
  • /K1 - Closed on 28 Sep 2004 with an open verdictafter.
  • /Kenneth Alan - Decided October 1, 2004, User:Kenneth Alan banned for one year. Enforcement provisions may be added before case is formally closed.
  • /JRR Trollkien - Closed October 2, 2004, with no findings of fact or decision. JRR Trollkien has long since left.
  • /Orthogonal - Closed October 14, 2004, following his departure from Misplaced Pages. Subject to reactivation should he return.
  • /RK - Decided October 14, 2004. RK is banned from Misplaced Pages for 4 months. Further, he is banned from all articles directly or indirectly related to Judaism for 1 year.
  • /RickK vs. Guanaco (ab initio "The Matter of Michael") - Jimbo unbanning Michael made the matter mostly moot. The only remedy was to award Guanaco for creative problem solving.
  • /Jimmyvanthach - Decided on 12 November, 2004.
  • /Rex071404 - Decided on 12 November, 2004.
  • /Lance6wins - Decided on 12 November, 2004.
  • /Rex071404 2 - Decided on 16 November, 2004.
  • /Avala - Decided on 17 November, 2004.
  • /Irismeister 3 - Decided on 20 November, 2004.
  • /Cantus vs. Guanaco - Decided on 24 November, 2004. Cantus is limited to one revert per article per day and prohibited from editing Siberia or Clitoris. Guanaco must re-apply for adminship.
  • /Reithy Closed without action taken on 3 December, 2004, temporary injunction expires that date.
  • /Arminius Closed without action taken on 16 December, 2004, after all participants requested the matter dropped.
  • /Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily - Decided on 22 December, 2004. Shorne and VeryVerily banned for two weeks, Gzornenplatz and Ruy Lopez for one. Gzornenplatz, Shorne, and VV placed on revert parole. Gzornenplatz, Shorne, and VV limited to 1 revert per articles per 24 hours, and required to discuss all edits.
Category: