Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mav (talk | contribs) at 14:54, 10 May 2005 (→Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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 last step of dispute resolution is a request for 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.

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. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.

This is not a page for discussion, and arbitrators may summarily remove discussion without comment.

• Arbitration policy
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Precedents

Current requests

Template

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

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

User:Wareware

Involved parties

• deeceevoice (initiator of this process)
• Wareware

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I was instructed that I should notify Wareware and did so. deeceevoice 09:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently in the process of rectifying this problem. deeceevoice 10:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC) — Note that Wareware seem to have left Misplaced Pages shortly after the RFC was filed. I think what deeceevoice is asking for is, in the case he does not resurfaces (which seems likely), to render judgment on his actions in absentia. El_C 11:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

El_C, a non initiating party, has served the required notice. deeceevoice 13:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I have remonstrated with User:Wareware to desist from his racist assaults on numerous occasions, but to no good effect. This matter is not a dispute per se; it is about an individual who uses racist vitriol without conscience, without remorse, without apology. Aware that his conduct is indefensible, in the RfC process the member has provided only weak excuses for his behavior and has not posted on Misplaced Pages in recent weeks under this user name. While I suspect Wareware has done so at least anonymously, this RfA addresses only the posts made under the user name identified in this RfA. deeceevoice 09:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Statement by deeceevoice

User:Wareware has displayed a pattern of repeated animosity toward, and disrespect for, me— and African people, in general— in a series of racist verbal assaults riddled with just about every anti-black cliché one might imagine, stalking me from one article to another. During this time, not one Wikipedian ever took him to task for his behavior, preferring to overlook it. Others chose to criticize me, instead. This silence on the part of others, IMO, sent a tacit signal to Wareware that such conduct is acceptable on Misplaced Pages. I've taken this action, because I think it is important that a different message come from the Wiki community about such comportment: racist verbal assaults will not be tolerated, and silence in the face of such behavior is unacceptable, as well.

Misplaced Pages is a noble effort, but the obvious paucity of black participants in the project adversely affects both the quality and quantity of information available about Africa and the African diaspora. While some nonblack contributions have been relatively well informed and reasoned, all too often, articles are, if not outright insulting and racist themselves, they evidence an ignorance and naivete that is frustrating, sometimes even laughable. (For the latest, appalling example of such an article, see the now expunged and redirected "African-American culture.") And the discussion pages are often even worse. It has been my experience that Misplaced Pages is a generally uninviting, all too often hostile, environment for blacks when the subject matter at hand is related to black ethnicity. Wareware's conduct, and the silence of others in the face of it, only contributed to an atmosphere that discourages ongoing, enthusiastic black participation in the project— and to the project's detriment. This is not an indictment singling out Misplaced Pages; in this regard, the web site is merely a virtual reflection of the real word.

Had the kind of responses prompted by the RfC in this matter been made in reaction to Wareware's earlier conduct, I believe he would have been discouraged from subsequent verbal assaults. But those who knew of it were silent to a man, and the vast majority of respondents to the RfC appear to have been previously unaware the situation.

IMO, Wareware's conduct is an insult to the entire Wiki community and should be answered with the harshest of sanctions. A clear message should be sent that there is zero tolerance for racist vitriol on Misplaced Pages. deeceevoice 09:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Wareware

Please limit your statement to 500 words

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

User:James F.

Involved parties

• James F.
• User:Chameleon

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• I am aware, though mildly bemused. James F. (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

There is nothing I can do. It's user against admin. Chameleon 00:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Chameleon

User:Slrubenstein was quite rightly blocked for breaking the 3RR for the second time on Jesus. User:Jdforrester abused his admin powers to unblock his comrade in POV. User:SlimVirgin threatened to do the same. This is a bad thing. Do I get to break the 3RR with impunity just by sharing a POV with an admin?

User:Jdforrester ought to reblock the offending user and promise not to unblock again. Chameleon 00:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Statement by James F.

I must say, I think a jump to Arbitration is perhaps a little hasty, but never mind, here we go anyway.

SLR was blocked for a 3RR violation; discussion on AN/3RR revealed that SLR was essentially doing what he saw as vandalism prevention (reverting non-consensus edits despite clear commentry on the talk page). Because of this, and statements that SLR could talk it out on the talk pages and so it wasn't significantly useful to have him blocked, SLR's block was reduced from 24 (of which 4 hours had elapsed) to 3 hours. It became apparent through this that the 3RR block was being used as a form of punishment - something that it expressly is not - instead of a means to providing a "cooling-off period". Because of this, I decided that it would be prudent to remove the block and instead encourage SLR and the other participants to actually discuss the matter at hand and further consensus, and so I did so. I also put a comment on AN/3RR explaining what I had done, and saying that I would prefer this to be discussed as a point on community policy rather than merely be decided 'by force', as it were.

Chameleon, in what must be one of the finest attempts to defuse any discussion on Misplaced Pages, certainly that I can remember, stated that he felt that "Slrubenstein's block must last for the full 24 hours". Further, he underlined this constructive approach with "If any of his little friends unblocks him before that time, I shall complain about that abuse of admin powers." And, well, here we are.

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0)

• Reject - this is a onetime issue for which arbitration seems inappropriate. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:38, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
• Reject and reject. Ridiculously early in dispute resolution process (what's the first step? The first step is the talk page), one-off rather than ongoing issue. If you can't be bothered trying to resolve it before the AC stage, it's not clear what you expect at the AC stage - David Gerard 07:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Reject, per the other two. Ambi 10:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Reject ➥the Epopt 23:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Reject. Neutrality 04:32, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Reject - mav 14:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Everyking 3

Involved parties

• User:Everyking
• User:Snowspinner

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

It's on his talk page.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Well, there's the two previous requests for arbitration... Note also where Everyking responded with extreme hostility to the idea of mediating with me over his objections to me. Though I'm sure now he'll insist he'd be happy to mediate. Snowspinner 15:17, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm skeptical of the value of mediation in cases that are based primarily on personal disputes. Everyking has made it fairly clear that his main objection to me is that I raised Everyking 2 against him. Since I am hardly empowered to lift his Ashlee Simpson sanctions, and since my time machine is not yet working properly, I don't see what can be done to deal with the root cause of the dispute. Which would leave mediation to deal with the symptoms, namely endless personal attacks. Which seems silly. Snowspinner 21:02, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Hm. This may have been unclear. I don't think mediation will work, because EK's issue with me seems to be nothing more than the fact that he's mad that I raised arbitration against him, which I can't very will fix now. Snowspinner 23:13, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Snowspinner

Since his last arbcom ruling, Everyking has become a querellous troll on the administrator's noticeboard pages, indicating his displeasure and disapproval with every action an administrator takes, and often making personal attacks, or at the very least being disruptive. The particular objects of his complaint are the arbcom and me, and he regularly levels accusations that I am on a crusade against users, that I stalk and harass users, that I am abusive, etc. He has made it clear that his views on what administrators should do are wildly and offensively out of line with the community perception - he particularly opposes use of the block function in cases of simple vandalism and 3RR violation. In light of this, I think a substantial question exists as to whether he enjoys the community's support in his role as an administrator. I ask that he be made to stand for a second RFA and that he be put on personal attack parole.

A few sample attacks and inflammatory comments include: (Where he indicates support for John Gohde's "fuck you" comment) .

Note also where he says that he does not even read into the incidents on AN/I before commenting.

On Mediation

The mediation process is broken. It does not work now, and it's entirely likely that it never worked. Informal mediation has shown some success, but as a formal part of our dispute resolution system, the mediation committee has a 0 success rate. Look at WP:RFM in the archived and completed requests section. No mediation has ever succeeded. EVER. The mediation process does not work. I say this as someone who has been through a mediation procedure that failed when the other party pulled out before submitting a single statement. I say this as someone who ran for the mediation committee. It is not fair or appropriate to mandate usage of a broken part of the process. You can't say to take it to mediation - there is no mediation. Not in any practical sense.

Furthermore, mediation is particularly inappropriate in this situation. Everyking has explicitly said that he wants to use mediation to get me to moderate my conduct, which he finds abusive. But there's no content to the dispute. Everyking has been asked several times and by several people - both in the context of an arbcom case against me that he was joining and informally - to provide evidence of any abusiveness on my part. He has not. The extent of Everyking's comments on me are ad hominem attacks with no demonstrated basis in evidence. I will not enter mediation over that. If there's a dispute over actual issues, fine. But all EK has given is that he doesn't like me. And that's not mediatable. Even if he has a particular and specific flavor for his dislike, it's not mediatable. If there's an actual ISSUE that he can point to - things I've done that substantiate his claims, then there's a discussion to be had on whether or not to moderate my conduct. But Everyking has not once - NOT ONCE - offered any sign that there is content to this dispute. He has only ever accused and attacked. And it's not fair to ask me to go to mediation over unsubstantiated character attacks - anymore than it would have been to ask me to go when John Gohde told me to go fuck myself.

Finally, I think it's incredibly duplicitous for Everyking to spit in my eye when I requested mediation previously, and then to insist he's willing once it comes to this. I offered mediation. He declined. I went to the arbcom, and now he's saying he was always willing to mediate? And I'm supposed to be able to go into mediation with good faith here? When it's self-evident that the only reason EK is accepting mediation is to get out of sanction? If Everyking wanted to address the dispute, he could have requested mediation. Or provided evidence when he joined an arbcom case against me. Or started an RfC. Or, at any point, when people expressed interest in his claims, offered evidence. But he hasn't. He never has. Because he doesn't want to address the dispute. He says he does - but his actions have always said differently, and they still say differently.

So no, I am not willing to accept mediation at this point. Mediation is broken, inappropriate for this situation, and not being offered in good faith. And since mediation is a voluntary process, that is in and of itself proof that mediation will not work in this case. If that means I'm the problem and should be sanctioned, so be it. I'd prefer that to mediation - it would at least be fair.

Statement by EK

I'm not going to respond to this except to say that I'll be happy to discuss matters with Snowspinner in mediation, through e-mail or IRC. I have no desire to fight with him, only to try to convince him not to do things that are harmful to Misplaced Pages. Everyking 18:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Please clarify how this squares with your hostility to the suggestion of mediation at this point. If you're happy to discuss matters now that a case has been brought, why weren't you happy to discuss matters before this point? - David Gerard 19:03, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

If it isn't completely obvious, what I was saying was that I was skeptical as to whether Snowspinner was interested in mediation, because he has previously refused it. Not that I myself wasn't open to it, because I always am. Everyking 19:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I somehow remain entirely unconvinced. - David Gerard 00:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't even see why I need to argue about this. Snowspinner's own words prove it. Don't you see him saying that he's skeptical of mediation? Anyway, as we all know, prior steps in the dispute resolution process should be exhausted before we go to arbitration. Everyking 01:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

"I don't think mediation will work, because EK's issue with me seems to be nothing more than the fact that he's mad that I raised arbitration against him, which I can't very will fix now." — that makes no sense, if you're attacking me for what I've said on AN/I. None of that had anything to do with that case, did it? No, I was criticizing you for abuses of sysop power and for having an authoritarian attitude. My earlier case was just one manifestation of your attitudes. The purpose of mediation, I imagine, would be to get you to moderate yourself, while I at the same time would try to understand better where you're coming from, and would try to refrain from harsh criticism in the future. Everyking 23:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/2/1/1)

• Accept - this behaviour is particularly unseemly from an admin. What swung it for me was (per diff noted in the request) Everyking's direct refusal to substantiate his allegations even when asked directly to do so, and to continue to make them refusing to substantiate them. - David Gerard 15:57, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 16:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Accept (hesitantly?). -- Grunt 🇪🇺 16:21, 2005 May 7 (UTC)A declaration has been made by both parties that mediation is likely to succeed; therefore reject and support the mediation effort. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:33, 2005 May 7 (UTC) I can see that bad faith is rearing its face again through a certain e-mail that was forwarded to the mailing list; therefore accept. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:09, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
  • I don't see where Snowspinner said that; I also remain entirely unconvinced by Everyking's sudden support for mediation now that he suddenly may be in trouble. It strikes me as disingenuous to spit abuse at the idea of mediation before a case is raised then claim you were always for it when one is at last raised - David Gerard 00:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Snowspinner and EK both seem to be reasonable people at their cores. I'd at least like to see them try to work this out further before coming here immediately. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:33, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
      • It would help if we had a mediation committee ... - David Gerard 21:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Reject pending outcome of mediation Fred Bauder 20:29, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Recuse. I'd like to think that mediation might work, but I preferred some of the suggestions that were being considered before this latest conflagration. Ambi 02:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. Neutrality 05:51, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Reject in favour of mediation on the issues between Snowspinner and Everyking. With respect to the comments on arbitration decisions – as annoying as it is to have comments criticising our decisions without apparently bothering to read the evidence or case pages, it would take a lot more than this for me to believe we should take action. And even then, I would suggest we should consider handing over to a substitute committee or Jimbo – I'm not sure how well we can assess comments directed at ourselves. -- sannse (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The MC appears not to be active - David Gerard 21:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Xiong

Involved parties

• User:Xiong
• User:Snowspinner

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

It's on User talk:Xiong

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Xiong Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Xiong 2. No, mediation has not been tried. How's the mediation committee doing these days anyhow?

Statement by Snowspinner

Xiong has been making statements that can readily be interpreted as threats against other users, as in

Also disruption to prove a point as in and , in which he tries to delete the deletion procedure for templates. His arbcom case below may also be considered disruption to illustrate a point.

He's also been uncivil, as in ("his actions are evil, a menace to the project")

To make it clear, Netoholic is not at present party to this case, nor has he expressed an interest in being one. Snowspinner 03:14, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Response to Grunt: I don't actually think you should merge them together - Xiong appears to be requesting arbitration on Netoholic's and my behalf against himself. As I've well shown now, you can't request arbitration against yourself, and so it seems like his case can't be accepted/merged/whatevered. Snowspinner 16:05, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Why to act on this case instead of waiting for the resolution on Netoholic

Netoholic is getting a heavy, heavy sanction from the arbcom - one that puts him in the exact same status as Michael, quite frankly. This is not something trivial, and one of the major pieces of evidence that I imagine helped determine that sanction was his interaction with Xiong. If Xiong was also at fault in this - which I think he most certainly was, since he was calling Netoholic "a menace to the project" - then it seems fundamentally unfair to sit back and see if the situation gets better now that Netoholic is under heavy parole. If Xiong broke policy to provoke Netoholic to the point where he got that kind of sanction, surely that's worth looking at. Snowspinner 00:46, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

If the goal is to sanction people who provoked Netoholic then why isn't Neutrality named? After all, Neutrality came in and reverted Neto in one of the disputes with Xiong. --Wgfinley 03:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The goal isn't to sanction people who may have provoked Netoholic. After all, I reverted him a few times too, and I'm not requesting arbitration against myself (again). But I do think Xiong crossed the line - personal attacks, threats, flagrant disruption to prove a point - these are over the line. Getting into a conflict with another user that provokes them is no crime. Breaking social and formal rules in a conflict is bad. Netoholic was punished for his breaking of rules in this conflict. I don't see a persuasive reason offered why Xiong's behavior shouldn't be looked at. Snowspinner 03:36, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The goal is not to sanction people, the goal is to make sure wikipedia runs smoothly. I don't see persuasive reasons offered as to how arbitration wrt Xiongs case right at this moment might improve the situation re Netoholic or others. Kim Bruning 16:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Xiong

This is obviously a duplication of the prior RfArb and an attempt to frame the debate. If ArbCom accepts this case and not the other, I shall move my comments here. — Xiong熊talk* 03:34, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

Except, well, you can't request arbitration against yourself. Believe me. I've tried. Snowspinner 06:21, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Wgfinley

Xiong has asked me to serve as his advocate for this case and we're in some discussions regarding this given my representation of Netoholic, I don't want them to conflict. As I've been Neto's advocate I'm very familiar with this dispute.

What I would like to say at this point is I encourage the Arbcom to reject this case while the remedies from Netoholic's case are implemented. Hopefully those remedies will lead to some cooling over templates and myself and Neto's mentors can mediate the dispute between the parties involved. Whatever the case, I don't think earlier resolution steps have been tried either. --Wgfinley 23:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Two RfCs aren't enough earlier resolution steps? Snowspinner 00:37, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

His first RfC turned into a fiasco with the Neto arb case coming into play there. His second RfC just got started and there's some who don't think it was necessary. The dust hasn't even settled from the Neto case, can't we leave the situation be and see if there's some improvement before we go running to Arb? --Wgfinley 00:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I answered this above, but I'll note again - because it seems unfair to let Xiong get off while Netoholic is being so harshly punished, particularly when Xiong crossed the line so flagrantly in provoking Netoholic. Snowspinner 01:01, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess that Neto got so harshly punished because you and Neutrality brought a case against him. Now, I argued that he had been provoked and that argument was soundly rejected. Just looks like selective prosecution to me. I think you can go out and "dig up dirt" on virtually every editor on Misplaced Pages because we've all lost our cool sometimes. I think the prudent course is to let Neto's case get wrapped up, see what those remedies do, see if myself and others can with with Xiong to foster a better working environment, if all that strikes out then by all means bring your case. I think a short Arbcom docket going into the Summer is a good thing!! :P --Wgfinley 18:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

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

• Accept. Ambi 03:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• What's going on? Why are we needed here? Is this a duplicate of the other RfAr or not? Is Netoholic involved or not? This and the other request (mainly the other request?) have gotten so utterly confusing that I have no idea whether I should recuse or not. In any case, if we accept one or the other - and I stress if - we should merge the two cases together, in which case I would be recused anyways. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:21, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
• Accept. Even if we don't merge the other one, comments and evidence can be introduced here just fine - David Gerard 00:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Reject. let's see what happens with the changes that will be introduced with the end of Netoholic's case first (I understand that this case as written doesn't directly involve Netoholic, but would still like to see what changes it makes in the interacions within this group of editors) -- sannse (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Reject ➥the Epopt 15:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Requests for Clarification

If you need to clarify the precise meaning of a previous decision of the Arbitration Committee, your request should go here.

Misplaced Pages:Meta-templates considered harmful

In Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2#Meta-templates issue referred to developers, it was decided that the page would be referred to the developer committee, who woould presumably decide if we need a guideline to this effect. Please tell me what steps have been taken by the ArbCom to satisfy this ruling. A link to a Meta page or mailing list post would be appreciated. -- Netoholic @ 03:19, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

CheeseDreams

It has been suggested , that User:The Rev of Bru is yet another sockpuppet of User:CheeseDreams which seems to have reactivated (they both have the same POV and act in similar ways). Would it be possible for this to be confirmed please? --G Rutter 14:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• I'd already received email on this from someone whose judgement I basically trust, and if they can substantiate it enough that a third party would go "yup" I'll block the offender myself. CheckUser doesn't show anything positive - they use the same ISP, but it's one of the largest broadband ISPs in Britain and changes people's IPs regularly, so that really says nothing at all. But we're aware of this one and keeping an eye on it - David Gerard 19:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Whilst they share some points of view, there are some subtle differences. I do not think they are the same person. See also the comments CheeseDreams left on User talk:The Rev of Bru. There are also areas where there have been differences, which I would not expect of sockpuppets (such as The Rev of Bru's insistence on the CE/BCE notation system compared with CheeseDreams having to explain it - even to the extent of putting at the top of a page what CE/BCE notation was for those unfamiliar with it). I'm afraid Mr Rubenstein edits in a controversial area, and sorry that he has to put up with a rump of editors who are not prepared to discuss points in a proper academic way - The Rev of Bru and CheeseDreams are two such editors. Kind regards, jguk 19:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Archive

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (unofficial)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution