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 RichardWeiss (talk | contribs) at 19:39, 11 April 2007 (→Requests for clarification with regard to []). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:39, 11 April 2007 by RichardWeiss (talk | contribs) (→Requests for clarification with regard to [])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Weighing scales Arbitration​Committee
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Misplaced Pages Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

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

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

Initiated by Durova 06:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Certified.Gangsta:
  • Ideogram:
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by uninvolved Durova

Certified.Gangsta and Ideogram have disputed for months on articles that relate to Taiwan and have each accumulated five userblocks, most of which are for WP:3RR and edit warring. I initiate this arbitration request in response to a community ban proposal initiated by Ideogram at WP:CN#Certified.Gangsta_redux. Although the editor has downgraded the ban proposal to a 1RR proposal, the extensive revert warring history of both these editors renders any unilateral community sanction inappropriate. It is appears that the CN proposal is a political attempt to get the upper hand in an editing dispute - and even if that appearance proves to be mistaken the CN thread could become a dangerous precedent if it proceeds there. Durova 13:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you please describe the nature of the remedies you would hope the Committee might issue? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not certain at this point because my involvement in this issue has been rather slight: I made a brief attempt to mentor CG shortly before last month's resumption of edit warring and I've read the RFC. Kept my distance until yesterday's WP:CN thread where I intervened on the basis of community sanction principles. So I hesitate to attempt any reply to this question, but mutual 1RR or topic banning come to mind. I offered WP:CEM and Ideogram declined it. Durova 15:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Ideogram

I have extensively documented three edit wars focused on Gangsta at the RFC above. Note especially that I was not involved in any of the three edit wars and that many editors have endorsed my summary. At this point I do not see a need to document Gangsta's behavior further.

As for my block log, let me note that two of the blocks were overturned, and the other two involved my reversion of my own comments back to talk pages, not article content. If my block log becomes an issue in this case, I will expect a ruling on whether deletion of other people's comments from talk pages is acceptable. --Ideogram 07:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I note that Blnguyen was one of those who blocked me, a block that was overturned. Should he recuse? --Ideogram 07:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Jumping cheese's categorization of my political views: I am not really involved in Taiwanese politics and don't think I can be categorized as Pan-Blue or Pan-Green. And HongQiGong is interested in Hong Kong, not Taiwan. --Ideogram 18:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:HongQiGong

I've been requested by User:LionheartX to make a statement. From what I've seen, Certified.Gangsta has a habit of being the only one that supports the edits that he makes, against the opposition of multiple other editors. It can certainly test the patience of other editors, but I don't know that being in the minority in terms of editing choices is cause for community action against an editor. Edit-warring might qualify though - but it takes more than one to edit-war. If both Ideogram and Certified.Gangsta have been knowingly violating 3RR, then maybe longer 3RR blocks are necessary. Another easily enforced option is to prevent both from editing articles that they edit-war over. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to Jumping cheese
I'm not involved in Taiwanese politics, but I make no secret that I support Chinese reunification. If you would like to put me in the Pan Blue column, then so be it. But please note what I said above - I don't know that being in the minority in terms of editing choices is cause for community action against an editor. Now, Certified.Gangsta edits against evidence presented by other editors, and edits in opposition of most other editors involved. Even then, I don't know that there is any policy against such behaviour. However, edit-warring might be cause for community action, and that's what he and Ideogram have been doing with each other. Also note that I've only suggested perhaps longer 3RR blocks for both of them, or preventing them both from editing the articles they edit war on. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Jiang

Freestyle.king/Bonafide.hustla/Certified.gangsta has long had a habit of edit-warring over multiple pages to further misguided views (to the opposition of multiple editors) in areas which he evidently has no expertise. This has led him to remove references of Taiwanese Americans from articles on Chinese Americans (again, to widespread opposition) under the reasoning that "whether Taiwanese canadians are chinese is controversial". His comments on talk pages are at best a nuisance and at worse blatant trolling.--Jiang 23:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Blueshirts

I also certify this request to sanction gangsta. I've had negative experience with him on the culture of taiwan page. He has no intention to argue reasonably with editors, but use blanket statements and revert warring. He also likes to mask his behavior as "content dispute", and likes to throw around buzzwords like "Chinese nationalists vs Taiwanese people" to switch the focus. This makes his inability to engage in dialogue look like a legitimate content dispute to outsiders. Be careful of this trick. Blueshirts 00:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to User:Jumping cheese
Like I wrote in my statement, this rfa is not about content dispute, and I think it's very misleading to divide users into blue/green camps. That's what gangsta wants it to look like, and as you know he likes to pass around this kind of accusations to justify his edits. He doesn't hold "minority" views, as Taiwanese independence has major support in Taiwan. It's his style of argument that is mostly illogical, full of personal opinion and highly combative. Saying green users would support gangsta and vice versa is misleading and underestimates both camps. For the same reason, I don't think most "blue" users here would support User:Nationalist and his edits either. Blueshirts 17:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Wl219

I have been asked to make a statement by User:LionheartX. My only encounter with Certified.gangsta is documented at Talk:Double_Ten_Day#RfC:_inclusion_as_a_Chinese_holiday and I later endorsed Ideogram's statement of the dispute at Certified's RfC. Basically, I made what I thought was a minor edit to the article Double Ten Day, which was to include it in the category Category:Chinese holidays. Certified twice reverted my edit, the second time accusing me of "pov pushing" which I believe was an attempt to bait me into an edit war. The POV accusation is a complete lie because the article itself says that Double Ten Day is observed as the anniversary of the Xinhai Revolution and thus there was no POV to push. I fully support an ArbCom decision to block Certified, or at least block his access to China/Taiwan related articles which seem to be (from the Arb statements above) his main sphere of activity. Wl219 06:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:yuje

I have been asked to make a statement by User:LionheartX. I have encountered Certified.gangsta before at the page List of Chinese Americans. He kept on removing certain named persons from the list on the basis that he thought they were Taiwanese and thus didn't qualify. I provided a long list of sources which showed those people self-describing themselves as Chinese Americans or ethnic Chinese. However, he didn't reply, and only kept repeating buzzwords, and kept reverting without further discussion. He was the only person pushing such changes. He has also shown similar behavior at the page Chinese American, though the dispute there is somewhat more complicated. He often shows similar behavior on many Taiwan or China-related articles, some of which users above have named. --Yuje 06:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Jumping cheese

Gangsta requested that I participate in his and Ideogram's RfA, noting that LionheartX was actively recuiting other editors that agreed with his/her politics. To clear the air, I support the pan-green platform so I obviously have some bias in the manner (since I believe Gangsta adheres to the same political viewpoint). I'm also somewhat active in Taiwanese related pages (mostly on the talk pages).

I've known Gansta for about half an year now. I was involved in the whole LionheartX/RevolverOcelotX/Guardian Tiger/whatevervarient case and the in the joke banner case. In my opinion, Gangsta is an aggressive editor, but does so out of good faith. Ganasta does not harbor "misguided views" as stated by Jiang, but a frankly minority opinion on Misplaced Pages regarding the political status of the ROC/Taiwan. When he (I'm assuming Gansta is a dude based on his user page) sees edits that he believes to be pushing a particular POV, he reverts it. A common edit summary is "rv pov pushing" , which does a bit brash.

I've know of Ideogram for sometime, but never worked with him/her (besides leaving a vote on Ideogram's page). He appears to be also a good faith editor, but clashed with Gangsta over some edits. His active recruitment for Gangsta's RfC is kind of alarming, since they're posted on article talk pages.

I believe both should be discouraged from engaging in edit warring in the future and poking at each other. Maybe positive mentors for both would help. A block to either party would seem a bit out of order, since none of them committed serious infractions of Misplaced Pages policies. It's mostly a matter between two pissed off users going for each other's blood.

Oh...I'm gonna be bold and categorize the political views of the participants so each statement can be taken into proper consideration. Table based upon user page, edit history, and comments on talk pages. They're not sourced, since that would take a prohibitively long time...make edits appropriately if I placed any participant in the wrong category. I'll update the table as more users join the RfA.

Pan-Blue Pan-Green Not clear
Ideogram Certified.Gangsta Wl219
HongQiGong Jumping cheese
Blueshirts
Jiang
Yuje

In short, users that support the pan-blue coalition will oppose Gangsta for his blasphemous and heretical edits, while people that support the pan-green coalition will support Gangsta for his all-too-true and much awaited edits. ;)

Sorry for the long statement. I hope it helps in the decision making process. Jumping cheese 09:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Sumple

I have had a number of encounters with User:Certified.Gangsta. I stress that my objection is not to his political and other views, whatever they may be. My objections are to his behaviour in pursuant of those views. My key objections to his behaviour are:

  1. Gangsta is not interested in listening to facts, evidence, or logic. When other users put forth facts, evidence, or logical arguments, Gangsta simply ignores it, or retorts by repeating the same claim over and over again. See, for example, Talk:List of Chinese Americans#Chinese Americans = Americans of Chinese descent and other parts of that page. This is especially a problem because, as can be seen from that link and other links quoted on this page, Gangsta appears to know very little about the areas he frequently edit-war in.
  2. Instead of genuine argument, Gangsta resorts to name-calling, ad hominim attacks, and other inappropriate tactics. Of particular concern is the way he makes baseless accusations in order to win support from other editors. See, for example, my exchange with him at: Talk:Culture of Taiwan#LionHeartX, and, more bizzarely, User talk:Bishonen#thank you ("... Sumple insulted you, maybe you should get Zilla involve" - an accusation with no inkling of any evidence, as far as I can see).
  3. In a similar vein, Gangsta constantly makes claims about "conspiracies" and alliances of people set out to attack or destroy him, without addressing the reason that others do not agree with him. See, for example, User talk:Bishonen#thank you cited above, as well as User talk:Certified.Gangsta#User:Ideogram timeline ("“LionHeartX fan-club community” (Sumple, Nic tan, Jiang, blueshirt, Ideogram, etc)").
  4. Gangsta attempts to incite antagonism between users on the basis of a perceived "China vs Taiwan" war ("The number of Chinese editors on here seem to overwhelmingly outnumber the # of Taiwanese editors"), which is very ironic, since none of the editors in his perceived "Chinese conspiracy" are PRC supporters, or and many of them are in fact Taiwanese!

Again, I have no problem with Gangsta's political views per se. I have worked happily and constructively with many users who have opposite views to mine. However, as has been mentioned here and elsewhere, Gangsta's "contributions" consist almost exclusively of edit-warring. He knows very little about what he is editng, and he makes virtually no substantive or constructive edits. He incites unnecessary antagonism between other editors. I do not feel, overall, that his presence is contributing to Misplaced Pages.

As for User:Ideogram, I have not had much interaction with him/her, except a minor disagreement over the importance rating for Chinese food items (Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject China). Therefore, I do not feel I am competent to make a comment about him/her.

Btw, in pre-emption of User:Jumping Cheese categorising me, I should declare that I am not Taiwanese, am not involved in Taiwanese politics, and I will object to being classified as either Pan-Blue or Pan-Green. Maybe you can make an Pan-Red box for me. --Sumple (Talk) 12:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

Appeal of Daniel Brandt

Initiated by Fred Bauder at 21:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC) at the request of Daniel Brandt

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Not applicable, really

Statement by Daniel Brandt

I was indefinitely blocked by user Gamaliel on April 5, 2006 for alleged legal threats. I feel that this blocking was unjustified. It was never fully explained, and over the last year some have interpreted this unjustified block as a "community ban." For example, this indefinite block by Gamaliel is defined as "Banned by the Misplaced Pages community" on Misplaced Pages:List_of_banned_users.

I am confused by the difference between an indefinite block and a community ban, except that the latter phrase seems defamatory if it is untrue. This difference needs to be clarified in my case. On the page cited above, as well as on the template on my user page, it says that I am "banned." In the block log itself, it says that I am blocked indefinitely. What is my status? Does anyone know?

I am interested in either getting this block/ban lifted by the Arbitration Committee, or getting a complete statement from Gamaliel as to why the indefinite block was justified. If the latter, a statement from the Arbitration Committee that they concur with Gamaliel is requested. At that point, I will formally ask the Wikimedia Foundation to confirm or reject the Arbitration Committee's position.

This block has prevented me from expressing objections to my biography, in violation of WP:BLP. The initial impetus for Gamaliel's block, as far as I can determine, was that I had a template on my user page that pointed out a new law signed by President Bush in January, 2006. This law involves criminal penalties for certain types of online harassment. I maintain that it was entirely appropriate to point this out on my user page.


Comment by Doc glasgow

What is this supposed to achieve? I've always though that the desire of certain sectors of the community to paint Brandt as some kind of Emmanuel Goldstein hate-figure was crass and overrated his impact on Misplaced Pages. I'm also on record as believing we should delete his biography, as 1) he isn't that notable 2) he's absolutely right that we shouldn't have negative biographies of nonentities where they clearly object 3) I hate the bloody-mindedness that seems to want to spite and punish him by keeping it. Misplaced Pages isn't a role-playing game where we invent and fight imaginary daemons. Having said all of that, the notion that we resolve any of those issues by unblocking him is ridiculous. It just won't work, and isn't worth contemplating as a way forward.--Doc 22:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

All this ruleslawyering over whether this is a community ban or not is really just bureaucrapic nonsense. Unless we are really seriously considering that unblocking him might be an option, it is pointless. I'm not so much against unblocking him as certain that we are not going to do it. So, unless arbcom are willing to review the wisdom of the decision to retain his bio (and I'd love you to do that, but you won't) then there is sod all point in accepting this case. All we're going to have is more wikidrama then a return to the status-quo. Unless the committee is really willing to break new ground here (and you won't be), then just reject this and be done with it.--Doc 23:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid Sir Fozzie's remarks below perfectly sum up the problem. A myopic and obsessive concern for the in-house role-playing game and that its sacred procedures aren't threatened by some dark conspiracy of Fred Bauer and the 'odious' Mr Brandt.--Doc 09:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Tony Sidaway

I share Doc glasgow's general view on this, but I recommend acceptance in order to find that the Brandt article should be permanently deleted. Brandt may be unbanned if there is reason to believe that he will not disrupt Misplaced Pages (I'm personally veering towards the "no" on this). --Tony Sidaway 22:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Superfluous comment by PullToOpen

Once again, our community has been split neatly up the middle by the issue of this guy's article, let alone his ban. Although the article isn't specifically within the scope of this request (which is nothing but a ban appeal), I feel that the scope of this arbitration case should be expanded to include it. We ought to put this issue to rest so we can stop bickering about it and get back to work with the encyclopedia. I strongly suggest that the ArbCom hear this case. // PTO 23:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs)

I wasn't as into the minutiae of Wikipolitics when this ban went down. Thus, I don't know the context of the legal threats, and I'm not sure if they existed, still exist, or will come in the future. With this said, I urge acceptance of this to review the situation and either affirm the ban in place (which is not a "community ban" as we know it or as really understood), or overturn the ban that's in place as improper. There's probably a logical fear of repurcussion if anyone does anything regarding Brandt or his article at this point, so to expect an admin to step up and unblock him to overturn the "community ban", as FloNight (talk · contribs) puts it, is (IMO) improper and expects more than anyone really should. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Gmaxwell (talk · contribs)

I feel that there is an urgent need to state my support of Doc's position.

In my view, there is no need or cause to consider Mr. Brandt's direct request to be unblocked, because arguing his position out on the Wiki is not the correct forum for complaints by the subjects of our article and he has in the past demonstrated himself to be a disruptive editor. However, the arbcom need not limit itself to directly doing as Brandt asked or nothing: There is clearly an underlying issue at play here involving the conduct of many in Misplaced Pages's editing community over which the Arbcom has suitable jurisdiction.

I am very concerned that the offhand dismissal of this complaint send the wrong message about the official position Misplaced Pages's community leaders on Mr. Brandt. Furthermore, this rejection by arbcom leaves Mr. Brandt little further recourse beyond litigation against the editors of Misplaced Pages, which would be significantly against our own interests ,and the Wikimedia Foundation, which would be unsuccessful but would be an unfortunate waste of everyone's time.

A significant number of Wikimedians believe that Brandt's article is so bad that it must be deleted, but not enough yet to get the supermajority required to actually keep it deleted. It seems that because some Wikimedians have decided to use the article as an example of our independence and freedom of speech that no consensus can be achieved.

Mr. Brandt has made an effort here, respecting our community with an olive branch by appealing to the English Misplaced Pages's designated highest power over the community (vs the foundation which avoids community involvement). We should not disrespect his efforts with such a curt dismissal.

Finally, since arbcom desysoped some of the Misplaced Pages admins who would keep the article deleted, it can be argued that the arbcom is a primary cause of the articles continued existence. I do not believe this was the arbcom's intent, so an actual judgment on the article and the editors surrounding it might be useful. --Gmaxwell 00:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie (talk · contribs)

I am very concerned that this is an attempt to do an end run around the consensus of the community on the countless number of properly closed AfD debates, in an attempt to delete an article they have a problem with. Mister Brandt has always had a method to deal with BLP violations, despite his banned status, and that is to email the WP Foundation. That does not change, no matter how odious the behavior of Brandt and his supporters. Mister Brandt has had numerous opportunities to work WITH WP, and chose not to. Indeed, he is the lead behind the "Hive Mind" site and Misplaced Pages Review, two organizations inherently inimical to Misplaced Pages. I urge the ArbCom to reject this ArbCom request, reject the attempt to cynically circumvent WP procedures to delete Mister Brandt's article, and to affirm his Ban. SirFozzie 01:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


Statement by Tbeatty (talk · contribs)

ArbCom should accept this as it is the only avenue of appeal. Rarely will an admin undo another admin's action as it is potentially a wheel warring situation. The main question is what will Daniel Brandt contribute to the project that justifies the unblock? If it is to provide input/guidance on privacy as it relates to biographies and to give input on various BLP's and policies, I think his unblock is warranted and should be welcomed. If it is to simply edit his own biography, I don't think his unblock will last very long. --Tbeatty 10:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Wikipedian that wishes to remain anonymous

Tbeatty has this right. In the current atmosphere, social pressure virtually gaurantees that no admin will unblock those blocked by another admin. On the chance that they do any action on a controversial block, it is gauranteed they will be accused of wheel-warring, and in the resulting flame wars and dispute resolution they face potentially losing their admin bit. Thus, that no one has unblocked Brandt does not provide evidence of wide consensus for a community ban. It only shows one admin did something controversial and no one wants to question it. Yes, the social pressure is so great that even questioning certain actions by certain adminis will engender a loss of reputation in the community.

The arbitrators below saying there is a "community ban" are putting up a billboard proclaiming there is a Hivemind that no-one may question. ArbCom should be a neutral source and they should stand above the crowded mob. Appeals should be viewed neutrally, otherwise there are no checks and balances to the social pressures of the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.55.53 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Mr. Gustafson

My original block of Mr. Brandt, 17 months ago today, was the result of nearly a month of legal threats and abusive use of sock-puppets by Mr. Brandt to vandalize, troll, and disrupt Misplaced Pages. The straw that broke the camel's back was his hive-mind page, utilized to stalk and violate the privacy of our contributors. Brandt's main account was banned because of this. I do not see this ban as particularly controversial, or as a "community ban." He had no history of positive contribution, spent his short time here prior to the block aggressively disrupting, vandalizing, and attacking, and he never had any intention to positively contribute to our Project. We ban users like this, without issue, every day, as we should. He was unblocked to be given a chance to contribute, but resumed his disruption on-wiki, and cyber-stalking and legal threats off-wiki.

Outside of my involvement in the original block, in my opinion of the issue as it now stands, Brandt being allowed to contribute is a non-issue: he had many chances, and continues to violate our policies to a shocking degree. He has the same rights in terms of BLP as any, and has the right to express concerns over the content of the article on him through the channels that have been set up specifically for such concerns, specifically through the Foundation Offices. However, he has no right to be a part of this community. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

He uses various IP's to edit wiki already, showing up now and then to edit the his bio. If his concern was truly to help Misplaced Pages, he would do so, yet I see zero evidence his edits are constructive overall. I find him hardly notable, so the bio on him outweighs the benefit of having it. Regardless, his animosity about anonymous administrators and other issues makes him unlikely to suddenly become a great contributor.--MONGO 22:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

Mr. Brandt's personal website is the most prominent and extensive effort to out the real-world identities of Wikipedians. Sitebanning is the normal response for that type of behavior. If Mr. Brandt were to take down that page and pledge not to renew it I might understand a basis for this arbitration request. As things stand this looks like a question about semantics. Mr. Brandt does evade the ban on IP addresses, as demonstrated here from 29 March 2007. The issue of Mr. Brandt's Misplaced Pages biography is a separate matter and I'm not certain whether it falls within the scope of Committee action. I'd be willing to support a courtesy deletion (but haven't participated in any of those discussions one way or the other). Durova 19:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a delicate procedural suggestion: Mr. Brandt's statement expresses a wish to have his status clarified (blocked or banned). Clarification could be accomplished through a formal community ban discussion at WP:CN without the Committee's involvement. I don't wish to worsen a situation that is already dismal, so I offer to open a request there and would do my best to maintain a civil discussion. Mr. Brandt may contact me via my Misplaced Pages e-mail if he is interested in this option. Durova 01:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Another aspect relevant to this proposal is this thread. It is hard for me to fathom why anyone would contemplate restoring Mr. Brandt's editing privileges while he publishes the identities of Wikipedians who prefer to edit pseudonymously. Although that particular community ban thread is the first time a psychiatric patient has developed a sexual fixation on me, it is not the first time an editor has made personal threats against me. I make every effort to interact with people politely and to apply site policies fairly, yet I become a target for no other reasons than that I am a female sysop. Yesterday I also issued a lengthy userblock on another disturbed individual who had threatened suicide, and that was not the first editor I dealt with who claimed to be suicidal. I am very glad these individuals do not know my actual identity and I am rather disappointed that there exists any controversy at all on this matter. Mr. Brandt, I hold no personal animosity toward you, but please respect the perspective of dedicated volunteers - I've put a lot of unpaid labor into this site because I think Misplaced Pages has a worthwhile mission. If you desire the community's cooperation please meet us halfway. Durova 03:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by FCYTravis

I urge the ArbCom to accept this case to review the article and its surrounding circumstances. I am in full agreement with Doc glasgow and Gmaxwell here, as I believe that some Wikipedians have tried to turn this sordid affair into a video game, where Daniel Brandt must somehow "lose" so that Misplaced Pages can "win." I do not believe that such a stark dichotomy exists - we can be a complete encyclopedia without becoming a scandal sheet for living people.

I believe that Brandt has played into his opponents' hands with his provocative and ill-advised "hive-mind" site. But that site's existence has distorted the perspective of many Wikipedians, turning it into a passionate and personal issue, which it should not be. As one of the top-10 sites on the Internet, we must rise above petty personal vendettas and consider a broader and more objective perspective. I believe the community can no longer make dispassionate decisions about this case and thus a review of the "community ban" must naturally fall on the Arbitration Committee. It is not a task which ArbCom members may individually relish, but it is a task which the ArbCom as a whole must, in this case, perform. FCYTravis 00:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Rob Smith aka User:Nobs01

In a previous ArbCom case a complaintant stated,

This case involves establishing the boundaries of proper editing and discussion behavior on Misplaced Pages when a Wiki editor is also the subject of a Wiki entry under their real name and identity.... If individual Wiki editors are discouraged from editing entries on themselves, what policies might be appropriate to advise Wiki editors who have been in editing disputes with an editor for whom there is an entry? What are the proper boundaries when digging up negative and derogatory information about a fellow Wiki editor with whom one has had a dispute? Is there not a built in bias? Shouldn’t there be some ground rules?
Since Wiki relies on published materials, does a person attacked on Wiki need to “publish” a response to every criticism posted on some marginal website or published in some highly POV print publication? How can persons with entries on Wiki defend themselves against the posting of false, malicious, and potentially defamatory text?

Since ArbCom saw fit to take this previous case, there is no reason Daniel Brandt, "a Wiki editor is also the subject of a Wiki entry under their real name" should not be afforded the same fairness. --Rob Smith

Comment by Renesis

I have not had much involvement in this matter, but have been observing it for quite a while, and I would like to say that I endorse the statement by Durova. -- Renesis (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by someone else's tedentious sockpuppet

Is this a joke? Seriously, I endorse Durova's statement. This is almost criminal. We're talking about a guy whose website outs the personal information of our dedicated volunteers, and who himself has threatened editors with real-life consequences for doing what they're supposed to be doing on Misplaced Pages. If there's one thing that really concerns me about Misplaced Pages, it's that so many people are willing to feed this troll, allowing him to edit and defending him when his actions continue to make Misplaced Pages worse, and in addition, have real-life implications for hard-working volunteers. If he has concerns about his bio, he can use e-mail like he's been told a million times before. No, I have no strong opinion on keeping or deleting his article and no, I don't think he'll stop if we delete it. But has anyone ever asked him directly?

Apparently, one of his backers is Fred Bauder. This is not the first time I've questioned Mr. Bauder's judgement here... He's the one who wanted Yanksox and Geogre banned in the past... I mean, how idiotic is that? He even requested a checkuser on Yanksox to see if he was a sockpuppet of - guess who? - Daniel Brandt. And now he's acting as a proxy for this banned user? Unbelievable. Fred Bauder needs to be removed from this committee, yesterday. Oh, and Mr. Brandt, if you're reading this: If you can figure out who I am, my real name is on Misplaced Pages, if you do just a little digging. You can use it to find my address and phone number and continue your mindless hypocrisy. If you haven't already. 75.72.150.178 08:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by someone who shall not be named

If DB wants back into our community, he must take down his "hive-mind" page and apologize to Katefan0 and anyone else he has driven away from this site. If he's here solely for the purpose of deleting his bio, then he can be considered a single-purpose account and should therefore be reverted & blocked on sight. 128.2.152.133 23:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:JzG

I think this case is going down, so I'm probably wasting my time, but under the old system a community ban was, as I remember it, any indefinite block which no admin was prepared to undo. As such, and because of his off-wiki attacks, there is little doubt that it is fair and reasonable to describe Mr. Brandt as banned.

Be it noted that I, too, think the article on Brandt should be deleted and the bytes burned, but I don't see any chance of ArbCom taking an end-run around deletion process for that. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by SqueakBox

I am very pleased to see that Daniel Brandt has made this appeal, especially as I was encouraging him to do so. I also pointed out he confusion between being blocked and banned at Talk:Daniel Brandt and see that this also confuses Mr Brandt so this pioint should be clarified and if he is banned not blocked that should be made clearer. I think Brandt should be given another chance but warned that any legal threats on his part will bhe met with a swift permanent block. I think he needs to be able to comment on his own biography at its talk page and should be allowed to edit the Daniel Brandt page as welll as a bare minimum. I urge the arbcom to unblock him and make it clear that he is banned from editing all articles and all talk or other pages except Daniel Brandt and Talk:Danile Brandt with AE swinging into action were he to break this, SqueakBox 18:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/7/0/0)

  • Reject and uphold the community ban. A community ban is when a user is blocked and no other admin is willing to unblock them. All concerns about your article can be addressed by email. FloNight 22:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept, to consider Brandt's exact status in particular and the interaction of BLP with other policies in general. Kirill Lokshin 23:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject per FloNight. --jpgordon 00:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept appeal of community ban, consider the status of the article, Daniel Brandt, and the legal issues he has raised, see Rules. Fred Bauder 00:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept. The acrimony associated with this case makes standard avenues of appeal very difficult, and everyone does deserve a fair hearing. - SimonP 12:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject and uphold the community ban, per FloNight. Raul654 15:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject. Brandt is community banned until such time as admins start to unblock him, while in possession of the facts. (There is no shortage of facts.) It is not within the ArbCom's remit to consider whether the article on him should exist here. Charles Matthews 16:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline. I do not necessarily agree that the rationale expressed by the original blocking admins is sufficient justification for an ongoing ban. However, it is my view that Wikipedians are responsible for their actions off-wiki (c.f. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Arbitrators' views regarding IRC). Mr. Brandt's web site, as well as his posts in other public forums, goes well beyond fair criticism by publishing nonpublic contact information for Misplaced Pages editors. Thus, I would not support overturning the ban. Mr. Brandt above expresses concern that, as a banned user, he has no means of "expressing objections to biography, in violation of WP:BLP". However, he is free to share any ongoing concerns he has regarding his biography by email. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline. Although there are issues surrounding Daniel Brandt's indefinite block which are of some concern, the issue of Brandt's editing privileges is something of a red herring. I do not believe Brandt has any real interest in being a Misplaced Pages editor. Rather Brandt's real interests are, what I take to be, serious and legitimate concerns regarding the right to privacy and our articles about living people. In particular Brandt wants his own article deleted. I have some sympathy for Brandt's views in this regard, and I share the concerns of FCYTravis and others above, however deciding such issues are simply not within the Arbitration Committee's purview. Paul August ☎ 21:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline, and uphold the community ban, as per FloNight and others. Brandt has other avenues to complain about the content of an article on him; he was finally community-banned having behaved continually in ways that would have earned a ban much more quickly for most others, and has continued to behave unacceptably since. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Requests for clarification with regard to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

Hello, an essay I wrote at Misplaced Pages:Attack sites was promoted by others to proposed guideline status, and some are questioning the validity of removing links to known/confirmed attack/hate sites, which engage in ongoing harassment and 'outing' of Misplaced Pages editors and admins. The opposing voices seem to revolve around matters of censorship and conflict of interest (i.e., the harassed are actually going to suppress 'valid criticism'). The essay/proposed guideline is based on this:

  • "Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves." See #Combating harassment
  • "Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking." See #Links to attack sites
  • "Users who link to webpages which attack or harass other users or to sites which regularly engage in such activity are responsible for their actions." See #Support of harassment
  • "A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Misplaced Pages participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Misplaced Pages pages under any circumstances." See #Outing sites as attack sites

Basically, the clarification I am curious about is whether it is appropriate to remove links to such sites. After this decision, all references/links to the Dramatica site were removed mainly by Fred Bauder, and it seems like the idea--which is just enforcement of existing policy about harassment and NPA--would be valid to other 'attack' or 'hate' sites such as this. Thanks. - Denny 18:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify it was Denny who made his essay into a policy proposal here and I dont know why he is claiming otherwise (as his action was fine) but I am adding this link to avoid confusion or anyone being mislead by that claim within Denny's above statement, SqueakBox 18:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

...which was instantly reverted, and User:Jossi later promoted to proposed guideline. - Denny 18:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
No Jossi reverted to your promotion. There is niothing wrong with having promoted your essay to a policy proposal so I am baffled why you wont take responsibilty for it, SqueakBox 19:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This issue raises the general question of whether it is proper for the ArbCom to effectively make policy that is enforceable against everybody, including those who were not parties to the original case, or whether policy change needs to be brought up for community consensus instead. *Dan T.* 19:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully the latter will prevail, SqueakBox 19:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for clarification with regard to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan

I’ve got a question with regard to Armenia – Azerbaijan arbcom case. The final decision says: After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year.

However many parties to this case have already been blocked during the arbcom case. Do those blocks count as a parole violation or the count starts from 0, as this new section implies:  ? This was discussed here: , however I believe that we need to make this perfectly clear for everyone to avoid conflicts with regard to interpretation of this decision. Thanks in advance. Regards, Grandmaster 17:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a clarification might be helpful here. During voting on the proposed decision, arbitrator FloNight stated in voting for several revert paroles that she was doing so "ith the reminder that blocks during the case count toward the duration of future blocks." Other arbitrators did not comment on this issue. Absent instructions to the contrary I believe admins enforcing the decision would follow FloNight's interpretation but it is appropriate that the ruling be clear.
Another question that occurs to me is whether the revert paroles apply to articles that the subject editors might edit on any subject, or only to articles relating in some fashion to Armenia and/or Azerbaijan. As written, the parole applies to all articles and I take it this is intended. Newyorkbrad 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Request to reopen Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was placed on article probation, but the terms do not allow direct enforcement by admins against disruptive editing. Rather, a review by the Arbitration Committee must be requested to determine whether further remedies are appropriate. This article has been the subject of numerous complaints at Arbitration enforcement of disruptive editing by single purpose accounts. I am not a party to the dispute, and I have not attempted to evaluate whether all the complaints are equally valid. Certainly some of the edits are by the banned anonymous editor's sock or meat puppets, which have grown increasingly good as masking their usual identifying characteristics. I believe that a review may be required to either sanction some editors or at least put in place a more muscular form of article probation. Thatcher131 15:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am convinced that the banned user, 195.82.106.244, is re-incarnating in various forms ranging from agressive to comical . After first appearance these usually escalate to a once or twice daily revert cycle. This user has also appeared to state his/her case on Thatcher131's talk page .
More recently another user, Green108 who I also strongly suspect is associated with the http://www.brahmakumaris.info website forums made a very agressive and attacking series of posts on the BKWSU article talk page and edits with what I consider to be a defiant, cavalier attitude. Attempts to reason with this editor were greated with the response, "...i am not interested in speaking with you" .
I would like to see a solution that strongly enforces the principles of the existing Arbcom ruling and the basic requirements of etiquette, civility, no personal attacks and good faith so that the responsible editors can continue without intimidation. I would also be happy with a solution where the article is only edited by trusted editors, even if that doesn't include me. A solution is required for the talk page as well as the article itself since the taunting and baseless accusations are off-putting for any would-be editors.
Thanks & regards Bksimonb 08:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Is Misplaced Pages capable of enforcing its desicions? Is the ArbCom for "real"? Does Misplaced Pages want an encyclopedic/academic article here with representative neutral input?
I would like to support BKSimonb idea of having this Brahma Kumaris article only edited by trusted editors. The details of how this could work could be discussed later once the principle of this idea is accepted. Blessings from the heart, avyakt7 09:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

i dont think there is a problem really ,some of us have learnt how to edit by the rules. on the 19th i came back and added 10 or 11 academic quotation at some considerable effort to myself......the Bks call this defiant and cavalier.

oh , i also removed two items one that had fact requests for over a month..........the other that is a separate organisation from the topic subject............and the Bks keep putting them back. i have a few more academic papers and a couple of books still ,

i want to be brief but i must state for the administrators benefit.......... what is "trusted"?

appledell, Bksimonb and avyakt7 are all Bks two of them at least are long term members and they are working as a team. the mentality of Bks is drilled like the marines from 4 am every morning through 6.30 am to 8 am class through constant meditation and going to meet God, in person, in India . they call themselves an army , and are taught they are fighting a war against maya or ravan (the devil). 99.999999% all they have done is edit the BKWSU topic and attack others that try to add stuff the Bks dont want made public and attack them with words like goading....aggressive......comical...suspicion....reverting everyone else. is it any surprise if reasonable people who are putting in energy eventually react against such pressure? i suppose it is what they want.............for goodness sake, they even revert changes when someone else fixes a spelling mistake just because

personally it is below me to sit here and pick out all they have said and done and inferred....................i am not interested. what i said to simon is that i did not want him to speak to me on my talk page. I do not want to personalise this ,i came back to add academic references to back up all the claims on the topic . its not personal. Green108 04:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Since the arbritration, several editors have taken the cue and provided references. Certainly the atmosphere seems more adversarial than, for example, the Cheese article, which contains few references, presumably because of general agreement among the editors about the history and manufacture of cheese. Nevertheless, the BKWSU article has, in my opinion, reached a higher standard of rigor than previously. Actions of the BK IT team mercilessly deleting material without citations, while adversarial, has resulted in an increase in cited material.Duality Rules 23:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I also think that the article is better than it used to be. I do not understand why BksimonbThatcher131 considers Green108's possible off-Misplaced Pages affiliation relevant. Andries 20:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Because I consider it to be an "attack" site with a clear agenda that is in opposition to the stated purposes of Misplaced Pages. If you look at some of the paragraphs above and imagine that it is jews or blacks being talked about instead of BKs then it should be quite obvious what the problem is. Also civility is a core policy on Misplaced Pages and that is the main basis of my complaint .
We have also been treated to a wonderful muppet show of sock and meat puppets since the arbcom ruling, you even welcomed one of them yourself  :-) Thatcher131 needs some way to enforce the principles of the arbcom ruling because right now someone or some people out there are using brute force, persistence and aggression to run rings around the rulings.
I have absolutely no problem with any editor that doesn't behave disruptively, for example, I have found Duality Rules to be perfectly reasonable and civil.
BTW I appreciate your input to the article. You raised some good points there. Bksimonb 07:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that affiliation with a website critical of a certain faith should be a problem on Misplaced Pages as long as somebody's wikipedia behavior is okay. For a comparison, I think it is crazy to ban all Christians who are memberrs of a local Christian community from the article Christianity. I am aware that most arbcom members will not agree with with me, but I continue to hold the opinion that their reasoning is completely flawed in this respect and I will continue to refute and oppose their reasoning wherever I see it. Andries 08:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Andries. I agree with you completely that affiliation with a critical website alone should not be a problem as long as someone's behavior is OK. That is why I mentioned Duality Rules because in the arbcom case he strongly promoted the site but I have found him to be civil and unbiased. So there is no problem there as far as I am concerned. The same can not be said of 244 who was found by arbcom to be uncivil, biased in editing and to have threatened another editor. The same applies to other editors who behave in a similar disruptive way. If the disruptive style is sufficiently similar then perhaps association with that website, that evidence suggests 244 is running and setting the whole tone of, has something to do with it.
Regards Bksimonb 12:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments by arbitrators

I have reviewed the editing and find it generally reasonable. Please continue to improve the article. Fred Bauder 16:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fred. Thank you for looking into this. Please let me know if you noticed the following edits (just a sample) and what your views are on them .
Thanks Bksimonb 05:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)


Archives

Categories: