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 Dominic (talk | contribs) at 18:49, 17 April 2007 (→Statement by Dmcdevit: also). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:49, 17 April 2007 by Dominic (talk | contribs) (→Statement by Dmcdevit: also)(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

Transnistria

Initiated by Wooyi at 02:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

I have notified both parties here and here.
The previous dispute resolution attempts all failed, and I have provided those links below in statement of Wooyi (my statement).

Statement by Wooyi

Although I am personally not involved in this case, but today I spotted it on WP:CN on Misplaced Pages:Community sanction noticeboard#Proposed community ban for sockpupeteer William Mauco. It was stalled and ended in no consensus. The administrators on that page have made the recommendation to bring this here for arbitration. As of the time I am writing this statement, however, no action has been done since then. So I bring it here for procedural reasons.

Event links:

Statement by Alex Bakharev

I would suggest to wait until the 2 month block on William Mauco will expire. While he is blocked he can not represent his part of the story and the investigation will be bound to be one sided. Furthermore, according to my experience most of the tendentious editors fall for sockpuppeting if blocked for more than one month. If he will go the same path he would be caught and permabanned - no arbcom is necessary. If he will honestly wait until the end of the block without attempt to circumvent, then there are chances that his feud with MariusM would not restart - two months is almost an infinity on wiki. If the feud would start then Arbcom might be a solution Alex Bakharev 04:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Irpen

I urge the committee to heed to Alex Bakahrev's proposal to which I would like to add the following. I emailed Mauco when he was banned for socking advising him to sit out a well-deserved two months-block and once he is allowed to edit to alter his ways, that is to cut on edit warring and to not use socking ever again. Realistically, I don't think he will be able to not ever edit war (the fault in this is not just his but some of his opponents too, who are quite vicious POV pushers) but I am optimistic about socking. He emailed back to me and he sounded quite apologetic and forthcoming. He admitted his wrongdoing, swore to never resort to socks again and agreed to some sort of probation (immediate permaban if he is ever caught socking which he swears not to do.) I elaborated more on this in my posts to WP:CSN: , ., and specifically about the possibility of arbcom: . So, the case may not be needed. Let the community handle it and wait to see whether Mauco will fulfill his promise of change. --Irpen 06:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Dmcdevit

As William Mauco's blocking admin, I largely agree with Irpen here (who is not an involved party, despite Marius' attempts to add him) regarding William Mauco. He was discovered, with CheckUser, to have been running multiple very complex personas more than one having more than a thousand edits, for many months, each in support of the other. For this, I blocked Mauco for 2 months, and I see no reason, especially considering his repentance, to change the current block to a ban for no new misbehavior. Of course, he can be easily unblocked and restricted to editing the case pages, if a case is accepted, so that isn't a problem.

However, if there is any lack of resolve on the matter from the community, I would urge the ArbCom to accept a case for MariusM (talk · contribs). MariusM is a long term edit warrior who has carried on a feud wih William Mauco. He has five individual blocks for edit warring . Furthermore, Transnistria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), currently reprotected after almost a hundred edits and rapidfire revers in less than two days since I unprotected it, has one of the longest protection logs I've seen, due to persistant edit warring by a small core of devoted editors, including EvilAlex (talk · contribs) (with five blocks for edit warring himself ), Domitius (talk · contribs), Alaexis (talk · contribs), and Buffadren (talk · contribs). A glance at the troubled history of Transnistria shows that this is a dispute that has developed into a raging edit war with no end in sight due to the conduct of a few editors (and it has continued unabated after William Mauco's block). I would ask the Arbitration Committee to open a case related to Transnistria to look into potential bans for MariusM and EvilAlex, and to consider William Mauco's block, as well as to consider parole-like remedies for Domitius and Alaexis. Dmcdevit·t 08:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by MariusM

While I would not fully agree with Wooyi's statement that no consensus existed at my request to permaban User:William Mauco (there were 15 persons who endorsed the ban, 4 who opposed and one who proposed a ban for both me and Mauco), I agreed imediatelly with the idea of letting him to defend himself and a conditional unblock (only for editing this page, if he is caught editing other pages to be imediatelly permabanned) is a good idea. I consider Irpen an involved part and I added him at the list. Alex Bakharev was also involved a little bit in the "war" between me and Mauco, he forgived Mauco twice for 3RR breaching, in this way fueling the edit-war between us, and I reported this situation at Administrators Noticeboard Misplaced Pages double standards?, however I would let Bakharev to decide himself if he want to be listed as "involved part". What I expect from this arbitration is not only a permanent ban of vicious sockpuppeteer William Mauco, but also a cleaning of my wikipedia reputation, as I received a lot of entries in my block log as result of disputes with this bad faith hypocrite editor and I want a arbcom decision stating that my previous blocks were undeserved. I don't consider relevant the apologetic email submitted by Mauco to Irpen, as there were never disputes between Irpen and Mauco. I didn't receive an apologetic e-mail from Mauco, while I am the main person who should receive such an e-mail.--MariusM 09:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments to Dmcdevit's statement: I wonder which is my NEW misbehaviour to merit a permaban? Maybe this report, where I protested against Dmcdevit's abuse of his checkuser privileges? Considering that in above debate Domitius expressed opinion that likely Dmcdevit abused his checkuser privileges, I am not wondering why Dmcdevit want a punishment for Domitius also. I would advice everybody involved in this case: Don't add personal feelings here because, to quote a famous NPOV sensor in Transnistria-related articles in Misplaced Pages, this is leading to Dark Side and ulcers.--MariusM 11:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Appeal to the Comitee: I am herebly asking the comitee to keep User:Irpen status of involved part. I notified him . I mention that the only prove that Mauco expressed regret for his behaviour (which Dmcdevit is taking at face value) is Irpen's claim. The initiator listed also the possibility of "other editors" to be involved in the dispute, I saw the clerk removed also the "other editors" line.--MariusM 12:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Moreschi

After a fairly lengthy discussion at WP:CSN, the - entirely reasonable - conclusion was arrived at that this was overly complicated for community sanctions and that the arbitrators had best have a look at this. I would urge that this case be accepted in order that this miserable mess can be sorted out. This kind of conduct should not be tolerated on-wiki: we just don't need the disruption. People are meant to work together, not war. Especially not with extensive puppet shows and attempts to out the real-life identities of fellow editors. If the case is accepted, William Mauco should, naturally, be unblocked for him to participate in it. Moreschi 09:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by EvilAlex

Hello. I would like to add some. I have been in Wkipedia since 2001. As far as I remember, Transnistrian article was nice tidy and quiet at that time. And then one day Mauco arrived. The black become white and the false become true. In the following few month article started to change from what I know the real Transnistria to the Mauco’s Transnistria. I came to wiki because I wanted to write about my country, I wanted to write the truth but it is impossible when Mauco is around: he uses socks to advance and push his POV, he uses socks for braking 3RR, and he uses socks for voting. All previous attempts to return article to NPOV have been failed. As a result of Mauro’s POV pushing activities article lost all of its reality (just compare what says Britannica and what says Wkipedia). As a result of Mauco behaviour I have been unjustly punished (3RR – I just tried to revert the vandalism, but with some many socks around it is impossible). I would support indefinite ban for Mauco. Mauco have done great wrong to Wkipedia, to co contributors. I consider the 2 month block is a slap on a face of Wikipedian community.
Re: User:Irpen said that Mauco apologized but he should apologize to me – I am the one who is deeply offended by his puppet show. He didn’t apologize to me. EvilAlex 19:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Injunctional statement by ElC

Dmcdevit just informed me that soon after I unprtoected the page, revert warring continued. At this point, I am inclined to seek an immediate injunction (as well as undertaking additional steps) against certain parties involved in this. The last revert is dated 8:38, 17 April 2007 and if others are to follow, I will note it here. I am also provisionally of the opinion that Ploutarchos (aka Domitius) be added as a party to the case. El_C 16:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

I removed Irpen as an involved party; I really think that it should be up to the initiator or the Committee, which MariusM can appeal to for that. El_C 11:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Ngo Dinh Diem

Initiated by --VnTruth at 16:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

I have left messages regarding my arbitration request on both of the other parties' talk pages..
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
I have discussed the matter extensively with Blnguyen and suggested mediation, all to no avail.

Statement by VnTruth

This dispute involves disagreements regarding the portion of the article, titled "Government treatment of Buddhists," regarding Diem's treatment of South Vietnamese Buddhists. The article contains language, much of which has been added by Blnguyen, stating that Diem discriminated in favor of Catholics against Buddhists, who constituted the vast majority of South Vietnam's population. I have added an additional paragraph reiterating the views of several historians that Diem treated Buddhists well, and that Buddhists constituted no more than a large majority of the population. Blnguyen has regularly deleted my edits, to the point that the page was recently locked by another user. Sarvagnya has recently delted my edits as well.

They contend that my edits violate Misplaced Pages's rule against publicizing fringe opinions.(edit summary). In fact, if you review my most recent edit to the article (under "history"), you will see that I have provided more citations in support of my edits than Blnguyen has in support of his. Moreover, one of my sources, Triumph Forsaken, was published by the prestigious Cambridge University Press, and has received praise from such respected persons as Senator (and Vietnam War hero) James Webb and historian Max Boot, both of whom, as you can see, are written up in Misplaced Pages. The author, Dr. Mark Moyar, graduated summa cum laude at Harvard and earned his Ph.D at Cambridge University in England. He has already written a well-received history of one aspect of the Vietnam War, the Phoenix program. Another source, Our Vietnam Nightmare, was written by Marguerite Higgins, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist also written up in Misplaced Pages.

Blnguyen's claim that Buddhists constituted 70%-90% of South Vietnam's population was particularly weak. His citations consisted of: Dr. Moyar, who actually says that such claims were made in 1963, but were false; an internet article that says only--in passing and without citation--that Buddhists constituted a majority of the population; and a book by Marvin Gettleman that is 40 years old and so obscure that it lacks a Misplaced Pages identifying number. The more recent historians do not even claim that Buddhists constituted a majority of the population, much less 70%-90%. For example, Stanley Karnow and Neil Sheehan,widely read and anti-Diem to the core, do not make this claim.

Nonetheless, I am not asking for deletion of Blnguyen's portion (except for his inaccurate citation of Dr. Moyar), but just that all parties be prohibited from deleting my edits.

Supplemental Statement by VnTruth 19:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Since I submitted my request, my edits have been reverted twice by Blnguyen and three times by an administrator with the user name Nishkid64. I will fill in the revert links later. The page is also locked to prevent editing.--VnTruth 19:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Blnguyen

Firstly, I would like to point out that this is a content dispute. Since VnTruth last posted about content issues at User_talk:Blnguyen#Ngo_Dinh_Diem on April 8, I have replied below it and also at Talk:Ngo Dinh Diem multiple times, and more than half a dozen established contributors have voiced their opinions about the content. Since VnTruth's return from a short break, he has reverted seven further times without discussing.

Another point is his username and editing only of the Ngo Dinh Diem page. In Vietnmese language, Vietnam is spelt as Việt Nam, and is commonly abbreviated as VN. I feel that VnTruth's username is symptomatic of the fact that he feels that Misplaced Pages is a forum for rewriting history or correcting historical mistakes, and this is affecting his editing. He uses a book by Mark Moyar called "Triumph Forsaken", who in his preface notes that he is a revisionist historian, stating


“ The revisionist school, which sees the war as a noble but improperly executed enterprise, has published much less, primarily because it has few adherents in the academic world. ”

Moyar proudly presents himself as a revisionist, and so do the reviews of his work.eg, "A full-blooded member of what he calls the "revisionist school" of Vietnam War historians, Moyar firmly believes that America's longest and most controversial overseas war was "a worthy but improperly executed enterprise." . In the book. In the book Moyar notes himself that the Pulitzer Prize winners David Halberstam, Stanley Karnow and Neil Sheehan are regarded as the authorities by the academic community. Moyar then spends a lot of the book trying to overturn established historical details such as the existence of shootings, etc and attacking other historians (book review:"disparaging those he disagrees with (calling Sheehan and Halberstam, for example, "indignant," "vengeful," and "self-righteous")"), and trying to establish "counter-fact". This has lead to concerns raised about the usability of this book for "counter-fact" and the disproportionate amount of space given to these, but VnTruth has not responded to these.

User:VnTruth is using his userpage as a workspace for the Diem page. His ideal preferred version almost entirely consists of counter-fact, importing large swathes of revisionist opinion as fact. "Diệm established an authoritarian regime, because he did not believe his backward country was ready for a Western-style democracy. He established a nepotistic regime, because of the lack of loyal, qualified leaders available in South Vietnam at the time." It also contained large tracts of Moyar's attack commentary trying to discredit other historians.

I think it is clear that VnTruth is a very strong supporter of Moyar, and is trying and pushing very hard to put him into the limelight in a disproportionate manner on the article, as is being discussed on the talk page. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about "verifiability not truth". VnTruth feels that Moyar is the truth and the academic consensus is wrong, but until Moyar's discredits the others and establishes the "counter-fact", we have to go by the established "facts" about historical events, and include evaluations where appropriate. So this is a content dispute. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Bakasuprman

I edited Ngo Dinh Diem as well, and note that this is a content dispute. There is no issue here as both vntruth and blnguyen have been civil and worked under the framework of WP guidelines.Bakaman 17:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel.Bryant

Content dispute? I think it is. Daniel Bryant 00:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by PullToOpen

It seems that the parties are working together amicably on the talk page. Arbitration is not needed. // PTO 00:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/3/0/0)

Zeq and Zero0000

Initiated by Dmcdevit·t at 23:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Parties are continuing behavior despite prior arbitrations, and edit warring instead of pursuing dispute resolution. Arbitration is necessary to address issues of adminship.

  • Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Lance6wins: Zero0000 was desysopped for 2 weeks since he "while engaged in an editing dispute with Lance6wins improperly threatened him and blocked him"
  • Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq:
    • Zeq cautioned, placed on article bans, and probation, for edit warring and other disruptive behavior
    • Zero0000 found to have "engaged in extensive edit warring" and "cautioned to use the procedures in Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes."

Statement by Dmcdevit

See current ANI commentary at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Notice_of_block.

Zeq, despite his previous arbitration case of a year ago, continues disruptive behavior like edit warring, and shows no likelihood of changing, after so many blocks and bans in accordance with his probation (log). I think a long term ban is appropriate. Zero0000, also a party to Zeq's arbitration, for edit warring with him, and previously desysopped for blocking while involved, has also been engaging in persistent edit warring, using his admin rollback button, and has used his adminship to first ban Zeq from the article, and then block him, while revert warring with him. He continues to claim that because the ArbCom ruled that Zeq's arbitration may be enforced by "any administrator", it gives involved admins the power to block Zeq, which patently violates the spirit and common sense of the AC ruling, and the idea of adminship. He continues to assert, in what sounds like lawyering to me, "My actions were according to the letter of the Admin ruling on Zeq." I am reproducing my ANI comment below for the specific details:

It's not either-or here; in fact, I think it's both. Zeq's long term disruptive behavior, frankly, merits more than an admonishment and a short block. Short blocks do nothing to fix the underlying behavior, and we know that because he has eight independent blocks before this. The edit warring at 1929 Hebron massacre, in light of repeated blocks, warnings, instruction, arbcom ruling, and even a not-subtle-at-all week-long ban by arbcom in a later motion, and I must conclude that he is incorrigible. Look closer at that edit warring; most striking in Zeq's failure to grasp collaborative editing and conflict resolution is his lack of atempts at good faith communication. Note that at the same time he was warring, he made a total of, well, zero edits ever to the article's talk page . Note also the same behavior at Mohammad Amin al-Husayni concurrently, where his talk page communication is to accuse the others of vandalism. I propose we give Zeq the ban he deserves, and dispense with this drain on the community.
At the same time, Zero0000's actions here are indefensible and require further scrutiny. First, notice that he is not simply in a content dispute, but is, as an admin, engaging in an edit war with Zeq and others at 1929 Hebron massacre: . Those last two reverts are inappropriate uses of the admin rollback in a content dispute. He made no attempt at dispute resolution, despite the fact that this dispute lasted weeks, and indeed, also never edited the talk page at all, his last edit there being 12:41, November 26, 2006. He first rolls back Zeq and then bans him from the article two minutes later, essentially enforcing his preferred version, and then later blocks Zeq, reverting him minutes later. Of course, we already know there is a preexisting conflict, since arbcom ruled more than a year ago "Ian Pitchford, Zero0000 and the others who were involved in this dispute are cautioned to use the procedures in Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes." Zero's lack of communication I noted before is more concerning in light of the fact that he has been admonished by arbcom before for substantially similar behavior in a conflict with the same editor. And of course, Zero0000 was previously desysopped by arbcom, at the recommendation of Jimbo, for using his blocking powers in a content dispute in which he was involved. I fail to see why the community should continue to place its trust in Zero0000 as an admin. Dmcdevit·t 07:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131

Admin Zero0000, while in a content dispute and revert war with Zeq and others at 1929 Hebron massacre , banned him from the article under the terms of his probation . The ban was not posted to the admins' noticeboard, which would have given the community a chance to review it. Zeq continued to edit the article and so Zero blocked him . After reviewing the situation, I felt that the ban and block were improper, due to Zero's involvement in the content dispute. I unblocked Zeq, and after reviewing the article history, re-applied the ban as an uninvolved admin . Subsequently, admin El_C (talk · contribs) reblocked Zeq for incivility (accusing Zero of discrimination) .

I agree with Dmcdevit that arbitration language such as "may be banned by any admin from any page he disrupts" does not trump the very clear warning in the blocking policy not to block to gain advantage in a content dispute. Whether Zero genuinely believe the "any admin" language absolves him or is just wikilawyering would require a mind reader. Certainly Zero sees no fault in his actions.

I have not personally dealt with Zeq before, but there are 8 previous complaints against him in the archives of the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

On the other hand Zero now agrees not to use bocks or bans against Zeq in the future so maybe this case is moot (with respect to Zero). Thatcher131 02:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Response to the Will Beback issue

I find it interesting that parties here are granting more credence to Will Beback's statement "When the ArbCom chooses to say "any uninvolved admin" they do so" over Dmcdevit, an admin and former arbitrator. I think the answer to who can enforce rulings is complicated and depends in large measure on admins excercising sound judgement. In a case involving a banned user, often the involved admins will be in the best position to spot sockpuppets. The LaRouche case (the context of for Will's remark) is also clear; no LaRouche-derived sources in non-LaRouche articles. Easily enforced; whether an admin is "involved" or not makes no difference as the ruling leaves no room for interpretation. However, applying article probation is much more of a judgement call; is the editor disruptive under the meaning of the arbitration, is article banning justified, and for how long. Note that the blocking policy specifies admins are not to block to gain advantage in a content dispute, and the Probation policy states that bans should be applied by uninvolved admins. It again seems strange to see people arguing that the absence of a single word in an arbitration remedy (uninvolved) can override two core policies governing admin behavior, when in every other case it is clear that the arbitrators do not create policies by ArbCom fiat. Thatcher131 17:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

I will give my personal account of what happened, then I will answer some of Dmcdevit's specific claims. I have decided to not comment on Zeq except as necessary to explain myself.

What happened. The thing about editing in the mideast section of Misplaced Pages is that there is always at least one, and often several, editors around who have no other purpose but to mould the article according to their political views. I'm not talking about biased editors (who isn't?) but disruptive POV-pushers who are determined that the article will not be balanced or accurate. In recent times the worst of these have been Amoruso (now left?), Shamir1, and Zeq. This situation makes editing very stressful and tedious, and most good editors soon give up trying. Usually I just patiently persist in the hope that the some edit will stick by good fortune or some fanatic will leave. On this occasion I found Zeq yet again disrupting the article with material that was in obvious violation of several rules. I was not sympathetic, since Zeq is an experienced long-term editor who is completely aware of what he is doing. After removing the material several times unsuccessfully, I went to read the previous Arbitration Committee ruling on Zeq and noticed the long list of bans and blocks, which I think I didn't know about before. I then read the ruling to see what was permitted: "He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing." I took this at face value and told Zeq on his talk page that he was banned from the article. He replied in his usual arrogant fashion that he would do whatever he liked and proceded to disrupt the article again. Then I blocked him for 48hrs (intentionally a much shorter period than an average admin would have chosen on Zeq's track record) and reported my action in the prescribed places.

That is what I did. Was it permitted? Dmcdevit claims that "any administrator" doesn't actually mean "any administrator". He may be right. In fact, after reflecting on it for a few extra days I am willing to concede on this point. However, at the time I took the text in good faith to mean exactly what it says. If my judgment was impaired, it was innocently so. I also believed (and I still believe and can't imagine anyone disputing) that the criterion "for good cause...which he disrupts by tendentious editing" was met quite objectively. I would like to ask the present ArbCom to clarify the meaning of "any administrator" even if they consider it obvious already; I will of course abide by the decision without exception.

Dmcdevit's claims.

  1. As I stated just above, I am willing to concede that Dmcdevit is likely to be right about the meaning of "any administrator". However, his reasoning is not overwhelming. His first error is to assume that the ArbCom can't make an exception to a general rule if they want, including permiting actions to people not normally allowed to perform them. His second error is to forget that such exceptions already exist (example: afaik there are no limits on which admins can block a known sock of a banned user).
  2. Dmcdevit claims that an earlier ArbCom case involving me was similar to this one. He is wrong. This time I honestly believed I was acting as permitted by an explicit ArbCom ruling; otherwise I would not have so acted. On the previous occasion I had no such excuse and served my time without complaining.
  3. Dmcdevit is wrong to describe the repeated removal of obviously unacceptable material as "edit warring". Actually it is called "enforcing the rules". I'm not claiming I did this as well as I could have, but that's what I believed and still believe I was doing. My understanding is that enforcing the rules is something admins are specifically enjoined to do, but Dmcdevit judges me as if I was an ordinary user.
  4. Dmcdevit says that I didn't use the article Talk page in conjunction with my edits. He is right, but he forgot about the edit summaries. In each case I gave a precise reason for the edit at least the first time (and often more than just the first time) I made it. As I stated at AN/I, I believe my overall record in using Talk pages is as good as that of any other editor in the mideast section. In the case of disagreements with good-faith editors I have often spent many hours on Talk pages and I believe my record in bringing good sources to discussions there is probably one of the best in all of Misplaced Pages.
  5. Here is an example of what "discussing with Zeq on the Talk page" actually means in practice. Zeq claimed that a photo taken personally by Doron was not what Doron reported. Over the following 14 edits, Zeq produced a single web link that doesn't even mention the subject, while Doron and I produced excellent sources to show how he is mistaken. Then Zeq started up on it again as if nothing had been said, see this edit and responses in 10 of the following 12 edits; then Doron and I wrote a whole article on the subject based on the latest professional archaeological sources. After all this effort, Zeq came back with exactly the same claim all over again. In other words, neither the "discussion" nor the production of the best sources that exist had any effect on Zeq whatsoever. Having experienced Zeq behaving like this over several years, I felt a reluctance to try reasoning with him over his recent blatant disruptions.
  6. Dmcdevit's claim that I misused the administrative rollback is highly debatable. First, I had already explained those edits in previous edits. Second, the "undo" feature available to everyone provides almost the same functionality, so this can no longer be considered a special admin action. Third, the use of administrative rollbacks to remove material they consider to be objectively unacceptable is something that most admins do regularly, including Dmcdevit himself.

--Zero 12:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Amoruso. Unfortunately Amoruso is not gone as I thought. I have been remiss for not writing an Arb case against Amoruso long ago, as he is the most unprincipled POV-pusher to hit the mideast section of Misplaced Pages since the banned Lance6wins. Worse than Zeq. Amoruso appears to be a professional representantive of the extreme right, self-appointed or not I don't know. As a first example of how he operates, one of his first actions today was to reinsert stuff he found in a novel (this source is identified as a novel right on the front page). This is far from the worst charge that can be made about Amoruso, but the worst (including deliberate lying about sources) can wait for his own case. --Zero 11:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

I was involved in the early stages of the enforcement of Zeq's probation. I should be able to submit some relevant evidence on Zeq's conduct under probation, which was unusual. --Tony Sidaway 13:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved user Sjakkalle

I noticed the relevant thread on the noticeboard, and I have registered a disagreement on what the term "any admin" means in arbitration terminology. At Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 we have one admin in good standing saying that "When the ArbCom chooses to say "any uninvolved admin" they do so. When they say "any admin" that's what they mean." So I think reasonable minds might differ on this, and think that ArbCom should clarify this to prevent further confusion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(Response to Thatcher131 on the Will Beback issue) I agree with you that in this particular case, and in probation cases in general, any admin enforcing the remedies ought to be be uninvolved. Hence, I also agree with Dmcdevit when he is deeply concerned over Zero's actions here. My reason for my original statement here is that a dilligent administrator in good standing (Will Beback) made a sincere statement on what his interpretation of "any admin" means, and while I don't really agree with it, I still find that interpretation to be at least plausible. Unless this is settled one way or another I can envision more disputes in similar situations, and I think we should get a clarification on that to settle this once in for all. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Commment by uninvolved user Amoruso

From my experience with Zero0000, there is no doubt that he often abused his adminstrator status, that he has absolute zero (...) disregard to WP policies, and that he should face some sort of permanent ban for his behaivour, which is evident in this case. This is just a small summary of his violations in wikipedia that I've noticed in the past, and which he should be held liable for.

false allegations of vandalism :

incivility and non AGF:

warned me on content dispute with me (!) attacking me. I didn't respond.

his blanking of sourced material under different pretexts:

:constant and rude... and rude reason : "junk" reason :"junk"

POV pushing and lies or unsourced well poisoning : and rude and rude Amoruso 11:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Another example of Zero0000's lies and abuse of WP. The book has been accurately described by non involved users invited for comment as a perfect WP:RS . Zero0000 really should finally face his violations, as his status as an administrator makes a travesty of wikipedia. Amoruso 12:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Very strange remark by El-C below. I really have no idea what he's talking about. I'm a very respected user by many of my colleagues and have created many articles and provided much useful information, photos, and knowledge to wikipedia. El-C's remark is very inappropriate. I've been blocked by him once for a very strange 3RR offense, and that's it. The second 3RR block was later ruled by many adminstrators to have been a mistake and a wrongful block. That is highly irrelevant anyway. If El-C thinks that it's ok for an adminstrator like Zero0000 to be using popups and vandlising tools in disputes, to badmouth users, to call them names, to fight with anyone and to ban or warn with bans users that he was involved in content disputed with, then he has a problem. Zero0000 should not involve himself in articles where he has such strong opinions on then he shouldn't abuse other users, bite new users, use rude language and all the other examples I've shown above. He has clearly abused his adminstrator power and I'm bothered that someone like El-C actually is trying to support this core violation of Zero. Amoruso 10:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ElC

Although we've yet to reach the 5-block limit, I do not believe that Zeq's arbitration remedies have proven effective, overall (i.e. beyond locally), and like Dmcdecit, I strongly feel that his conduct should be reexamined. With respect to Zero's role, I have argued that it was a mistake for him to block Zeq, but I disagreed with Dmcdevit that this warrants desysoping; Sjakkalle's comment above further reinforces that notion, I think. El_C 20:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Since writing my statement, Amoruso (blocked in the past by both myself and Dmcdevit) has added a statement directly above my own. It provides many diffs but virtually zero context into the allegations he makes. That is, we observe edits and comments in isolation. Crucially, it dosen't help that this is a user who often promotes fringe, ahistorical views as mainstream scholarship. El_C 15:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I read Amoruso's highly assumptive response to the above, and I see no reason to retract anything I said thus far. I also read Zeq's point that Zero has also exceeded the word limit — it's true. I suppose I didn't notice it due to his less spacious pargarpah structure. El_C 14:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Mackan79

Regarding Amoruso's statement, I would hope these issues will be dealt with separately, as (having seen much of their interaction) I don't think they can be effectively addressed here. I agree with El_C's adendum above. I mostly wanted to respond to Sjakkalle's statement. As I said on AN/I, when I encountered Zeq's Arbcom ruling some weeks ago via AiOa, I want to make clear that I shared Zero's reading, for two reasons. 1. It seemed quite clear the intent of the ruling was to go beyond the general "probation" policy, and 2. If it wasn't, then the "any admin" language wouldn't have made sense. Having raised this on AN/I, Dmc suggested the language is often used by Arbcom with the "uninvolved" caveat retained by implication, but I frankly find this surprising, and would like to see examples. Currently, we have two: first, Will Beback stating that when ArbCom says "any admin," that's what they mean, and second the WP:Probation policy itself, which states the exception. Clearly then, the idea that this is self-explanatory is not universal. Ultimately, I think to hold Zero responsible for reading this ruling as stating that any admin could enforce it, "with good cause," is simply the wrong action at the wrong time. Mackan79 16:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Admission of guilt by Zeq

I take full responsibility on my behavior which, at times, have been collaborative but at other have been disruptive.

This is my 2nd ArbCom.

This is Zero 3rd ArbCom – he edited Misplaced Pages longer and been involved in many more conflict and disruptions than me. (due to his strong conviction on ME issues)

To save time: I admit that at times my dispute resolution efforts failed and my behavior in wikipedia on occasion have been disruptive. There are many times in which disputes ended-up without disruption in a collaborative way.

During next year, I will stay away from any article in which I had previously been in disruptive disputes.

Additional aspects

Zero and other editors edit-wars on ME issues have debilitated the community ability NPOV many ME articles.

These edit-wars occur even in articles that I do not participate – clearly banning just me from these articles did not solve the situation.

Zero and Ian have been warned by ArbCom to avoid edit-war, not to remove WP:RS sources and to follow dispute resolution – they choose not to accept these warnings.

This is not the 1st time Zero ban me for so-called "probation violation" - as in previous time he was overruled by other admins (rare that admins override so Arbcom must make note of that).

It was also explained to him personally (in detail by user:Fred_Bauder) that applying probation ban is not the first step in any edit dispute.

This violation is not the 1st, 2nd or even 3rd time user:Zero0000 looses the cool head required by an Admin. (see also his repeated 3RR violations)

His stream of attacks on me (violation of WP:NPA) will also be documented. Several admins requested him to cease using edit summaries for personal attacks - still he continue up until very recently. (diffs will be presented as well as AN/I discusions - here is a preview where Zero attacks me, my work, my language skills and violates WP:AGF:

One caveat

In 1929 Hebron massacre Zero baned me after just one single edit to the article. On April 5, at 11:32 I made single edit:

This was enough for Zero to issue "a notice of ban" 50 minutes later at 12:20 .

This was the only edit I made to this article in 2007. This single edit is not disruptive.

An edit poped on my watchlist - Zero removed a well known fact backed by a WP:RS source (other sources exist as well). This was a minor issue to restore it. (Haaretz used widely in wikipedia).


Only now, I saw that Zero has been in an edit-war for weeks over this issue: , , , , ,

Zero had similar disputes in other article. After He removed similar WP:RS source he got this reply from an editor: "Haaretz is a internationally recongnized newspaper, let it remain".

1. Zero is a clearly "involved admin" (and had been displined by ArbCom before about exact same pattern of action)

2. He should not have used his admin tolls to block me

3. Zero decision that this single edit has been a violation of my probation is also at best questionable. If the edit is not disruptive Zero had no authority to issue a ban.

4. Zero's unjustified ban was the disruptive venet that brought us where we are today.

5. There are more serious policy violations by Zero.


The power given to some admins toward users under probation makes the uneven playing field a place where conflicts can get out of hand. Zero was not the only admin who used the pretext of my probation as an excuse to take admin action against me without justification.

Summary by Zeq

I take full responsibilty on my actions - but disrupting 1929 Hebron massacre prior to the issuance of the ban was not one of them.

Zero's edit-wars on this article prior (and after) my single edit should also be carefully looked at. More on this will be provided in evidence.

I will note that after Zero issued the unappropriate ban I at first tried to resolve it in a non disruptive way (on his talk page) but that attempt failed (he refused to comunicate with me - not for the first time) and I indeed engaged in reverting him after the ban was already issued - the revert was a mistake on my part (however a reviewing admin concluded that: "Zero's article ban of Zeq was invalid as he was an involved admin and did not post it to the noticeboard for review"). Zeq 08:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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


Requests for clarification

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

Requests for clarification with regard to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy

I've looked over the case of children's privacy protection, and I feel that there is several ambiguities I'd like to ask for clarification:

  • "When a user self-identifies as a child, especially if they provide personal information, the matter is frequently a subject of discussion among administrators"

What is the definition of a "child" on Misplaced Pages? Is a seventeen-year-old high school student a child? Where is the precise age to define a "child"?

  • "users who self-identify as children, project a sexually tinged persona, and disclose personal information such as links to sites devoted to social interaction are engaging in disruptive behavior and may be banned."

What is the specific meaning of "sexually tinged persona"? And If a teenage editor post the URL of his blog on Misplaced Pages that has his real name on it, does it constitute disclosure of personal information?

I hope the ArbCom will give the answers to those points. Regards. Wooyi 22:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


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

Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Request_for_clarification_on_linking_to_attack_sites due to length

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)

Motions in prior cases

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


Archives

Categories: