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 Robchurch (talk | contribs) at 01:50, 4 August 2005 (→Current requests). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:50, 4 August 2005 by Robchurch (talk | contribs) (→Current requests)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut
  • ]

The last step of dispute resolution is a request for arbitration. Please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

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

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arb Com member votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

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

Current requests

Template

Involved parties

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

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

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

Ed Poor

Involved Parties

Party 1 (Initiators)
Party 2

Confirmation of Parties' Awareness

  • Ed Poor has been made aware: (diff link here)

Previous Dispute Resolution

Although several attempts have been made to resolve this issue (, , , ), none of them have been particularly successful. Ed Poor's deletion of the RfC page against him goes towards proving that he does not wish for any discussion in the matter.

Statement by Party 1

Ed Poor is a very experienced Wikipedian, who has made an exceptional contribution to the project over the long period of time that he has been a Misplaced Pages contributor, and was consequently made an administrator by the community. He has been active in Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation, as well as in article editing.

Recently, he took the controversial action of speedy deleting Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion without consultation to the community or prior warning - that is, using the "delete" administrative function, not tagging it with {{delete}} for another administrator to delete the page. It is our opinion that, in his attempt to delete VfD, he nonetheless had a genuine belief that his actions were for the benefit of the community - however, it is not this particular action that we take issue with, as Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules is an important part of our community, and such actions may be overlooked if they occur in isolation.

This page was restored by another administrator; however, the original action understandably caused consternation amongst some members of the community, and an RfC was drawn up by a number of Wikipedians to resolve the dispute. Sadly, pursuant to this event, Ed Poor has ignored the standard consensus on Misplaced Pages operations, and has not paid attention to feedback from the Misplaced Pages community as a whole about his conduct. He deleted the RfC, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Deletion of VFD (archived version here) , on the grounds that it violated RfC policy; the double standard that he created by ignoring rules on one hand and enforcing them on the other is not acceptable. Another administrator restored this page; Ed deleted it for a second time. He unblocked himself () after he was blocked by a fellow administrator to provide breathing space for the dispute to settle. Ed Poor appears to have counted on his seniority and popularity to avoid discipline (, ), and thus seems to consider himself above the Misplaced Pages community in matters of action and procedure.

It is our opinion that Ed Poor has ignored the standard consensus on Misplaced Pages operations, and has not paid attention to feedback from the Misplaced Pages community as a whole about his conduct; he has consequently abused his administrator rights. This sets a poor precedent for the rest of the community, and threatens the entire spirit of collaboration and co-operation that Misplaced Pages is built on, and re-enforces the divide between administrators and users - creating an unpleasant double standard that must be avoided.

This statement is endorsed by the following:

  • Rob signs here
  • Nick signs here
  • Phroz signs here

Statement by Party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Arbitrators' Opinions on Hearing this Matter (0/0/0/0)

Keetoowah

Involved parties

Keetoowah is aggressively incivil towards other users including, but not limited to, the making of personal attacks.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Notification at User talk:Keetoowah of this entry.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Keetoowah raised 15 February 2005 asserted that Keetoowah "makes violent personal attacks on other users." It received four direct endorsements in addition to the two editors certifying the dispute. Four other editors endorsed a harsher summary describing Keetoowah as "an obnoxious user". Keetoowah's response opened "Forget it. This is a Star Chamber. I'm not even going to participate. Waste of time." TheoClarke did not participate in this RFC.

Statement by party 1

TheoClarke believed Keetoowah to be pushing a POV at Ward Churchill and challenged this at Talk:Ward Churchill. Keetoowah responded with aggressive incivility. TheoClarke suggested that this was inappropriate. Keetoowah responded with more aggressive incivility including a suggestion that any UK national is unqualified to contribute to the Ward Churchill article. Keetoowah has displayed similar behaviour patterns towards other editors and shows no sign of ameliorating such behaviour. Given that these diffs may not be in full context, I feel that the best evidence would be a reading of Talk:Ward Churchill and its archives.

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

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

Germen

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  1. Listed page for RfC. .
  2. Listed user for RfC

I am putting this up for RfA directly after RfC (see above) skipping mediation because, as was suggested to me, there is no real mediation process in place. Various attempts have already been made to compromise and mediate with Germen .

Statement by Axon

Germen has been blocked for edit warring and vandalism three times in the last two months, all in relation to the Islamophobia page and other Islam-related articles. He has also attempted to re-create deleted articles and disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point by creating alternative pages for his POV all of which must be subsequently put up for VfDs in which Germen aggressively harrassses and contradicts voters that vote against him. He also makes bad faith remarks and edits about other editors because of their alleged religious beliefs (including the compilation of a list of muslims, probable and not, on his user page ).

Attempts at dispute resolution are fruitless as Germen ignores all RfCs and attempts to mediate the dispute, remains unapologetic for his behaviour, insisting on debating even basic Misplaced Pages policy on WP:VAND, WP:3RR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, rule-lawyering Misplaced Pages policy rather than working towards it's spirit, claiming his POV is NPOV , backing up his uncited assertions with original research and modifying loosely related pages with uncited information to back up his edits. This has resulted in the Islamophobia article being protected for a month without any progress being made on the talk page.

Other inappropriate behaviour includes possible use of sockpuppets to circumvent admin blocking and double-voting , continually marking reverts and controversial edits as minor and without edit comments despite several warnings, prematurely removing dispute tags , deleting legitimate comments from talk pages and even vandalising evidence and user's comments and signatures on his own RfC page .

Mediation

I'm sincerly prepared to give mediation a try but I'm now uncertain of Germen's sincerity in giving it a fair chance given that, since he did agree to mediation, he has subsequently made several uncivil and bad faith remarks about me here (borderline personal attack), here and here . -Axon (talk|contribs) 13:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Germen

On the page islamophobia there exists an editing conflict between two groups of people, one group consisting of Muslims and left-wing Muslim apologists of which Axon and BrandonYusufToropov are active proponents, and another group of people, to which I belong, which have a more critical POV about islam. Note also that this page has been on a VfD recently and that revert wars and edit wars are and were rampant, even before I became an active participant of the Misplaced Pages community.

Note that

  • all complaints of user:Axon and user:BrandonYusufToropov regarding my edit behaviour retain to certain islam-related pages only, which are mostly POV, factually or totally disputed
  • user:BrandonYusufToropov is well-known for the frequency in which he threatens with or actually files RfC/RfA requests against Sunni islam-critical users
  • my Misplaced Pages efforts in other fields, like physics and agronomy are appreciated by other users
  • many of the supposed breaches of Misplaced Pages policies are arbitrary or committed already long ago when I just started on Misplaced Pages
  • the viewpoint of Axon and Brandon on my behaviour is a minority viewpoint
  • I have attempted to break the deadlock by making a constructive proposal which has met by indignation and obstruction by user:Axon .
  • I deny any double voting. I did vote only once at each page and I ask user:Axon to prove his accusations or to apologize.
  • My supposed vandalisation of the signature page was the addition of an illuminating link about the way this user was recruited by Axon. I am a new user so I do not have so many friends here like Axon. If the idea is to make this a contest of popularity, I will probably lose. My only hope lies in neutral mediation.
  • My evidence of the religious bias and motivation of many of the people who support the RfC against me is regarded as the ignorance of this RfC, which is an outright misrepresentation.
  • user:Axon and user:BrandonYusufToropov refuse to discuss different viewpoints on their merits, but prefer to attempt to ban users in order to win. Legitimate cited primary and secondary sources are rejected as original research, subjective sources, such as defintions by the leftist 'think tank' Runnymede Trust are presented as universally valid.

According to my opinion and that of several other people, this RfA is an attempt of user:Axon and user:BrandonYusufToropov to avoid neutral mediation about the Islamophobia page and silence critics of their politically biased POV about islam. I would like to suggest to dismiss this RfA and request mediation instead on the Islamophobia article. I think Misplaced Pages should be a high-quality information source, not a playground for frustrated political activists or jihadis. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 10:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

on idea of mediation
  • I agree. I think it will be difficult to find a user which subscribes to Axons viewpoint, so I suggest he lists a number of candidates which are acceptable to him. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 11:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I still wholeheartedly support arbitration. The last-added bad-faith remarks of Axon seem not to indicate that he is in favour of arbitration. He interprets the statement of facts as a personal insult. Nevertheless, I would like to stress my willingness to cooperate to arbitration, as stated, and my eager awaital for impartial and fact-supported arbitration. I not want Axon to be banned from Misplaced Pages, as he wants with me, as manifest from this RfC and RfAr attempts in lieu of a negotiated settlement about the content of the Islamophobia page, of which I have been a proponent since the beginning. I believe in freedom of expression and am opposed to censorship. Whining about other users is kindergarten behaviour and I am not a child.
On Habaps comments

Habap has interfered on Axons request and is a co-signer of the RfC against me. As all people who monitor the edit and reversion history of the Islamophobia page can easily see, there are two parties involved which have a opposing view about the correct definition of islamophobia. Stating this is not slander, stating this is stating the fact. Besides I do not understand how being called Muslim or Muslim apologist amounts to slander. May be that Habap considers those two words as bad words themselves? In this case, I think he himself has a problem, not I. --Germen (Talk | Contribs File:Nl small.gif) 14:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

On Ril's comment

Ril as well as Habap signed the RfC against me and started a failed VfD attempt against "Religious Persecution by Muslims". Not satisfied with the obvious result, he started a new attempt less than 48 hours after the first attempt failed.. This attempt bombed as well with a 3 versus 20 against-delete vote.

I encountered a series of highly POV articles about islam-related subjects -not only in my opinion, but as well in the opinion of a number of users who have advanced knowledge about islam- , so I decided to join in and help to make them more NPOV. Originally there existed only an article about "Persecution of Muslims". For the record, I did vote in favour of this article. In order to make this article more balanced, there should be a counterweight, which was originally named "Persecution of non-Muslims", but on Mustafaa's suggestion renamed to "Religious Persecution by Muslims". This article survived the usual VfD vote of islam-critical articles by Muslim apologists. I have cooperated constructively with several authors, Muslims as well as non-Muslims in order to make this article well-sourced, as less as POV as possible and make the POV of mainstream and progressive Muslims be heard. See Talk Page.

On Zeno's comment

Zeno did not sign the RfC in favour of or against me. I agree to a large extent with his analysis about Axon's behaviour and the state of affairs at the Islamophobia article.

On Saduj's comment

Obviously a joke, indeed. As the Misplaced Pages community is not a Muslim-controlled territory or entity, even per fundamentalist Muslim standards invoking the Shari'ah in this case is not applicable. A fundamentalist Muslim would never make this mistake. Agreed with Heraclius that it is funny.

General

I deplore the loss of administrator time due to this unnecessary RfC and RfAr filings against me, while a mediation effort about islamophobia would be in place. I would like to stress that I am an defendant and not responsible for this waste of time, I cannot do but defend myself against unfair charges.

Statement by Habap (interested third party)

I take issue with several of Germen's comments here.

  • His statement that "editing conflict between two groups of people, one group consisting of Muslims and left-wing Muslim apologists" is an apparent attempt to slander anyone who opposes him.
  • He states that "the viewpoint of Axon and Brandon on my behaviour is a minority viewpoint", which is inaccurate. If we insist on looking at the numbers, more than half (I hesitate to state "most") of those signing some part of the RfC seem to share Axon's viewpoint.
  • His reference to his "supposed vandalisation of the signature page" is an attempt to miminize his breach of ettiquette. While his intentions may not have been vandalous, the action itself was vandalism. It should also be noted that I didn't know Axon before this and have never collaborated with him before. Axon asked me to look things over since I seemed to agree with him, not because I am his friend.

Thanks for your time. --Habap 14:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Saduj (interested third party)

Since this is a Islamic related arguement, Sharia law should apply. How can someone who is not a Muslim write about an Islamic page? It is haram. Statements which reflect poorly on Islam should be forbidden to be written as they are insensitive to Muslims. Arbiration should be decided by a male Muslim. Saduj al-Dahij 19:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Note that Saduj is a new editor and is probably not what he pretends to be. Having interacted with many devout (sometimes infuriatingly so) Muslims in the course of working on some of the Islamic articles, I believe that Saduj is an anti-Muslim editor presenting a malicious parody of a devout Muslim. His comments should not be taken as anything other than those of an "agent provocateur". Zora 01:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
He is actually quite funny.Heraclius 06:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Statement by -Ril- (interested third party)

Germen seems to be trying to push a "Muslims are evil" POV. For example, he/she created the "Prejudices (Islam)" article, which was VFD'd, and then recreated it as the "Islamophilia" article, so as to suggest that supporting Islam was somehow a dubious behaviour, and so that it could have "counter arguments" to supporting Islam. The article was deleted. Subsequently Germen created the "persecution of non-muslims" article, seemingly to cast islam in a negative light once again. This having been VFD'd, he/she created a series of articles "Religious persecution by X", the articles were all paper-thin, except the Islam" one, which Germen added to extensively, suggesting that the only purpose of creating the series was to suggest that Islam is substantially more persecutory than the others. This POV pushing is quite unacceptable, and his/her behaviour indicates that without a ruling by the arbitration committee, Germen has no intention, or inclination, to stop. ~~~~ 18:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

In fairness to Germen, he only started the Religious Persecution by Muslims article. I took this idea and intended to make a series from it. --Irishpunktom\ 21:42, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Zeno (interested third party)

Axon's editing activities on the Islamophobia article are static and unresponsive to change, are not affected by the rational discourse of others and do not influence them. His edits are irrational, and he makes no attempt to confront the intellectual challenges posed against them. Axons rejects out of hand any criticisms of his rigid insistence of using the ridiculous and arbitrary definition of "Islamaphobia" pushed by the Runnymede Trust, a left-wing, Muslim funded, political lobbying group. Axon's editing activities on the article are aggresively geared towards a political agenda. --Zeno of Elea 00:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Agree the istance on using the Runnymede Trust definition paralyses the article because per that definition any negative or skeptical opinion about Islam/Muslims is "Islamophobia", and thus racist. The net result is that this overly board definition is used to brand critics of Islam as "Islamophobic" therby stifling debate, and creating a chilling effect.
As the Runnymede Trust is in the buisness of fighting racism, it makes sense to have test criterion that finds lots of racists. Axon/BYT, are the only people maintaining that there is any controvesy about the RT definition being overly broad. Everyone else working on the article prefers to use a working defintion along the lines of Islamophobia a prejudice, irrational fear, or hatered of Muslims or Islam.Klonimus 04:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

  • Accept - this is borderline, but it's a real dispute and we don't have anything like a reliable mediation team to refer it to. Unless Germen can find a mediator acceptable to Axon real quick - David Gerard 11:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept Fred Bauder 21:34, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject. I skimmed the article and saw Germen's well referenced additions being reverted on sight . We shouldn't be getting involved in content issues, and I think this needs to spend more time in the rest of the dispute resolution process. →Raul654 21:54, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

User:Gabrielsimon

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • A quick look at Mr. Simon's talk page will make it clear that I (UninvitedCompany), Ed Poor, and many others have done our best to work with him and deal with him leniently. There is presently an Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Gabrielsimon, and I find the ruleslawyering reponse to be particularly illuminative. I believe that mediation is unlikely to be helpful, see my comments below for rationale.

Statement by party 1

Mr. Simon has been blocked for 3RR violations on no fewer than six instances in the past three months, in addition to duplicate blocks and reblocks by admins fiddling with the block durations. These blocks have been placed by eight different administrators (when duplicate blocks are included), making it clear this is not anyone's personal vendetta.

Mr. Simon's past edit wars have been fuelled by his unique views on capitalization, punctuation, and animal rights. His most recent edit war has been on September 11, 2001 attacks (history), where he has become the most recent in a long list of those who simultaneously espouse conspiracy theories and relabel the attacks as something other than terrorism. I can find no contributions of brilliant prose in his editing history that would serve to mitigate these problems.

While Mr. Simon does appear to mean well, he has not responded well to several patient attempts to help him contribute in a constructive fashion in accordance with project norms. It is for this reason that I believe that mediation would be unhelpful; Misplaced Pages is not therapy and past efforts attempting it have been notably ineffective.

Respectfully, The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

ive been trying to adapt how i do things to more constructive methods, the aforementioned edits on the 9/.11 page were me trying to remove the word terrorist, becasue i thougth that it was a word to avoid , according to policey. people tend to misinterpret what i say, partly because of not so great choices in how i say things, this happens irl as well, so i simply got used to it. some times people even get mad at me for my spelling mistakes, which i do try not to make, but a combination of nerve damamge and a low attention span becasue of ADHD doesnt makle this the easiest thjing in the world. i personal;ly think that the uninvited compay person is over reacting, but thats just me.

its not like im not putting effort into trying to do things better. Gabrielsimon 21:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

i havnt vandalized, and i havnt doe an thing even remotely simmilar, id say that should lend me some credibillity Gabrielsimon 21:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

most of the blocks are the result of me not being carefull, and accidentally ovweerdoing things, with respect to 3rr. its a part of the qttention span thing... its not as if i am unrepentant, but if your going to look at mty talk page, why not check the archives as well. Gabrielsimon 21:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

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

Requests for Clarification

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

Iasson and User:Bank of Misplaced Pages (and reincarnations)

Iasson is currently subject to a ban of 1 year or 1 year and 3 months following an arbitration case, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Iasson. At WP:AN/I it has apparently been confirmed that User:Bank of Misplaced Pages and associated reincarnations are Iasson, if this is true then it is clearly in violation of the ban.

There is no mention in the arbitration pages of whether the ban should be reset (as it does in other arbcom judgments) if it is violated. It is also unclear whether the two bans imposed were to run consecutively or concurrently. Please could you therefore answer the following questions:

  • What is the length of Iasson's ban? 12 months (bans run concurrently) or 15 months (bans run consecutively).
  • If it is proven that he is in violation of the ban, can it be reset or should some other action be taken?

Thanks, Thryduulf 19:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

  • One year is our usual maximum ban. In this case I would say the bans run concurrently to the maximum year. If Iasson is evading the ban by editing under another account the ban is reset. I don't think we have a specific page for noting this, I would suggest doing so on his user page. -- sannse (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, in this case, I very much disagree with sannse. In the past (in a Lir case, and the Shorne-et-al case) we established precedent that bans run consecutively. →Raul654 07:32, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Archive

Category: