Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Duncharris (talk | contribs) at 22:40, 5 November 2005 (→Statement by [] | []). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• ]

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.

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

The 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 or refactor discussion without comment.

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

Current requests

Template

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

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

Ben

Involved parties

• Aggrieved party: Ben | talk
• Party 1: Administrator FeloniousMonk | talk (main conduct complaint)
• Party 2: Administrator RoyBoy | talk (secondary conduct complaint)
• Party 3: Administrator Duncharris | talk (secondary conduct complaint)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• FeloniousMonk has been informed.
• RoyBoy has been informed.
• Duncharris has been informed.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Ben has spoken with administrators Ryan Delaney | talk and SlimVirgin | talk regarding the problem. Ben also filed an article RFC regarding the content of the article which did not prove fruitful. FeloniousMonk has informed Ben that he will not participate in a Request for comment regarding his conduct. .

Statement by Ben | talk

FeloniousMonk is an administrator who edits and participates in the discussion page of the article Intelligent Design|talk. The user is currently involved in a dispute with Ben regarding the knowledge structure of the topic and the characterization of the current article. Ben's comments were initially hostile towards the structure of the article, saying the article was "horrible." While inappropriate, this opinion regarding the article is not unique to Ben . FeloniousMonk's response was off-topic and dismissive of Ben's concerns. Ben then modified two sentences in the disambiguation paragraph to what he believed more accurately reflected the nature of the article and which was helpful. FeloniousMonk quickly reverted this change without explanation, violating revert policy Subsequently Ben has been explaining his views and position . FeloniousMonk's responses are off-topic and dismissive and do not adequately address Ben's position in the slightest. The majority of his responses consist only of his opinion without explanation, for example simply stating a change is "inaccurate and POV" and generally acting contrary to assume good faith policy. Ben also believes FeloniousMonk is using his networks as administrator to further obstruct Ben's and other potential editors' contributions .

Ben's position regarding the article content is that as the topic is presented and defined, the article violates No personal essays policy.

Ben asserts FeloniousMonk is conciously and repeatedly obstructing Ben's and other editors' ability to contribute and as such is violating ownership of articles policy and assume good faith policy.

Many other users also have strong concerns about the article and about FeloniousMonk's conduct and violations of ownership policy. FeloniousMonk has even claimed that "new editors edit this article all the time," however in a week's period the changes are not substantial though the article averages 15-20 edits/day and the discussion page 40-50 edits/day.

On November 5, 2005, FeloniousMonk used his administration privileges to block Ben for inserting into the introduction, almost verbatim, FeloniousMonk's own assertion regarding the factual accuracy of the introduction .

RoyBoy is an administrator and has violated civility policy and troll policy by engaging with contributors on the Intelligent Design talk page whose comments served no purpose other than to insult the contributors to the article. Both RoyBoy and FeloniousMonk used this as an opportunity to insult the user. Later RoyBoy generally made offensive comments regarding creationists . When confronted about his actions he said "LOL, yeah that's my favorite" in reference to what he called his "joke." Later he said "I'd concur its needless to improving the article, but that's not the end all be all of a discussion page. Of course if you had enough experience to be an admin; you'd stand a good chance of understanding that."

Duncharris is an administrator and has violated civility policy by referring to Ben as "a lowly troll." Duncharris was not involved in any way with the dispute on the Intelligent Design talk page and showed up solely to make this comment. Duncharris subsequently reverted without comment a contribution by Ben on the Coingate article. The reversion was entirely unnecessary and inaccurate. Duncharris had previously not contributed to that page. Ben asserts this is a case of intimidation and harassment. Ben further believes that Duncharris' actions were a result of communication with RoyBoy or FeloniousMonk with an intent to harass. Ben also is concerned that an earlier case of vandalism on a similar page may be related .

Statement by FeloniousMonk | talk

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by RoyBoy | talk

My first RfAr, I'm in the big leagues now. Ben has a habit of taking things out of context and attempting to read my mind in order to prove something and/or silence/bully me by making baseless/opinionated allegations and then calling for my resignation. On top of that he seems to think he can beat us over the head with WikiPolicy. Which makes me inclined to not like him; and I hope WikiPolicy has some sort of mechanism with which to send a message even Ben can't ignore; that Ben's not only in the wrong, but is going about it the wrong way. In summation; repeated attempts to read my mind, motivations, actions indicates to me – that as of now – Ben is not suited for Misplaced Pages. <--- 131 words, not too shabby! - RoyBoy 22:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Dunc | talk

Ben is a lowly troll, as can be seen by his trolling at talk:intelligent design and indeed this frivilous complaint. He is the latest in the long line of religiously-inspired creationist POV warriors to try to tell us that there are POV problems with the articles on evolution or intelligent design because they follow the policy at WP:NPOV#pseudoscience:

represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view

A lot of work has gone into these articles to make them NPOV on a tricky subject. (Yet again) A newbie turns up and wants to completely rewrite it. Yet he does not understand the (admitedly quite complex) motivations and subtleties of ID, for example drifting into theology, and cannot provide a scientific theory of creationism.

Yet irritated that he's not got his way he's throwing his rattle out of his pram and complaining that there is a cabal. This RFA is simply another escalation in a childish harassment campaign. I can hardly believe that I am being forced to respond to this trolling, and anyone just needs to look at his RFC to see how unreasonable this chap is being.

I reverted his coingate since I believe he can't be trusted, though that whole article is a mess and he really couldn't've made it any worse! I have no interest or knowledge on that subject, and reverting him may have been an error on my part, but he's just nitpicking and his own record speaks for itself.

I really have found this little episode quite amusing and for the record would like to say that I am not intimidated in any way by this pathetic individual. Dunc|☺ 22:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

Pigsonthewing

Involved parties

• User:Pigsonthewing - The user whose behavior is in question

• User:Phroziac - Administrator; directly involved
• User:Karmafist - Administrator; directly involved
• User:Linuxbeak - Administrator; indirectly involved

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Phroziac 02:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Karmafist 02:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Linuxbeak | Talk 02:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Notice given to Pigsonthewing
• Second notice given to Pigsonthewing
• Third notice given to Pigsonthewing

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Pigsonthewing

(It may be worth noting that Mabbet did not participate in the above RfC in any way, nor did he comment on it elsewhere as far as I can tell, not even to respond to direct questions about it; essentially he has behaved as though it did not exist.) PurplePlatypus

Statement by Karmafist

User:Pigsonthewing, also known as Andy Mabbett, POTW, or Pigs, is a serial breaker of WP:CIVIL, WP:WQT, WP:TROLL and Key Rule #4 of WP:RULES. When I met him a few weeks ago, I was trying to help intercede in a revert war between himself and G-Man at Coleshill, Warwickshire. Little did I know that he was also in the middle of revert wars at Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania and British Sea Power at the same time. My attempts to help alleviate his lack of cooperation with other editors was then met with constant trolling by Pigs and empty allegations of administrative abuse until he attempted to sabotage my nomination to The MedCom. I've come to believe that it's not possible to work with Pigs, and I see no other option than to bring this to the arbcom. A large amount of evidence can be found Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Pigsonthewing. Karmafist 01:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Linuxbeak

I have only limited experience dealing with Pigsonthewing, but what I have observed can be summarized in two words: total stuborness. He did not even acknowledge the existance of the RFC opened up against him, and as of this posting he has yet to indicate that he will answer the RFAr that has been opened up against him. Instead, he continues to target Karmafist in an attempt to discredit him. I only stepped in to make Pigsonthewing aware that the consequences of being uncivil in the way he has been bring dire consequences (not to mention me getting utterly sick and tired of having him post on the Administrators' noticeboard "Abuse by Karmafist" almost daily). Linuxbeak | Talk 14:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Update by Linuxbeak

I have now notified Pigsonthewing twice that he has to answer this RFAr. Seeing that Pigsonthewing has edited pages since being alerted three times, I am fairly certain that he is deliberately ignoring the RFAr (much in the same way as he ignored his RFC). Please see "Requests for clarification" for a relevant question. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Pigsonthewing

Please limit your statement to 500 words

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

Requests for Clarification

Regarding parties that do not answer an RFAr

What is the policy regarding parties that are subject to an RFAr but do not answer or even acknowledge the existance of the RFAr? I am refering to User:Pigsonthewing. What happens if he just blatantly ignores the calls on his talk page to answer the RFAr filed? I mean, you can't just let the case grow old and moldy. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a clear display of what many editors have had to deal with regarding POTW. He respects nothing but his own viewpoint, everything else just doesn't exist to him. Karmafist 01:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

If he does not wish to add evidence in his own defense, that will certainly not be to his benefit. Dmcdevit·t 01:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

But what actually happens, does the RFAr just continue and reach a verdict without his defense? Banes 06:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I assume so. If arbitration is meant to be corrective measure against misbehaving editors, it can't be a voluntary action. This is where you go when mediation has failed. Of course IANAA (I Am Not An Arbitrator :) Dmcdevit·t 06:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

We look at the evidence and accept it if appropriate; notify him that it was accepted and go ahead and hear the case. Fred Bauder 19:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Archive

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

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution