Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Copperchair (talk | contribs) at 08:12, 24 October 2005 (→Statement by party 1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Wikipediocracy-related conduct   21 October 2024 4/1/2
Marine 69-71 Motions 26 October 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently 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.

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)

Stevertigo v. Reddi

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • WP:RFM/IW - Mediation request open for over a week. Slow prompts this filing.
  • WP:RFC/IW - Request for Comment - little response

Statement by party 1

Regarding the nature of, NPOV terms, and "technical definition" to define the "Iraq War" concept in the Iraq War article and other articles. This is more an issues debate which would benefit from findings regarding NPOV and Style. Reddi adheres to a "technical" definition of the concept which rests upon claims of Iraqs current sovereignty. I claim such is POV and that the role of the article is first to disambiguate the variant definitions using the term "Iraq War" (also lowercase). As this is IMHO an issues dispute and not a conduct dispute, I understand that the Arbcom may not be suited to this request. Nevertheless some authoritative and binding guidance needs to be imposed upon the potentially destructive debate, as Reddi's excessive use of disputed tags and reverts is rapidly making this a matter of conduct rather than issues. Sincerely, -St|eve 21:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Outside Party, Mr. Tibbs

Other than the issues Steve brought up, Reddi made an "attempt to keep a NPOV article on the war proper"[1] by making a copy of his version of Iraq War circa October 5th, and pasting it onto War of Iraq. War of Iraq will most likely soon be deleted and redirected: [2], but that doesn't change the fact that his edits have been disruptive on these topics. And recently it looks like he's started doing the same kind of thing to the Post-Invasion article: [3], under an anonymous IP. The little involvement I've had with Reddi was on the Iraq war (disambiguation) page, and on my talk page about the same issue. Mr. Tibbs 00:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

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

  • Reject. I don't see anything worth our time here; not enough evidence of a conduct issue to arbitrate. Forks are bad, mmmkay? Kelly Martin 01:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, at least for now. I know this is a difficult issue and while no nifty solution springs to mind, I think further discussion may be productive. One principle I suggest following is to made a decision before making major changes. Fred Bauder 15:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gadugi vs. User:Fvw

WP:RFM was Rejected and Deleted without mediation occuring. David Gerard has blocked any emails reaching the mailing list.

User:Fvw re-notified User_Talk:Fvw case was reopened.

Statement by party 1

User Frank V Waveren had been engaging in abuse of his admin powers. He has blocked my accounts from editing as the result of the posting of a page on another wiki not located on the Wikipedia website. I also started a page about him on wiki based upon his linux contributions, and he deleted the page without going through Afd. This user has also posted private Bash_rc logs from kernel.org to this site which violate wikipedia policies obtained from my private accounts. I have been notified by comcast.net and other websites that Fvw has been using Wikipedias reporting systems and name to report me for frivilous "abuse of policy" reports to my home ISP and other accounts. After speaking with comcast it is clear they are ignoring his harassment. He blocked my account and addresses after I informed him I would file an Arbcom against him for his conduct.

I am 45 years old, I have four daughters, a son, and five grandchildren, and I resent a 23 year from Europe having the free reign on this site to block whomever he wants. Wikipedia is his personal playground, and its gone to his head. I have had excellent relationships with ever other admin on this site except this individual, and I have enjoyed creating content here. It's time a grownup stepped in and revoked his admin status. Blocking my access based on the content of other websites is out of line. Sending bogus abuse emails as a form of harassment is also out of line. He also recently visited the site where a page about him was posted, and vandalized the page, which resulted in him being blocked by me permanently. Site is [[4]]. I have taken down this site permanently. The real issue is can a Wikipedia admin block accounts on this site on the basis of content on another internet site. I have also obtained the emails and logs from non-wikipedia entities Fvw has been harassing and I plan to provide them to your honors.

THe simple fact is this. If you people keep allowing this type of conduct, it reflects negatively on this organization. I have withdrawn all legal issues from this site, and have been content to simply edit here. I want this abusive child dealt with. I received some interesting emails from Safarrti after I was blocked by Fvw. I have to say, I don't want to end up like that person, and I have seen the abuse done to him by folks on this site, and its shameful.

Thanks.

Jeff V. Merkey

[Re. Fred's comment]

Dear Fred, Legal Release Granted. Jeff V. Merkey 67.137.28.189 01:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Signed User:Gadugi 67.137.28.189 02:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Motion is made to Recuse Kelly Martin and Mindspiller on the grounds of prejudicial defect and violation of the Canons of Judicial (arbitorial) conduct. The previous language was removed and Fred Bauder's request was honored. Kelly Martin voted for another member and disregarded the ammended response. I am entitled to a hearing to present the evidence. The issue was rejected by the mediators due to their inability to render an opinion or decide the issue. The issue is does Wikipedia wield plenary jurisdiction on other websites which an admin on this site doesn't like and does that give him the right and authority under Wikipedia jurisprudence to revoke rights on this site on that basis. Does it also give him the right to stalk and pursue an editor to other sites, break into these sites under the guise of Wikipedia and Wikimedia authority claiming he is an "agent" of wikipedia policing "vandalism" (i.e. arguments over article content, 3RR), and upload private scripts, source code, intellectual property, and personal information and post it for public viewing on Wikipedia. I have verified that in addition to posting false information and downloading my scripts, this editor also downloaded private Source code from my development areas on kernel.org to servers in the Netherlands (the capital of software piracy) and then turned around and revoked all my accounts and harassed me for weeks. Signed User:Gadugi. And "The Epopt" says he in considering endorsing this type of conduct? The abuse reports to comcast were not related to Wikipedia, they involved the Utah Native American Church website and Wolf Mountain Group LLC website, LEGITIMATE business entities unrelated to Wikipedia. The reports claimed websites abuse of THESE websites. They were read only websites for the public. Comcast blocked all the websites, interfered with a business selling software, and a lawfully organized Church. The accounts have been restored, but not without several days of hassles. I have also offered a formal release of claims, and the arbitors don't seem to get it. Perhaps now you will understand. 67.137.28.189 05:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)

Side discussion moved to talk. --cesarb 13:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silverback

Involved parties

172 (talk · contribs) -- Concern over Silverback's conduct related to the deletion of Categories:Totalitarian dictators, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and his own RfC

Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) -- Concern over Silverback's conduct related to Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda

Silverback (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Notice on his talk page. [5]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Documented in and attempted in conjunction with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback. All attempts to get Silverback to focus on content, not contributors he dislikes, have failed.

Csloat pleaded with him to stop the nonsense with posts to his talk page here and here.

Also, his violations of the 3RR were reported here (the result was he was blocked) and after his block he came back and made 4 reverts, so he was reported a second time (though this second report was never commented on by admins).

Statement by 172

For further details see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silverback.

In the past several weeks, Silverback has been exceedingly argumentative on talk pages. He has made it tedious to keep arguing with him, as he offers weak (but vehement) defenses in talk that usually ignore the overwhelming evidence brought to his attention by other editors.

Silverback has repeatedly engaged in revert wars and disruptive arguments on talk pages while ignoring the three revert rule, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Harassment, and Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Most disruptively, he insults fellow editors who disagree with his opinions, often implying that they are "immoral," "unethical," or engaging in "abuses of power" with no basis, and drags fellow editors into endless circular arguments on Talk pages, most notably over his personal issues with other editors. Silverback generally does not play well with others. Lately I have been his principal target of harassment.

Each day Silverback's denouncements of me on pages completely unrelated to my edits become more extreme. His pattern personal attacks and incivility was clearly articulated by User:Bishonen, who relayed to Silverback on 00:12, 15 October 2005, "You've made it clear that you dislike not only his editing, but his ideology, himself, and what you guess or believe about his private life. So what, really? You're an experienced editor, you know Wikipedia is no place for airing opinions about those things. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." [6] When the advise apparently fell on deaf ears, Bishonen stated to Silverback on 00:12, 15 October 2005, "I don't know him, but I don't see anything in your specific accusations to warrant any attacks on his 'character' whatsoever. I don't see why he should put up with continuous abuse from you, either. Just stop it." [7] That comment was made before some of Silverback's most egregious behavior on his own RfC.

Concurrently, Silverback remains involved in a POV war on pages unrelated to the Categroy:Totalitarian dictators dispute. On 18:08, 13 October 2005, Csloat noted on that his conduct has been shown similar patterns on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda: "[H]e's doing the same sort of thing on Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda and has been for several weeks now. It's tedious to keep arguing with him and he steamrolls edits of the page itself (and reversions) with deceptive edit summaries, offering weak (but vehement) defenses in talk that usually ignore the most significant edits he makes. [8]

While a long-term ban might not be in order, Silverback is in clear need of a personal attack probation. His behavior with respect to me has also been extreme enough to warrant the kinds of restrictions that have been applied to Everyking with respect to Snowspinner.

Statement by Silverback

It should be noted that User:Redwolf24 has already unilaterally handled this "dispute" by blocking Silverback for 24 hours, essentially preempting action by the ARBCOM. See the RfC/Silverback for details.

172 has made no attempt to settle this dispute. I've made offers which he has refused or ignored. He started the RfC/user:Silverback, and that is not complete, in fact, he has had his say, and I am only beginning mine. But he didn't like what I was writing. So he is trying to shortcut the process again. He refused mediation, he thinks we are irreconcilable.

The strange thing: This is not even an active dispute. It was over once I lost the vote for undelete. I had no intention of engaging 172 on anything. We only got into this because of his misconduct on the vote for deletion of Category:Totalitarian dictator. And I have documented my decision to let that slide, until 172 also went after the article by the same name, and the previous deletion caused by his misconduct was being used as a speedy delete excuse. I consider the whole affair over. And I don't think anything will ever happen between us again, unless he interferes with the operation of the system again. I believe that those who abuse the system should exposed. I guess if the arbcom takes this up, it should consider some sanction against 172, but I am not seeking that, although his unwillingness to participate in the dispute resolution process that he felt a need to initiate is frustrating.

I recommend against taking this up. And if 172 wants to drop the RfC, I am willing to drop that too.--Silverback 08:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

addition to Statement by Silverback

Csloat's "pleas" on my talk page are nothing more than self serving mischaracterizations of what was going on. His report of the alleged 3RR violation that no admin has commented on, was deceptively reported to you above. Perhaps the reason that no admin acted is that they had the assistance of my responses to the report, which csloat chose not to include in his link. [9]. It wasn't a 3RR violation, and csloat's failure to be able to understand that is probably more responsible for his frustration than anything I a have done. These two are trying to short circuit the dispute resolution process, and have never tried to resolve the same dispute (their disputes are different) by doing anything other than normal editing in response.

In response to csloat's "2003 invasion of iraq" allegation against me of a single revert (yes, one) is that the agreement he reached with one other editor on that page means nothing. That page needs many more for a true consensus. Csloat is used to a much less busy page, spending most of his time guarding his "Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda" territory.

So, if they are jumping ahead to the arbitration case, what is the status of the still only partially worked RfC? Is it officially still active pending a possible acceptance of this for arbitration? Or does their request for arb represent an abandonment of the RfC? --Silverback 00:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by csloat

For a while Silverback has constantly steamrolled the page [[Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda with edits that have been refuted in talk. He is rude, disruptive, and refuses to engage in discussion about it; he simply makes his points in an imperial manner and makes his changes. When I or others resist this and present further arguments in talk he simply repeats his position and then engages in personal attacks. He reverts his changes - frequently violating the 3RR, and even once being blocked for it - in spite of arguments against those changes. He did the same to 2003 invasion of Iraq as well. He sometimes makes major changes including massive deletions in order to make a point rather than in order to improve the entry. He also utilizes deceptive edit summaries -- for example he will make a minor grammatical correction along with a major substantive change, while his edit summary will only account for the grammatical correction. When this is pointed out in talk he will defend himself on the grammatical correction but pretend he doesn't know what you mean about the major substantive change. This behavior is annoying and disruptive and makes it impossible to assume good faith. I have elaborated on this in the RfC but will outline just a few pieces of evidence of his conduct here:

  1. here is an example of deceptive edit summaries -- summary states that "the most recently discussed quote appears to be properly attributed" yet the dispute there was not about attribution of the quote at all, but its propriety to a particular section of the article. More recently, see this edit and this one and note the edit summaries -- in both cases he deceptively only addresses one word of the article in his edit summaries, while his edits delete the information in a whole sentence. My reversions of those edits point this out in the summaries and I discussed this in talk at this location.
  2. here the user has made many reversions and deletions on this page with cryptic explanations at best. The example linked here shows him blanking some 80% of the page, including most of the relevant information, in order to make some kind of point about the significance of Able Danger. He's been pushing this point over and over, despite it being refuted, and sometimes engages in bizarre edits of unrelated material in order to make a point. See his edit summaries in for October 3-5 along with the edits (and reversions by myself and others) for more evidence of this sort of behavior.
  3. 2003 Invasion of Iraq: Here he makes a revert to an earlier version, eliminating rewrites that had been discussed and justified in talk (see here) as a result of an argument between myself and another user. Silverback stepped into this debate by reverting to the other user without addressing these arguments.
  4. His personal attacks are scattered throughout the talk page of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda and the Archive of that discussion page; see for example this section or this one or my attempts to address his deceptive edit summaries here.
  5. (New example added 10/22/05):Silverback has already been taken to task by others for removing their words on discussion pages as well as on the RfC page. I noticed he did this to my response to him on the RfC page recently in order to make it seem like I had not responded to him and that I was responding to another user. Here he deleted my comments and then he "restored" them here, in a place where they do not make any sense and where I seem to be responding to another user's comments (I notice he specifically chose a user who had proposed an "agreement" which my first sentence seems to refer to after Silverback's changes). This is an obvious attempt to undermine the RfC process by creating confusion and by making it seem as if his "agreement" proposal was ignored.--csloat 20:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Addendum to statement by csloat

Silverback alleges above that I do not understand the 3RR and then accuses me of deception. I linked my entry on the 3RR page through diffs; no attempt was made to hide the fact that Silverback and I had an exchange on that page that followed. As you can see from the exchange, Silverback asserts that he did not violate the 3RR but he is simply wrong. What he did was revert with a minor change in order to try to skate around the 3RR, but substantively his change was still a reversion (this was noted by an admin the previous time he violated the 3RR as he made roughly the same argument there; this time he added the bizarre comment that the 3RR process was "immoral" but otherwise made the same claim). Nevertheless, this is only one of the many problems with his conduct I noted above. User 172 and I did not sign this page due to violations of the 3RR; we did so because of larger problems with this user's conduct on these pages. His 3RR violations were a symptom of these problems, not the problem itself. A much bigger problem is his frequent use of personal attacks to substitute for argument and discussion, and that problem is displayed in his addendum above -- e.g. dismissing my attempts to resolve the issue by commenting on his user talk page (as is wikipedia policy) by calling those attempts "nothing more than self serving mischaracterizations" -- this is sheer namecalling that he never backs up with any evidence or analysis of the claims at issue. He then discusses the 2003 invasion of Iraq edits I linked above (ignoring many of the other examples I offered, as per his usual style) and claims that my edits were some sort of violation of consensus. Yet he should be well aware that the issue there was not consensus - Wikipedia editors are encouraged to "be bold." What I did was make substantive changes to the page and justify each of those changes with an elaborate explanation that can be found in this diff which I also linked above. Silverback went in and reverted my changes without so much as a comment on the arguments I developed on that talk page. The issue is not the number of times he reverts a page; the issue is the way he steamrolls these edits while paying no attention whatsoever to the arguments made justifying alternative wordings.--csloat 01:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/1/0)


Copperchair

Involved parties

Summary
  • Edit warring
  • 3RR violation
  • Deceptive edit summaries
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

User talk:Copperchair and his talk archive have numerous attempts to talk to Copperchair and get him to stop reverting, and his the RFC against him (for reverting and user talk blanking) succeeded in getting him to archive instead of blanking his user talk page, but failed to produce any results when it comes to reversions. (This page has a handful of examples of his undiscussed and often deceptive reverts.)

I attempted to open a request for mediation over several style disputes in the Star Wars articles, including the ones Copperchair was involved in. (It is archived here.) It never really coalesced, however, because, while the other users were willing to abide by Redwolf24's proposed voluntary revert parole, Copperchair gave his parole but continued to revert. Three of the other involved users took this as a sign of bad faith, and pulled out. (Technically, User:Philwelch didn't pull out but declined to be involved because of what he saw as Copperchair's bad faith.) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 1

I have not violated consensus, as I never received an answer as to what it was ([10]). Regarding the "gentle" requests on my talk page, those which I blanked were bulling and accused my of vandalism for my good faith edits, which are backed by the movies’ end credits. I have discussed the matter on [11]. In my edits, I have been using an objective parameter (the movies' end credits, but limited to those that Coffee suggested in [12]), while others have used a subjective one (they include the ones they think are important). It is obvious that the filmmakers are the ones who decide who’s important and who’s not in the end credits, and I feel that if Wikipedia is to be accurate, as it should be being it an encyclopedia, we should follow the filmmakers’ decision. No matter how much discussion there is on the subject, the answer is right there in the end credits. Consensus on this matter is irrelevant. So the issue comes down to this: do you prefer the articles to be accurate or to be determined by consensus?

As for my so-called “deceptive edit summaries”, they aren’t, because I say what I changed since my previous edit, which I consider to be the correct version, and which hasn’t been proved wrong since no decision was made on the Rfc filed against me, and no mediation was made. Also, note that in all articles I have kept all the good edits made by others since my last edit.

As for A Link to the Past’s accusation of me calling him a “loser”, I accept I did, but not before he called me that ([13]). All I have been doing is trying to make Wikipedia accurate. Copperchair 01:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Philwelch's hypocrital statements about my "blunt personal attacks", I would like to add that it is HE who has called me a "dick" and an "asshole" [14]. Regarding the "consensus", there is no mention to it in my talk page, as he falsely claims (follow the link he provided to see that he is lying). As for consensus, is it correct for an encyclopaedia to ignore FACTS just because there is consensus about it? Lastly, I would like to add that he has "hijacked" the Darth Vader article, using it as if it was his, edit warring and not following any consensus, but his will. See the history page of that article to see the countless reverts he has arbitrarily made to other's contributions, as well as its Talk page to see his constant questioning of other’s edits.

Finally, what is wrong about the comments about awaiting a decision on the matter in my edit summaries, which A Man In Black (conspire mentions? Isn't it true that there is a decision pending? Copperchair 08:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by party 2

I'll keep mine very brief. Basically, I agree with everything A Man in Black said. I'd just like to point out that Copperchair's user page reflects the POV that A Man in Black speculates (basically, that Copperchair believes the 1997 versions are The One True Version), and that the deceptive edit summaries -- which are often outright lies -- are driving me absolutely batty. He refuses to engage, has been entirely unreasonable for far too long, and has yet to demonstrate anything resembling "good faith" after being gently (and not-so-gently) chided to change his behaviour.--chris.lawson 04:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't that much else to say that hasn't already been said - deceptive edit summaries, refusal to cooperate on anything, demanding that Lucas' POV be used in the article over what was decided on in consensus, he even called me a loser (which he argues is in response to me calling him a sore loser, which is not the same thing). :< - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to stay out of this, but, now he has went too far. He is now calling all my reverts to his edits vindictive, when they are only per consensus. As seen: here here here here and all the main star wars film articles. The Wookieepedian 02:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copperchair is possibly the most uncivil, impossible-to-work-with editor I have ever encountered on Wikipedia. He has claimed, falsely, at various points in time that (a) consensus does not matter, (b) the views of others do not matter, and, oddly enough, (c) that he was either following consensus or that there was no consensus in those cases where he is editing blatantly contrary to consensus. However, it's not his bizarre inconsistencies and idiosyncratic views that trouble me. It's the fact that he acts upon these idiosyncratic views with no concern for other editors, alternatively using blunt personal attacks, blatant dishonesty, subtle deception, and outright revert-warring to put those views into practice. Although Copperchair has claimed that he never knew what the consensus was regarding, say, the inclusion of Wedge Antilles in the credits for various Star Wars films, one of his own talk page links [15] shows that myself, A Link to the Past, and Clawson all agree Wedge should be included, which at least provides a rough consensus. The fact that Copperchair's attempts to add Wedge have been reverted, at various times, by just about all parties listed as "Party 2" in this RfAr and then some also demonstrates a consensus. As for Copperchair's assertions that "we should follow the filmmakers’ decision" and that, in that respect, "consensus is irrelevant", Copperchair is demonstrating a severe disagreement with the policy of Consensus. Copperchair is of course free to disagree with some Wikipedia policies, so long as he does not violate those policies to the detriment of the community and the Wikipedia. — Phil Welch 16:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved party

I'm the initiating party, but I'm not actually an involved party as far as I can tell; the extent of my involvement is blocking Copperchair for 3RR and occasionally reverting his edits when they qualified as unexplained blanking.

The issue of style in the various Star Wars articles (including Star Wars, A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith) has been contentious for quite a while, but User:Copperchair has been making things even worse, particularly lately, by constantly reverting to his preferred version. I'm not entirely sure, but it seems like he's pushing the POV that the 1997 versions of the Star Wars movies are the "definitive" ones, and often removes or changes cast credits or other information pertaining to other versions of the movies. Additionally, he pushes a unilateral POV that Star Wars should not contain information about non-canon fanworks, by blanking the section without explaination on the talk page.

Were it only his revert warring, I would not bring this to the Arbcom, as, up until recently, these articles have been the subject of revert wars by multiple users, over multiple disputes. After administrator intervention and some informal moderation, however, many of these revert wars have cooled down, as the other involved users have stopped reverting and started talking on talk pages. Copperchair, however, seems to have escalated; his recent edit summaries include comments like "The administrators will decide that" and "Awaiting decision on Rfc and mediation". He's also made an occasional practice of making deceptive edit summaries.

I don't want to see sanctions against Copperchair, but I don't see anything that I or any other editor or administrator can do to get his attention to stop this reverting. I've blocked him on three separate occasions for 3RR violation, and I know other admins have blocked him, as well.

In the interest of completeness, I'd like to point out that there have been occasional personal attacks on both sides (one example). I don't think it's the real issue here, but it has been going on. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with the above. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of party that might be involved

I'm not sure how involved I am - I was involved in a revert war for a couple days on the Star Wars III page (although I only had one or two reverts myself). The thing that never ceases to amaze me is the determination copperchair has to keep it to "his version" - as literally every day I see a revert on the star wars article then reverted by an admin or someone else. There is an unfortunate trait of an unwillingness to comprise here. I basically echo the statements of the man in black and party 2 otherwise. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of lightly involved party

In my duties as an administrator and between watching WP:AN/3RR then subsequently watching Star Wars as well as many other related pages due to ongoing edit wars I would just like to note that many times I have had to deal with 3RR violations, and despite the fact that the editors involved (mainly in my encounters Philwelch and Wookiepedian (both now and as Adamwankenobi)) repeatedly in the heat of the moment violated 3RR, 4RR, 5RR, etc... despite pledging to attempt to work on this and even though they are doing a much better job avoiding edit wars and dealing with issues on talk pages I think that this should also be looked into by the arbcom. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

UninvitedCompany

Involved parties

Summary
  • Abuse of adminship
  • Blocking, permanently, without support from the arbitration comittee, a user who opposes the admin's POV being pushed
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
    • AHEM! Haven't you forgotten the Mediation Committee? (Me and Brandon Yusuf had an outstandingly successful mediation.) Uncle Ed 02:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 1 (-Ril-)

Getting inappropriately involved in Edit Wars
Taking revenge for preventing POV pushing
Taking further revenge
Summary

UninvitedCompany is clearly an involved user, who clearly has an opinion of -Ril-, and is clearly, and self-admittedly, extremely anti-Islamic, in contrast to -Ril-. Therefore, UninvitedCompany should not be blocking -Ril- unilaterally, or indefinitely.

Requested Temporary injuctions

I, -Ril-, would like, solely for the duration of this RFAR, the following temporary injunctions

  • UninvitedCompany to be de-sysopped ("adminship is no big deal, so why should de-adminship be" - paraphrase of Ed Poor)
  • -Ril- to be unblocked
  • -Ril-'s talk page to be unprotected
  • UninvitedCompany to be prohibited from editing -Ril-'s user page

--~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 15:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2 (UninvitedCompany)

My position, and that of the Wikipedia community, with regard to -Ril- is already summarized at these locations:

I would be happy to provide a further statement if any of the arbiters request it.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statements by other parties

Michael Snow

Please note that -Ril- is still subject to the indefinite block imposed by UninvitedCompany. -Ril- has resorted to a number of sockpuppets and IP addresses to evade the block. There has been a notable lack of enthusiasm for lifting this block (this is what -Ril- characterizes as a "lynch mob"). Given the concerns expressed by two arbitrators and alluded to by -Ril-, I offered to lift it if the Arbitration Committee devised an appropriate temporary injunction against -Ril-, but no such injunction has been forthcoming.

Additionally, a number of users suspect -Ril- to be a reincarnation of banned user Lir. Actually, I personally do not believe this, but have instead come to the conclusion that -Ril- is a different banned user. Based on language and IP evidence, -Ril- is clearly British, whereas Lir as I recall was in the US. Additionally, -Ril- has a couple notable characteristics, a tendency to latch onto particular biblical topics, and a habit of naming sockpuppet accounts along a particular theme. This combination leads me to believe that -Ril- is another notoriously disruptive user of sockpuppets, specifically CheeseDreams. --Michael Snow 16:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phroziac

This has gone a little too far, in my opinion. It is gaming the system to make a fourth revert 24:20 after the first, and say it is not 3rr. There is never an excuse to violate 3rr. I have never violated 1rr personally. The block was an obvious example of a perfect IAR use. WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency did not need pictures of "indecency". This is no different then putting a picture of a penis on the main page. UninvitedCompany should probably not use admin features on a page he has a very strong POV in, except for obvious vandalism, 3rr, etc. An indefinite block is not the same as permanent, and UninvitedCompany was well within IAR to do that. The "vandalism" on -Ril-'s userpage was useful information, but perhaps it should not have been blanked. There is nothing wrong with those images, but they are there to illustrate articles in the encyclopedia. They are not there to put on wikiprojects, the main page, or anywhere else that they obviously do not belong. That was not a lynch mob. -Ril- should not excessively use loaded words to push his argument. This RFAr is very silly. --Phroziac (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Ed Poor

It's not true that UninvitedCompany is pushing any POV, least of all an anit-Islamic one. Ril has misconstrued UC's reply to a comment Ril made (see diff).

Furthermore, it is a complete waste of everyone's time to allow an RFArb for this sort of thing. Ril is not helping this project, and is abusing this page to thwart UC's enforcement of policy.

This entire RFArb amounts to a personal attack on UC and is in itelf ample grounds for a ban. I would have done it myself, if UC hadn't beat me to it.

Wikipedia accounts are only for those who are trying to help organize and present the world's knowledge. Those who interfere with, or thwart, this goal should be shown to the door. Uncle Ed 16:43, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by smoddy

I urge the Arbitration Committee to take on the views of the community. -Ril- made the point himself that no-one had unblocked him. If anyone seriously thought he should be unblocked, he would have been. No admin has seen fit to unblock him. Many have supported the block on the relevant page. The Wikipedia community does not want -Ril- around. It would be foolish to unban -Ril- simply because there was no reason in policy for the block. Sometimes what is needed goes beyond policy, hence we have Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. If any editor is really unhappy that -Ril- has gone, I urge them to come and say their piece. But, in my opinion, UC has done a great service. [[smoddy]] 18:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bmicomp

The mere fact that nobody has unblocked -Ril-, but instead congratulated TUC on the block speaks volumes. From Wikipedia:Banning policy:

"The decision to ban a user can arise from four places. Bans from all places are equally legitimate.
1. The Wikipedia community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself. The quickpolls policy was one example of this. Some editors are so odious that not one of the 500+ admins will unblock them."
Statement by Klonimus

Ril is a disruptive user, if there is any controversy about TUC's actions they should she be merged into the Ril Case, and delt with in that context. Given the general issue with slowness of ArbCom, TUC was being predictive of what that outcome would be. Klonimus 23:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erwin Walsh

Locking Ril's talk page seems poor form, as this prevents Ril from legitimately querying the block. Erwin

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (2/5/0/0)

Requests for Clarification

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

Changes in date notation

The ArbCom has [[18]] previously ruled on date notation:

When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable.

There is a dispute as to whether this, for an article that is stable and which consistently uses BC/AD or consistently uses BCE/CE noation, means that the style should not be changed under any circumstances, or whether there could be a "substantial reason" permitting a change - together with, if the latter is the case, what such a substantial reason could be. (Community-wide discussions on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate and Wikipedia:Eras/Compromise proposal/Voting may be in point if the ArbCom did mean that there could be reasons for a change.)

A clear statement from ArbCom as to whether they really did mean for articles that are stable and consistent on date notation to never change their date notation, or alternatively a statement as to when, in the light of the existing community-wide discussions, they believe changes are appropriate, would be welcome.

Thanks, jguk 07:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask ArbCom for a clarification regarding the above clause. Considering that British vs. American spelling is a "substantial reason for the change", is it fair to assume that if in a certain article a number (a majority?) of editors, supported by a conclusive evidence, consider a particular date notation inappropriate, that would also constitute a "substantial reason"? For example, in Talk:Hebrew calendar, the consensus is to keep BCE/CE, despite Jguk's pressure. As ArnoldReinhold wrote: "...the abbreviation AD is more than a epochal convention; it can be taken as a profession of Christian faith. I think that is a substantial enough reason for avoiding the abbreviation in articles about Jewish topics. Given that an alternative notation is acceptable per WP:MoS and we are talking about only a small set of articles deeply related to Jewish religion and history (practically all of which already use Common Era anyway) to be dealt with on one-by-one basis, I share this sentiment. I'd like to emphasize that I do recognize the sensitivity of the issue and do not advocate wholesale changes or hurting anyone's feelings. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Our wording was perfectly clear. Changing BC/AD to CE/BCE, or CE/BCE to BC/AD, should essentially be never done unless there is a very good reason to do so (personally, I have yet to be convinced that such a reason could ever exist, but nomatter). The various numbers of proponents of each "side" that one manages to bring to any particular article to continue this pointless discussion are absolutely irrelevent. Wikipedia is not an exercise in democracy. I would also prefer if people would stop trying to change this from a stylistic point into one of religion; "it can be taken as a profession of Christian faith" my foot. About as much as "bloody timewasting fools" (to pick an example at random) can be considered so ('bloody' being a contraction of "By our Lady").

James F. (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't believe its up to you, Jguk, or the Arbcom to unilaterally decide the content of an article, especially where there is a clear consensus of the article's editors to go in another direction, as long as it is in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and the Manual of Style.
  • It seems a rather convenient way to make Jguk's hundreds of date style changes "stick".
  • Why is there no changes for date styles, but it is acceptable to make spelling styles change to fit the subject? Again, it seems like a rather convenient way, in one instance to allow for articles to be converted to British English, while in the other case to force people to stick with BC/AD.
  • Just because it's not a point of religion for you doesn't mean that its not a point of religion for others.
  • This request has more to do with Jguk's incredibly disruptive behavior, rather than just a matter of style. I do find it rather "ridiculous" that some wold go to such lengths to find excuses for his behavior. Sortan 17:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changing from AD-BC to Common Era notation is justified in situations which predate or are unrelated to Christian matters or Western civilization. Such considerations are a substantial reason. Jguk was warned to comply with Wikipedia policy and has continued to violate it. Fred Bauder 14:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, what you propose was discussed and voted on and rejected in Wikipedia:Eras/Compromise proposal/Voting, so the community has already rejected the notion that that is a substantial reason (not to mention that the wording of the original decision implies that there is no substantial reason for a change anyway), jguk 18:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jguk, you are missing out on this official Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:No_binding_decisions. The fact that a decision was made before does not at all mean that it cannot be revisited. Jdavidb (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
James and Fred, I haven't been involved in the BCE/CE debate before, and only recently became involved when I saw the very high number of stable articles Jguk was changing from BCE to BC (hundreds, I believe, since the arbcom case closed). The arbcom makes written decisions, and these are the decisions that editors have to abide by, regardless of what anyone thinks of them, until they're updated. The arbcom decision in this case reads:

When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable (my emphasis).

This clearly implies that there are situations that the arbcom regards as constituting "some substantial reason for change." The only question is: what are those situations? The decision gives an example: when an article is about a British-English subject, the style may be changed from American-English to British. This is something that Jguk fought very hard to establish at the MoS. He's a strong supporter of the style-according-to-subject principle. However, in this case, because it doesn't suit him, he rejects it as inappropriate, and now wants to stick to the first-contributor rule, regardless of subject matter, for BCE/CE, as though this style issue, of all the hundreds of style issues we deal with every day, is a special case.
The point is that Jguk has not adhered to the arbcom ruling that specifically asked him to stop edit warring around this issue, and the reverting is causing a lot of bad feeling, regardless of who's in the right. He's also using misleading edit summaries, such as "this change is mandated by the MoS," which he knows is not correct — first, the MoS isn't policy and mandates nothing, and secondly, it says either style is acceptable.
It would therefore be appreciated if the committee could clarify its ruling, and would ask Jguk not to change articles that are stable. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Slim - I believe I have made it clear with my edits that, although I would have preferred a different decision, I am quite happy to adhere to the decision - which I understand to be "no change, full stop". It's far from ideal, but probably the best compromise we're going to get, so I'm not surprised ArbCom went for it. As you are aware, when others questioned whether this was ArbCom's intention, I sought and received confirmation from one of the Arbitrators who heard the original case (Mark Pellegrini) that that was the intention. Indeed, I have strongly encouraged others to adhere to that decision. This means that I have refrained from changing articles that are consistent and stable on BCE notation to BC notation, and I have reverted those who have changes articles that are consistent and stable on BC notation to BCE notation. I fully accept the earlier ruling, and continue to encourage all other users to accept it too - indeed, this is why this has blown up again, because other users (and I'm afraid this includes you) are unwilling to accept the earlier ruling. If on some articles I have erred, and it has been pointed out, and I accept, that I erred on the Jerusalem article - I apologise. Like anyone, I make mistakes from time to time, and when I do, I can only express my regret and avoid that article in future - as I have done in that case. I have been subject to many personal attacks, and have been stalked by an abusive sockpuppet, which makes me naturally defensive here - but that is an explanation, not an excuse. However, I do believe that the earlier ArbCom ruling should apply to everyone - and that ruling is "no changes" (and given the clear lack of community consensus for any other rule that has ever been proposed, I'm not surprised that that, as confirmed by James above, was the rule). As noted above, I continue to urge all other editors to abide by that ruling, jguk 19:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But the decision doesn't say "no change, full stop." That's the problem. If it did, there would be no dispute. It says there are circumstances in which the change may be made, namely when there is "some substantial reason." So I repeat: the question now is what is to count as a substantial reason. And Jguk, you have been changing articles that were stable for a long time on BCE by going back into their histories and looking to see what the very first contributor did, and changing it to BC even if it was a couple of years ago. That surely violates the "no change, full stop" policy that you say applies. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to ask what portion of the arbitrators' ruling could so be construed as to indicate that consensus on the talk page of an article cannot change it. I believe the problem here is Jguk thinks a policy has been instituted which overrides the chance of editors of an article ever collectively deciding that they will change it. If ninety editors to an article all posted "change it from AD to CE" on the talk page, I believe Jguk would still be insistently reverting them and claiming he has policy on his side. I also believe that if the opposite situation occurred we would not see Jguk standing up and saying, "Well, according to policy it can never change, and so I will revert it back to CE, since that was where this article started."
I think it should be clear to all that nobody ever intended to make a rule that all existing choices of AD/CE were set in stone. The way this should be handled, in absence of a site-wide policy, is proposal, discussion, and consensus on each article's talk page as to what is best for that article. Jdavidb (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To sum up and clarify, I think it's evident that consensus of editors satisfies "some substantial reason for the change" as worded in the arbitrators' ruling. Arbitrators rule on but do not make policy. If every editor on Wikipedia but Jguk wants to change an article to CE, then that is sufficient reason. Jdavidb (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that this should be decided on an article by article basis was rejected on Wikipedia:Eras/Compromise proposal/Voting, and I think with good reason - no-one really wants this dispute to widen to encompass every article with some form of date notation. I also have no doubt that a community-wide consensus on something would change the current approach - but like James F., I really can't see it happening on this issue any time soon - absolutely every proposal on this issue (including those that are suggested again here) has failed to gain even a majority, let alone consensus, jguk 21:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're linking to that compromise proposal, since what I described is the means by which all articles are edited. We don't need a compromise proposal to follow standard Wikipedia policy. Nothing in any Wikipedia policy nor in any arbitration ruling changes the fact that changes, particularly controversial changes, are made on articles via consensus on their talk pages.
It also doesn't change the fact that you were enjoined against engaging in revert warring on this subject yet you have persisted in doing it, claiming you are not violating any policies since you haven't violated 3RR. 3RR is just the definition of a hard limit where a user can be banned, not a definition of revert war. Jdavidb (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a complete fallacy. A) There is no such vote on that page, and B) The default state for all issues related to an article is that they be decided by consensus on the talk page. You are claiming that if a vote is held on issue A, and it fails to pass, then NOT A is the consensus. This is a logical fallacy called denying the antecedent, and this is the second time that you have attempted to use this faulty logic, the first being when User:Slrubenstein's proposal to switch completely to BCE/CE notation failed, which you interpreted as "there shall be no changes to BCE/CE whatsoever". Sortan 21:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
None of the votes showed a consensus for anything. Therefore, Jguk, please stop mentioning votes. What we have is the arbcom decision, and the normal Wikipedia editing process. We have nothing else to fall back on here. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article that has brought this to a head is Hebrew calendar. This is primarily a matter of Jewish interest, though not of course exclusively so (I am a Methodist but have made several edits of it). I am bewildered by the argument that Jewish attitudes to the meaning of BC/AD are not relevant. To me, and surely to many other people, these attitudes are an extremely good and valid reason for a change to BCE/CE. Equally, I would hope that there would be no controvers over changing from BCE/CE to BC/AD on an article specifically about a matter of Christian interest.
RachelBrown 21:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I may make an observation; I was involved in the Hebrew calendar, and looking at its history, it first had AD dating only. Then User:Joe Kress performed a substantial rewrite, and his input had CE dating. Later, User:Kaisershatner did quite a bit of copyediting, unwittingly re-entering some AD dates. Some anonymous user noticed this (assuming good faith) and changed some other dates, but leaving some inconsistency [19]. User:RachelBrown and myself then cleaned up after this, leaving the AD dates for the sake of consistency. All editors on this article preferred going back to CE dating, and that's what happened.

The problem is that an article may not have a clear preference for either style at some point (this is unavoidable), and saying "no change to dating style" and "be consistent within an article" are conflicting and ambiguous in such situations. I thought it in the spirit of WP that in cases like these the editors reach consensus and do what must be done, and WP policy is only to prevent individuals from single handedly going into edit wars over it. squell 19:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jarlaxle Artemis

Is Jarlaxle Artemis blocked indefinitely by an admin, or banned by the ArbCom (the ArbCom doesn't usually ban indefinitely)? I ask because he is strongly suspected of still creating articles: if he is banned, they are speedies, if he is merely blocked, they are not. The text of the final decision signed by Raul654 uses the word banned, but the case was closed. -Splashtalk 01:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, Jarlaxle Artemis has been banned by the community. Such bans are rare but not unknown.
James F. (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with James - they are speedies. →Raul654 20:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Banned by the community? Huh? Was there a vote? How was this done? Everyking 22:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
People who are banned by the community have historically not been voted on - note Willy on Wheels and Mr. Treason. Snowspinner 22:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But Jarlaxle wasn't a vandal...anyway, how can somebody be banned by the community if the community has no way to express its wish? Surely there was some way that the community gave its opinion? Everyking 22:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You'll want to go unblock Mr. Treason then, who was not a vandal, but a personal attack making asshole. The usual method of this getting done is a lack of hue and cry when someone tries to ban the user. Snowspinner 22:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my book that's not banned by the community, or even close. Banned by the community would mean community discussion/consensus/vote. It seems misleading to call it that, like a way to claim wider approval of actions when we don't know if that approval actually exists. Everyking 23:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"in my book that's not banned by the community" - I think you just answered your own question. →Raul654 23:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What? Everyking 23:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Errr... he's being kind of dismissive or something :). Anyway I think what they mean is that when admins know about a person and one of them blocks them indefinately for something really bad (vandalism etc.) and no one unblocks the person, then its sort of considered "banned by the community" I guess. I could be wrong though - I imagine its something like that. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the problems with that are A) how many people would even know about the block? B) admins with any kind of sense don't go unblocking when certain other admins made the blocks. That can be very dangerous to your future at Wikipedia—hell, with Snowspinner I have virtually never countered any of his blocks (I can think of one time, and after he reblocked I didn't unblock again), only questioned the need for them or the manner in which they were done, and look at all the trouble I'm in. C) how do non-admins, the large majority of the community, feel about it? So to call it "banned by the community" I maintain you have to actually present the issue to the community for its approval or rejection. Everyking 00:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as for (A) by the time some admin musters up the guts to block someone indefinately its probably been mentioned several times on WP:AN/I and other venues. As for (B) AFAIK admins arn't supposed to reblock generally (thus getting into a rather unfortunate "block war") - and well, *sigh* I don't know the exact specifics of the SS vs. EK debate with the blocks, but I know that for people who arn't used to constant criticism it can seem rather annoying and seem frivolous (I.E. maybe he just got sick of it and cracked, but I don't really have enough info to judge here...). And (C), I'm assuming that by "the community" they mean that admins represent the community in situations like these. These are all assumptions and I could very well be wrong though. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyking! I think they are talking about Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis_2, namely User:Linuxbeak/Admin_stuff/JarlaxleArtemis Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If someone makes so much trouble that they are blocked indefinitely by an administrator and no other administrator sees fit to unblock them (including all the Arbitration Committee who generally are administrators) the arbitration committee may chose to not unblock them merely to render a decision regarding their behavior. Obviously if they return as a sockpuppet the case may be either reopened or the sockpuppets also blocked depending on how much general uproar ensues. Fred Bauder 22:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me, the administrator who more or less saw to it that Jarlaxle was booted from Wikipedia for good, clarify once and for all...

JarlaxleArtemis is BANNED from Wikipedia. He is listed at Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users, and after he swore his head off at a steward, he was banned from all MediaWiki projects. Jarlaxle is not by any means welcome on Wikipedia, Wikimedia, Wikiquote, Commons, Wikitionary, etc. etc. etc. To this day he is STILL harrassing users by impersonation and defamation. Need any more be said? JarlaxleArtemis is permenantly banned from Wikipedia and all Wikimedia projects. </rant> Linuxbeak | Talk 20:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gavin the Chosen

Gavin the Chosen was blocked for a month as part of a recent arbitration decision, but I'm concerned that this hasn't stopped him from continuing his harassment against me. One of the findings in that case was that he followed me around, posting insulting comments, and doing things to try to interfere with my normal editing here (such as jumping onto articles he had never touched before specifically to undo whatever I had done or to egg fights on).

Even though he is blocked I am still getting harassing emails from him through the WIikipedia email link, which I hesitate to disable as it is a way for people to contact me directly about issues related to the encyclopedia. Furthermore I have run across a number of editors recently who after a single disagreement have escalated into very mean-spirited attacks, claiming that they had been privately emailed and "warned" about my behavior by an editor who wished to give them all the details of my supposed campaigns to destroy articles, etc. which is all the same nonsense Gabriel/Gavin would try to tell people. These editors then pick up the campaign of insults on various talk pages.

The month block was intended to be a way for Gabriel to take a break and think about his actions here, but instead his harassment still continues. He apparently still watches all the articles he was involved in emotional disputes with earlier, as he mentions what has happened recently on them in his emails.

I would request that his account be disabled outright so he cannopt access emails (and since the RfA finding said he should come back under a different name after his block expired, there's no reason for his current one to be active) or that his month long block be reset so that his activities here are completely stopped for the agreed upon month. DreamGuy 21:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It only says he may choose another username, but this is very disturbing and I agree that the block should be reset in addition to disabling his account or something of that sort. I haven't received any emails yet; want to send me one now, Gavin? ~~ N (t/c) 14:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He has sent me the following three messages. ~~ N (t/c) 22:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the requested response

Unfortunatly, it would seem to me that dreamGuy's accusation revenge for the arbitration process that he is undergoing. I have kept my word , as for the end of the baqrgain that is my arbitration. I have sent him nothing, larghely becaseu i wish him to have no contact with me ( frankly hes aggravating) It is my beleif that this unfounded accusaton prooves the accusation i have placed against him in the matter of his methods and bad faitrh in his operating style here on wikipedia. I ame accross this message to s end ytou a message becase u my watchlist contains the RFAr page, (along with many others)

and as for the detaqils about mean spirited attacks, it se ems that the attacks were perpatrated by dfreamGuy, just look at the edit history of his talk page...

Also it would stand to reason if I have been gone for a month and others, some of whoim ive had zero contact with are saying what i was saying about how dreamguy opwerates on wikipedia, then it cant be a coincidance. perhaps this is farther proof of his defamitory adgenda on some articles such as Otherklin and Therianthropy, and his general, totally incurable lack of civillity towards other users in general.


This is the reason why i grew tired of him, and his wayhs of acusations and atte mpting to play the system and fiegn victim status.

in the light that i have done nothing that he accuses me of, i would ask you to disregard his lies, and possibly add attampting to file a false RFAr against me as a revenbge tactic to the eviance page of his RFAr IN that mnatter, my hands are tied, but i w ould appreciate it greatly if you and the other arbitreators would be so kind as to disregard his accusations against me, because they are fabrications.

(i find it intersting how hes trying to have my account destoryed... interesting way of going about it, making false accusations and suich, isnt it?) sorry if i got a little long woinded or a little repetative, but this is being written as the first trhing after i got here from work.

thanks, and feel free to send this message to other arbitrators, or to contact me for conversation at gagb@gabrielsimon.com on MSN or filmbuff42 on YIM.

thanks for listening.

For some little reason, I'm inclined to believe DreamGuy here. Do the developers have any way of logging/checking use of Special:Emailuser? I have asked him what a false RfAr is - does he mean this request for clarification? ~~ N (t/c) 22:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: "sorry, i thought it was an RFAr. in any case, the reast of it apllies, i think,. his accusations are totoaly false. i beleive this attempt at deception on his part to be typical of his rather childish behaviour and overall lack of maturity and civillity on this site."

addendum

hew also said that the find9ing of the case was that i followed him around. this is blatently false. its the complete op[posite in fact. but im not trying to be vindictive, only accurate.

thanks for listening again

Um, no, Gabe. I just checked the RfAr, and I didn't see the arbitrators say anything about anyone following anyone around. ~~ N (t/c) 22:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

afterthoughts

i do not see the harm in looking at pages and ar ticles while im gone... i already he some changes i plan to make when im back...

i cant see the harm...

No, there's no harm, just don't email people harassing things! ~~ N (t/c) 22:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...

(after I had posted the above)

i still maintain the truith of the matter. i have not and shall not email iuser dreamguym simply because hes not worth my time. his antics have gone on a long, long time, and ecasue he hides behind police, and then goes and beats other people with them, as would a cave dweller bludgeon prey.

it does puzzell me w hy you posted my response though.

Because it's your word against DreamGuy's, and while you both have had civility problems in the past I consider him to be far more trustworthy. DreamGuy, it might help if you posted some evidence, like links to the attacks from users you think Gabriel had been emailing. ~~ N (t/c) 22:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, was mostly gone for the weekend. I no longer have he emails in question, as I deleted them in disgust (and now that I think of it, I thought I had blocked his email address because of other harassing emails previously, so I don't know if something about the forward process doesn't work with my filter or if it came from another similar account/email that happened to use Gabriel's language style and so forth, which is pretty distinct). Talk:Urban legend is full of the tirades of an editor claiming that an editor emailed him to "warn" him about me. I believe User:Khaosinfire was the other main one talking about "email warnings" on his/my talk page. There was someone else too, but there are a variety of editors who like to play the same style game of troll accusations so that they hope to prevail (User:Lightbringer maybe? I know he's gone off the deep end lately) but keeping track of which ones claim they got email warnings and which ones are just bad editors in general without that claim can be rough.
I think I'll just not worry about it anymore at this point, as if he does it again (or there are similar accusations from others) there should be plenty enough evidence to hang him, and if he doesn't do it again he's learned that he'll be caught doing this too. like he was caught with all his other nonsense (sockpuppets, anon IP to try to get around 3RR, etc.). And of course his responses above show absolutely no improvement, so I suspect that when he comes back he'll just continue on with his nonsense and get blocked for multiple months, and knowing his history will cntinue to do so until it becomes effectively permanent. DreamGuy 23:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy you need not even bring up my name about this for one I do not send people email on Wikipedia. I may have had multiple disputes with you, but like I said before I am not going to debate you anymore because it's not even worth my time, I am rarely even here anymore because I found Wikinfo. Furthermore if your going to even try to accuse me of being involved, you better have some evidence..........So put your evidence were your mouth is........that is all Khaosinfire 01:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't say you emailed anybody, he said Gabrielsimon emailed you. In fact... did he? ~~ N (t/c) 14:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

=+==Again===+

Now Gabriel has started up the harassing emails yet again from the same email address as before (even though he has a new user name (User:Gimmiet), and magically there is also other problem editors yet again trying to justify their policy-violating edits because they were "warned" that I was a problem editor (see Anti-Mason editor User:Lightbringer's comments here.

Gabriel's actions repeatedly egg other editors on into doing bad behavior, and his claims above that he wouldn't email me to harass me or email other people to cause more mischief are false, specifically because I have more mail sitting right here. I was willig to drop it above if he stopped, but he's escalating his mischief. This editor has never contributed anything of any value to thisproject that I can see, and quite to the opposite has caused an exceedingl large number of problems. DreamGuy 23:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing this notice he has yet again emailed to toss out insults (and yet claims it's not harassment, because of course nothing he ever does he considers harassment) and admits to contacting multiple editors to "warn" them about me, leading to more disputes and here. He is on yet another 24-hour block, his second since his one month block ended just a couple of days ago. DreamGuy 04:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And it continues with a third... I'm saving them this time in case somebody wants them as proof. DreamGuy 02:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mlorrey

This user has emailed me and requested that his block be lifted, claiming that there are no legal proceedings between himself and either Meelar or Firebug. The AC decision appears to conclude that there is at least the appearance of a legal threat. Therefore, I have asked Mlorrey to affirm on his talk page that no legal action is underway, and to clarify the meaning of the purported "injunction" on the RFC page, as preconditions for removing the block. I invite AC members and the Wikipedia community in general to review this action and comment or amend as they see fit. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly stated that I never initiated any legal proceedings in any court against Meelar or Firebug, despite their clear abuse of accepted standards of arbitration process. I initiated my injunction just as they were making things up and railroading me through a process without seeking to negotiate or discuss anything, all the while making me look like the bad guy. This episode is a clear example of how NPOV ISN'T, when people act in bad faith and learn to write with NPOV language while pursuing a biased agenda in attempting to suppress facts they dislike. I do not plan on initiating proceedings against anybody provided my own rights begin to be respected, which they have not. The wiki arbitration process violates so many commonly accepted principles of arbitration and jurisprudence I don't know even where to start, but I can start with this ban you put on me: your groups action in banning me for exercising my human rights to legal process is itself a violation of my rights under international legal conventions. Your flawed process allows a small cadre of insiders to suppress individuals they disagree with or whose statements they do not like, and THAT is most definitely, not NPOV, and violates the spirit of wikipedia.Mlorrey 21:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
The above does not make me confident that this user can be civil and will not continue legal threats if unblocked so I must say that I am against the unblocking of this user due to the fact that his attitude does not seem to have changed at all. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From above: I do not plan on initiating proceedings against anybody provided my own rights begin to be respected, which they have not. My reading of this is that it is a renewed threat of legal action, albeit one with a rather hollow ring to it. The difficulty with legal threats on Wikipedia is that they poison the working environment even when they are baseless, and cartooney, and even when there is a transparent lack of willingness and/or ability to follow through with actual litigation. In light of this, I conclude that Mlorrey is continuing the behavior for which he was banned, and I therefore decline to lift the block at this time. As always, I welcome comments from others. In particular, I think I'll leave a note for Meelar and Firebug to see if they believe that any legal action is now resolved. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the legal dispute has been resolved, by the terms of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mlorrey#Editing_ban the ban ought to be lifted. In retrospect perhaps it was just a misunderstanding caused by an unhappy choice of language. In response to Jtkiefer, problems may remain, but the hope is that the experience has been productive in terms of encouraging Mlorrey to do better. Fred Bauder 14:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, perhaps this legal dispute: "The wiki arbitration process violates so many commonly accepted principles of arbitration and jurisprudence I don't know even where to start, but I can start with this ban you put on me: your groups action in banning me for exercising my human rights to legal process is itself a violation of my rights under international legal conventions." ought to be resolved first before the ban is lifted. Fred Bauder 18:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Fred; we'd want that to be looked at that first.
James F. (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have gotten several emails from this user requesting an unblocking and my replies have been the same as what pretty much everyone else is saying which is that he has shown that he will continue to threaten and make personal attacks against other users if unblocked and even his recent comments on his talk page. At this point I would be extremely uncomfortable with him being unblocked. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 20:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cool Cat

Cool Cat has raised one or two questions concerning the remedies that apply to him.

  • Coolcat prohibited from mediating
    • 1) Due to lack of community support, Cool Cat (talk • contribs) is prohibited from holding himself out as a mediator or attempting to serve as a mediator of any dispute, ... This ban shall continue in effect until such time as he is officially appointed to the Mediation Committee.
      I do not see how this works, I cannot be a member of Mediation Committee unless I demonstrate I can mediate. --Cool Cat Talk 03:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coolcat prohibited from restructuring
    • 4) Cool Cat (talk • contribs) is prohibited from moving the comments of others around on the talk page of any article or any user talk page other than his own. Additionally he is not permitted to archive any talk page other than his own. Cool Cat may make no edit to a talk page which is not at the end of a section unless he begins a new section at the bottom of the page. This restriction shall last for one year.
      What exaclty does this mean? I dont have a history of "restructuring". I just moved embedded convos into my post on that instance (I also forgot about this). I cannot abide by the "Cool Cat may make no edit to a talk page which is not at the end of a section unless he begins a new section at the bottom of the page" as that would mean I cannot respond people in votes for example. I also dont see the purpose it serves. --Cool Cat Talk 03:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's got a point about Mediation, but presumably if Mediation Committee ever decide that he displays the qualities that could be useful in a mediator, they can decide for themselves to apply to Arbitration Committee for the ban to be lifted pending his application.

On restructuring, I think he's got a legitimate worry about being forbidden to participate in straw polls by the very strict, but understandable, terms of the decision. Perhaps some clarification might help. --Tony SidawayTalk 04:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the first point, it refers to mediation, not Mediation. Cool Cat is prohibited from acting as an informal mediator. If the Mediation Committee is satisfied that he is sufficiently able to mediate that he can Mediate, if you see what I mean, then we defer to their judgement on that.
James F. (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, pardon me if I am beeing blunt, I will need to demonstrate mediation skills with out mediating which makes little sense. This ruling appears to be indefinate hence by nature is restricting me from mediating forever. --Cool Cat Talk 12:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding mediation: you can take some classes in mediation, workshops, practice mediation outside the context of Wikipedia; get good at it. Learn how to do it well first, then approach the mediation committee. What you cannot do is set yourself up as The mediator with respect to an article when the other editors have neither asked nor accepted you as a mediator. Fred Bauder 12:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding refactoring: voting in a poll is not refactoring. Other actions ought to be interpreted in light of the purpose of the restriction, avoiding re-arranging of talk pages to the point where by what you do you make others comments incomprehensible. Basically, don't move other folks' comments around. Fred Bauder 12:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship -- undefined

I've created a stub on the subject of Mentorship because I feel that a definition is in order. Please see (and expand): Wikipedia:Mentorship. — Davenbelle 07:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on Davenbelle and CoolCat?

Davenbelle (talk · contribs), Stereotek (talk · contribs), and Fadix (talk · contribs) are counseled to let other editors and administrators take the lead in monitoring Cool Cat (talk · contribs). If subsequent proceedings which involve Cool Cat show that he has been hounded by them, substantial penalties may be imposed.

To me it would seem like opposing an RFA for Cool Cat within ten minutes of its creation and notice on Cool Cat's page, is ... well, somewhat hounding behavior. I think it would be obvious to most that Cool Cat would turn down the RFA, and that if he didn't he wouldn't come near passing at this time. The impression Davenbelle's action gave me is that he was just looking for a chance to give Cool Cat another kick. Regardless of his intentions I think he should avoid giving such an impression. Is this acceptable behavior in light of the Arbcom decision? --Gmaxwell 17:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I state though that Fadix never opposed, but Davenbelle and Karl Meier (a.k.a. Stereotek) did, and pretty damn fast too. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielsimon: request for tighter restrictions

On 5 October, after the expiration of his one-month ban, Gabrielsimon (arb case) returned as Gimmiet (talk · contribs · block log). Gimmiet was barely an improvement on the old Gabrielsimon, violating his 1RR three times in as many days (on Otherkin and Clinical lycanthropy).

On the 9th, 69.195.126.149 (talk · contribs · block log) reverted Otherkin twice. This IP was verified to be GS from email headers sent to SlimVirgin and myself. As per the "repeated violations" clause of the case, GS was blocked for a week. The same day, Sg'te'gmuj (talk · contribs · block log) reverted Otherkin once, and left an edit on Talk:Otherkin in classic GS style. There was no sock check, but the circumstancial evidence was so strong that the new account was blocked indefinitely, and GS was banned for another month (plus six days remaining on his 3RR block), per the judgment of SlimVirgin, myself, android79, and Bryan Derksen.

After this, he attempted to remove the block from his talk page (leading to its protection), and sent an email to SlimVirgin (under the Sg'te'gmuj name) claiming not to be GS (while using the same IP that had reverted). GS sent SlimVirgin an email as well, suggesting that the IP was DreamGuy. Again - same IP in the headers.

On 20 October, the same IP made one reversion on Otherkin, which unfortunately was not noticed. On 22 October, the IP made 11 reversions on Otherkin and 2 on Clinical lycanthropy. The ban was extended to 2 months from that date (expiring 22 December).

Gimmiet sent me the following email that day: 

I have not post4d at all since i was blocked.  Today, i was reading along about dot hack and
sudeenly i get mail  on wiki, which is suprising, becaseu i have a protected tlak page.
aparently slimvirgin hates me, because she thinks someone new is me.  could SOMEONE make that
bitch leave me alone?  Im already reblocked once becasue of her, i dont need more horseshit....

pardon my language, but im really getting sick of this.

I forwarded this to SlimVirgin, and she said: 

It's definitely him, yet he's sent me several e-mails denying it; one
e-mail saying it's DreamGuy and that we should ask the developers to
confirm it; and then an e-mail yesterday saying the only reason he
realized he'd been blocked was that he got an e-mail about it through
Wikipedia. But I didn't e-mail him, yet he knew immediately, because
he e-mailed me about it within minutes of the block being applied.

This repeated pattern of behavior indicates that Gabriel/Gimmiet has poor self-control, is immature and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future, and is an overall detriment to Wikipedia. SlimVirgin and I have agreed that we would like to petition the ArbCom for tighter restrictions on Gabriel. The main problem is clearly his inability to not revert other users' contributions that he disagrees with. We therefore think that, when he returns in two months, he should not be allowed to revert other users at all, or delete content. We also suggest that longer bans (up to a week) be enabled for even non-repeated violations of his restrictions.

Sorry for the long-winded exposition, and this is just a suggestion. However, I strongly believe that to reduce disruption and unpleasantness, tighter restrictions on this editor's actions are justified. ~~ N (t/c) 17:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archive


I think that all of cool_cats restrictions should be goten rid of. Maybe have a mentor to watch him some times if really needed. --☺Adam1213☺ Talk+|WWW 10:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=26343636"