Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Paul August (talk | contribs) at 18:25, 12 December 2005 (Ooops sorry for my inadvertent revert). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting 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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

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

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

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

How to list cases

Under the below Current requests section:

  • Click "[edit]";
  • Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), ommitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
  • Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
  • Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
  • Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template


Current requests

Ponytailsnipper, DeepakShenoy, Ravikiran R, PeaSea, BloggerBrigade

Involved parties

The IIPM article came up earlier this year, with extremely negative and POV language, completely cited from blogs. This was in response to IIPM suing a website and a blogger linking to the website for defamation. I saw this on Google, and attempts at cleaning up the article and making it more Wiki-like have resulted in multiple accounts spawning to continue to try and keep the POV content.
IIPM Article's talk page has a posting on this Arbitration request


I had gone to the AMA and asked Konrad West to mediate. He has been trying for over 2 weeks. He has observed that the article is completely un-encyclopaedia like, among other problems.

Statement by party 1

I dont reall know what to say. Other complaints on this site seem extremely emotionals and pointed, to say the least. I just need to know Wiki admins care about the IIPM article, and the effect it may have on the world's largest business school, to have such a defamatory and plain biased article on Wiki. Bloggers simply hate the institute because of the lawsuit, and are using Wiki. Take a look at the discussion page and you'll see. Regards,--Iipmstudent9 07:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

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

Goodoldpolonius2 and Mark Twain

Involved parties

Confirmation to parties involvedEmail

Statement by Mark Twain

On the Treblinka concentration camp page I added

Historians question the veracity of the Treblinka tale

An historian named Dr Toben lead a private archaeological team, who did a complete ground radar scan and found nothing. Five other historians have written books that question claims of anywhere from 900,000 up to 3,000,000 dead. This website presents their conclusions

Goodoldpolonius2 immediately deleted the addition above. His excuse was "This is Holocaust denial, the people leading the archological dig were holocaust deniers"

My position: ~ When an historian (Dr Toben) disputes a event (Treblinka), where there was no proof, except for Dr Toben's archolgical dig, Wikipedia readers have a right to know about the dig.


Statement by Goodoldpolonius2

This is not a serious RfA, as no dispute resolution was followed, Mark Twain's material is pure Holocaust denial stuff, and the only other editor who has weighed (Squiddy) in on the debate utterly rejects Mark Twain's view as well. The facts are as follows: Mark Twain inserted some Holocaust denial garbage into the Treblinka extermination camp page, mainly consisting of a link to a site that blames the Jews for every disaster in history. I removed it. He inserted it again. I removed it, and posted a nice note on his user page[1] and a more detailed one the talk pages explaining that "Dr. Toben" has been found guilty of anti-Semitic incitement by courts in Australia, that his results are not published anywhere, that he is considered over-the-top even by other Holocaust deniers etc. Aparently, that was enough for Mark Twain to post a RfC and an RfA. I doubt if any other editor will disagree with my approach, or think that this material, which involves really nasty disregard for all facts. should be included. Comments, of course, are welcome. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jpgordon

This RfAr is misplaced. Just follow the link that User:Mark twain is attempting to add to multiple articles. It's kind of cute, in an old-fashioned sick way. Jews and the half-Jew Churchill arranged for the sinking of the Lusitania, setting the stage for Wilson to bring us into WW2. Yes, WW2. Kristallnacht consisted of Jewish thugs rampaging. The Jews arranged for Sirhan Sirhan to kill RFK, because RFK would have taken revenge for Israel's killing JFK. Israel faked the Entebbe hijacking. Jews arranged for the hijacking of the Achille Lauro. Mossad blew up the plane over Lockerbie. Black September was a Mossad operation. Timothy McVeigh was a patsy of the Jews... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Mark Twain

Everyone is straying from tha facts which are: - 'There was an archological dig and no graves were found.' I have no idea what the rest of the website is all about, but people have a right to know of a scientific dig.

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

Chadbryant and Dick Witham

Involved parties

(Provide links to the user page of each party and to all accounts they have edited with. Briefly summarize case. No details.)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

(Provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration.)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

(If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)

Statement by Dick Witham

Recently there has been an entry on the Wikipedia adminstrative board involving RSPW Poster vs. Chad Bryant. I am here to discuss these incidents.

I am requesting an official arbitration against Chadbryant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The main problem with Mr. Bryant is that he is repeatedly using the "DinkSock" template to post sockpuppet accusations onto other Wikipedia user pages without just cause; by that I mean he in no way is affiliated with Wikipedia other than being a registered user, and he has -- in no form -- administrative access or permission to declare someone a sockpuppet. Even if granted a small amount of leeway in making these additions, a check of his Special Contributions page will confirm his behavior, motivations, and quick judgement on these issues. Chadbryant has made it a habit of taking personal issues from other online medias into Wikipedia; these sockpuppet accusations are no different. One big problem is that as soon as the vandalism is removed (and indeed, we will get into the issue of "vandalism" in a moment) he hops to the User page and replaces them once again. This is 'User page vandalism' as defined by the Wikipedia:Vandalism entry on Wikipedia. In the past, Chadbryant has also been involved in 'Sneaky vandalism,' 'Attention-seeking vandalism,' 'Image vandalism,' 'Avoidant vandalism, & 'Changing peoples comments.

Which brings me to a very interesting issue. When Chadbryant changes, or reverts, Wikipedia entries or user entries, his sole claim for having done so has been "vandalism." Please check his Special Contributions page for numerous examples of this. Yet, going by the official Wikipedia entry on vandalism, a large percentage of Chad's reverts with excuses of justifciation for "vandalism" would indeed not even exist. It seems that he is abusing the definition of vandalism on Wikipedia, and taking advantage of the Wikipedia administration in the process. A quick glance through his Special Contributions page ([2]) will confirm this to any neutral party.

Essentially, the issue is this: I have created numerous sockpuppets. Yes, I admit to this. I also admit to having attacked Chadbryant with many of them. However, as of late, it seems that regardless of the User entry or Subject entry on Wikipedia, Chadbryant's motivations have become rather suspect, and indeed he has been blocked on two seperate occassions for violation of the 3RR rule as a result. See Stannie Get Your Gun for one of the two examples. In that instance, the sole reason for his reverting was because the original addition was added in by someone who he disliked. Then of course there is the rec.sport.pro-wrestling debacle, where back in March he was informed by several Wikipedia administrators to leave his opinionated and biased additions out of the article; yet, for some reason, in the last several weeks, he has chosen to replace this information again. Perhaps he had forgotten that he had been informed not to place it in or face a possible blocking?

This is a good possibility, since another of his little "Wikiquirks" is the ferverish editing of his talk page. As soon as an administrator leaves something negative on his talk page, Chad removes it. As soon as someone leaves comments relevant to his negative and destructive behavior, he deletes those as well.

But I digress. The point I am making, and the reason I officially request arbitration, is because I am tired of him taking advantage of and constantly abusing the entry of "vandalism" for his own selfish and biased gains. For weeks now he has blatantly made this an issue and when confronted about it he either deletes the remarks, reverts them out of the entry/talk pages, or edits them to a point of being unintelligable and confusing. The same goes for this sockpuppetry. To be blunt, I'm tired of his bullshit. Just because someone comes along and makes changes to an entry that he doesn't like them making changes to, or perhaps edits his talk page to include comments he previously removed, or something similar, does NOT give him the right to place a sockpuppet accusation on said page. Then of course there is the fact that he constantly tries to make himself look like the victim in these circumstances, having nothing to do with any of it other than being involved secondhand. This is far from untrue, and just more of his manipulative, sociopathic nature. The Wikipedia user TruthCrusader can attest to this if necessary, as he, too, has been a victim of Mr. Bryant's brash behavior on Wikipedia in the past.

I will keep this account open, and am available for contact through my talk page or via registered e-mail from the account; however, due to several Wikipedia administrators being somewhat trigger-happy when it comes to blocking, and due to Mr. Bryant's somewhat immature behavior of labelling User accounts as sockpuppets, I may or may not be able to respond to this entry under this account. I will, however, endeavor to do what it takes to ensure that this arbitration is brought to a neutral and binding end. Deathen Taxes 19:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked User:Deathen Taxes indefinitely for removing comments and for making this personal attack. The Arbcom should not entertain this user's complaints until he shows that he can participate in Wikipedia civilly. Rhobite 21:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you blocked Deathen Taxes because you were pissed off over how previous accounts associated with one or more of the same persons treated you on Wikipedia through insults and personal attacks. But, hiding that under the legitimate guise of a personal attack based on another user works just as well. At any rate, Curps has unblocked the Deathen Taxes account, so that pretty much cancels your block. Knight trumps queen. Oh Good Grief 23:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall ever dealing with you before; you must be mistaking me for someone else. As I said, I won't block you for past violations, but please don't make personal attacks in the future. Thank you. Rhobite 02:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chadbryant

Alex Cain's numerous sockpuppets and their editing histories speak volumes. So does this thread. There is no reason to explain further. Mr. Cain is not seeking a legitimate solution to the problem, because he is only here to create problems. - Chadbryant 21:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Mr. Cain has seen fit to vandalize this page by editing my comments also speaks volumes regarding his conduct and intent. Mr. Cain would wish for Wikipedia admins to remain ignorant regarding his long history of online troublemaking, but that simply will not happen, much to his chagrin. - Chadbryant 04:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Once again restoring my original comments, after Mr. Cain has chosen to vandalize and edit them. - Chadbryant 17:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you think I've had to once again restore my comments from 9 December because of vandalism from another sock being run by Mr. Cain, you'd be correct. - Chadbryant 01:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing being "vandalized" on your comments. Once again that is a perfect example of how you manipulate and falsely use the definition of "vandalism" for your own needs. I am removing the external link because it is a personal attack site; the site contains numerous inaccuracies and false information, and was written by YOU in a fit of obsessive behavior. Please stop trying to make yourself look like the victim here -- it's really quite an immature and petty tactic. Oh Good Grief 16:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The hell I'm not seeking a legitimate solution to this problem. You ARE the problem. You misuse the Wikipedia definition of vandalism, you remove remarks put on your talk page that are placed there in regards to your behavior on Wikipedia, and you revert articles simply because the person before you who added to the article is someone you don't like. Don't try to sling your bullshit around here -- I've already given away free raincoats before you even entered the building. Oh Good Grief 23:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC) (aka Deathen Taxes)[reply]

Note from uninvolved party User:Jtkiefer

Just wanted to note here that I have blocked User:Oh Good Grief for vandalism for repeatedly modifying other user's statements on this RFA page, specifically removing content from ChadBryant's statement. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The content removed is a link that goes to an external site to a false FAQ written by Mr. Bryant himself. How would you like it if I put up a webpage with misleading and false information about your person, then came on Wikipedia to call you a child molestor or whatever, using that site to verify my claims? The information is removed because similar behavior is occurring on the part of Chadbryant. Ghostly Presence 01:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Good Grief's response to being blocked for modifying another user's RFAr statement
No problem -- I was thinking of creating yet another sockpuppet anyway. I edit those comments in question because they contain a link to a hate site wherein the subject is my person. Since none of YOU boobs will do anything about it (despite being informed repeatedly), I had to take manners into my own hands. Sue me if you don't like it, Dorothy. Oh Good Grief 23:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC) diff:[3]. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also have had to block User:Ghostly Presence and User:Beth Reimer since they are sockpuppets of Oh Good grief and have been used by him to continue this behavior. I have lengthened Oh Good Grief's block to 1 week as well for continuing to modify other user's comments and for sockpuppetry while doing that. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have indefinitely blocked User:Oh Good Grief for this major personal attack which is in addition to his vandalism and sockpuppetry. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 18:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is symptomatic of one of the major problems with this wonderful endeavour. Here we have a user (no more, no less) who has been arbitrarily empowered with tools and entrusted to use his/her discretion to maintain some form of societal discipline within the anarchic chaos of WP. Good luck to them I say. Before the cogniscenti (read: cabal or clique) cry "it is not arbitrary", well it is - which "users" vote on these matters, other than those in the loop?. In the grand scheme of WP, that is arbitrary. Jtkiefer made an over hasty, and wrong, assumption and blocked a user for no other reason than he could, and he had the tools to do so. The major personal attack he refers to was not made by the user he blocked. These powers need to be kept in check. --84.68.78.212 19:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just another informational note, I have suggested to this user (who keeps jumping around to different IP's) to file an RFC if he/she has issues with the way such things work. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have also put back the remainder of the 1 week block on Oh Good Grief because there is doubt as to whether the personal attack was done by him and I'd rather be safe than sorry in terms of not having someone blocked who shouldn't be blocked. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good, that is a start towards some redress. Regards. --84.68.78.212 19:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the welcome BTW, and I am categorically NOT whichever users and socks you may have blocked. The RfC may be forthcoming in time, but don't hold your breath. It is nothing against you personally, just my extensive observations on the way this project functions on a systemic level. --84.68.78.212 19:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from TruthCrusader User:TruthCrusader

I have attempted to stay out of this because Mr.Bryant has some personal animosity towards me, but I feel I must comment. While in no way shape or form defending the actions of any of the alleged socks that have been tormenting Mr.Bryant, I do wish to point out that Mr.Bryant's behaviour has not exactly been acceptable either. He has consistently violated Wiki policy with regards to the naming convention for Pro Wrestlers, he HAS been warned repeatedly NOT to insert POV remarks in the entry for rec.sport.pro-wrestling which he has blatantly IGNORED, he DOES in fact, term 95% of the edits he does as "r/v due to vandalism" when it is obvious that in many many instances they are NOT. He has in the past changed comments on his own talk page to make it appear as the poster has said something that they didn't (I was one of those victims). He also does something I find most troubling. Mr.Bryant for some reason believes me to be a person he has been feuding with on usenet for quite some time. I have consistently stated that I am not, but Mr.Bryant throws out the real life name of this person (whom I shall not name here for privacy) when referring to me. Now, I am NOT this individual, but the fact that Mr.Bryant, believeing me to be, violates this persons right to privacy is a behaviour I find most disturbing. This person has NO way of defending himself on Wiki since it appears he doesn't post here. Also, even if I WAS this person, my personal info is NOWHERE to be found on Wiki. Mr.Bryant would have no right to go searching for it, and post it here for the world to see.

Mr.Bryant is capable of being a positive contributor to Wiki, but he has a problem, in my opinion, with anger and bringing 'off Wiki' feuds into Wiki. All of my statements regarding Mr.Bryant's activities can be easily verified by browsing the history fo his talk page, of user Mel Ettis's talk page, of the entry of rec.sport.pro-wrestling, Derek Duggan, and others.

I predict Mr. Bryant will attack me here, or my talk page will suddenly become vandalised by a new unknown user, but I stand by my statements. TruthCrusader

Statement from Kelly Martin

I've recused myself from this case because I've had prior experience with this troll that renders me basically unable to be objective. DickWitham, aka hundreds if not thousands of other user names, originally DickNWitham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), started out his posting career on Wikipedia by calling Chad Bryant "disturbing" [4]. At the time, Chadbryant was not even editing Wikipedia, at least not under that name. Ever since, he has engaged in sporadic intense bouts of sockpuppetry, creating dozens if not hundreds of socks in each episode, totally possibly thousands of sockpuppets overall, all for the purpose of malinging Chad Bryant. Chad "draws it in" by maintaining the FAQ he does (in his own webspace), but I've seen no indication that Chad's contributions to Wikipedia are anything other than good faith, and in general his actions improve the encyclopedia. The difficulty in dealing with this individual is that he uses BellSouth with their floating IPs. He knows that, and relishes in it. Sanctioning Chad in this case serves no purpose; sanctioning DickWitham (or Alex Cain, or whatever his real name is) is technically impossible. There's no good solution here. At most, ban the sockpuppeter for life, and admonish Chad to let others deal with the idiot and not react to him. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stirling Newberry

Stirling Newberry, while an otherwise excellent contributor, has taken to using his signature to linkspam his website, apparently for Google ranking purposes [5] [6]. People have done many stupid things with signatures, but their use for linkspam is something that's been thankfully avoided thusfar, and IMHO it's something that should be nipped in the bud quickly. He's been asked nicely to refrain from doing so by Zocky, Brian0918, Marudubshinki and Android79. His replies have been fairly rude ([7] [8]), and he's made fairly clear that the only way he's going to stop spamming his site is if he's forced to. His spamming has also been universally criticised on WP:ANI. I don't like having to request a remedy against a generally good user, but I think in the circumstances a quick ruling here would be the best way of nipping this in the bud before it spreads. Ambi 14:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Zocky

Since "no external links" is now part of the Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages guideline, and Stirling has previously indicated his readiness to stop doing it if there was a policy against it, I think this case will not be necessary. Zocky 22:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to have ignored your efforts so far. I hope it will not be necessary, but I'm not overly optimistic at this point. Ambi 06:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This case won't be necessary. If it is the will of the community that there be no external links in sigs then administrators can enforce it with blocking. Looking at User_talk:Stirling_Newberry#Your_signature, WP:ANI#External_links_in_signatures, and Wikipedia_talk:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages#External_links_in_signatures there is overwhelming support for this stance on sigs. silsor 23:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

User: DrBat -- continuing breaches of previous ArbCom ruling

Involved parties

Sockpuppets previously confirmed by ArbCom members:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Yes [10]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Yes - see statement below.

First time round, RfC and RFM were tried initially, the matter then went to RFArb. Second time round (Nov 2005) he was given a chance to walk away and save face. 2 weeks later (this week) he recommenced the same activities on other articles and was only noticed doing so by chance.

Statement by FT2

(1) OCT - DEC 2004: DrBat initial activity under the sockpuppet "Ciz", and ArbCom ruling

Following an intense POV war campaign on the Zoophilia article and Furry, ArbCom issued an indefinite ban on DrBat (under any name) editing on the subject. His warfare included libellous and vicious personal attacks on any NPOV editors, and complete disregard for every policy related to NPOV and NPA, to the extent that almost every post he made in a 3 month period Oct - Dec 2004 was a documented breach of some (usually significant) Wikipedia policy, including vandalism of ArbCom related matters when the subject was raised there, and the Adolph Hilter article. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ciz

After RfC and RfM, some 10 editors supported ArbCom referral, 8 of them requesting a wikipedia-wide ban on the basis he would probably not be able to resist continuing POV warfare on other articles that caught his attention this way. ArbCom ruled (Jan 10 2005) as follows:

  • Ciz has engaged in controversial edits of Zoophilia against consensus. (8-0)
  • Ciz has engaged in personal attacks on editors of Zoophilia. (8-0)
  • Ciz has made no civil attempt to discuss changes with Zoophilia with editors there. (6-0)
  • Ciz edits under another account, DrBat, that he does not wish associated with zoophilia topics. This does not in itself constitute creating a sock puppet for an abusive purpose. (8-0)
  • DrBat is an upstanding member of the community, and has made numerous legitimate contributions. (6-0)
  • Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) is prevented indefinitely from editing Zoophilia and its closely related articles, including their talk pages.
  • "He has made many good edits with his other account. Thus we are not throwing the book at him this time" [Emphasis in original, ArbCom talk] [11]

Ciz ceased editing Zoophilia at that point.

(2) NOV 2005: Ciz returns to POV warfare on Zoophilia under another sockpuppet

On Nov 21 2005 a request "out of the blue" was filed to move the "zoophilia" article to "bestiality", followed by a resumption of the POV warring before. There was no prior talk page discussion attempted.

I asked user:Kelly Martin to check whether ShadowH was a sockpuppet of DrBat, which seemed likely. She confirmed that "DrBat and ShadowH are the same person, with a very high degree of certainty" [12]

DrBat's first actions under the "ShadowH" name were 1/ edit an article referencing zoophilia to replace it by "bestiality" [13], 2/ to post a Requested Move to "bestiality" [14] [15], 3/ repost his old allegations that the term "zoophile" is POV and that zoophiles "rape" animals and are like pedophiles [16] [17] [18] (all similar to previous approaches)

In the course of only 6 posts to Talk:Zoophilia DrBat had already shown his intent to continue his previous documented approach from 2004, including:

  • An attempt to abuse process (previously he had abused VfD and other processes, this time requested moves)
  • Unsourced statements ("More people associate..." [19], "Many view..." [20])
  • Weasels ("Some could argue..." [21])
  • Personal view as basis for editing ("I find it offensive..." [22], "To associate a group of people enslaved and persecuted for hundreds of years, to a group of people who are unpopular for raping animals, is deeply offensive to me" [23])
  • Straw men (A comment that many groups, such as Black Americans, find certain terms POV, was replied by DrBat: "As an African American, I find it offensive to be compared to bestiality" (there was no comparison of people or groups, but only of their views on perceived POV terminology) [24]. A careful re-explanation of this [25] was completely ignored (as in 2004) and replied to with: "So you're comparing the persecution of African Americans to people who believe having sex with animals is abuse" [26])
  • "Zoophilia is equivalent to pedophilia" ("And I am sure pedophiles find the term pedophlia insulting and would prefer something more npov such as boylove instead?" [27]. In fact the article uses the term zoophilia for the same reason as pedophilia; both are the appropriate clinical terms)

After confirmation by Kelly Martin that ShadowH was a sockpuppet of DrBat, I considered how to handle it. Wikipedia philosophy/ArbCom precedent does not believe a person incapable of change, even Willie on Wheels, and in its previous decision ArbCom imposed a minimum ruling to prevent DrBat vandalizing on the subject of zoophilia, despite his heavy POV warfare and personal attacks. I felt the spirit of Wikipedia would be better served if he would simply leave the article and subject of his own accord. So instead of escalation, I simply posted a note on the talk page to ShadowH on Nov 23 saying I suspected he was DrBat and to either state he was not, or cease editing on the subject matter. ShadowH ceased editing Zoophilia the same day.

I was satisfied that a situation had been defuzed the simplest way. Explanation to Kelly Martin why I was not approaching AER or RFArb *this time* [28], Post to "ShadowH" on article talk page [29], posts archived in Talk:Zoophilia/Archive15.

(3) DEC 2005: DrBat recommences deletion and POV change of zoophilia references in other articles

Just two weeks after the above, on Dec 5, DrBat began POV warring on zoophilia yet again, this time in other articles. He edited without consensus the South Park article "recurring themes" section, to delete the fully sourced and cited section discussing zoophilia as a recurrent theme. [30]. This is in addition to his edit of Savage Love on Nov 9 [31] as ShadowH changing "zoophilia" to "bestiality" (c.f. text of his Requested Move).

(4) UPDATE

...And deletes again the cited South Park section, after reading and responding to this RFArb, again without consensus. [32]

(5) Fairness and neutrality:

When not editing on the subject of zoophilia and furry, DrBat makes valuable contributions to many other articles.

SUMMARY:

AER doesn't seem relevant as DrBat is a habitual sockpuppet user, and it was only by chance his POV activites of December were noticed, since they affected another article. He has now vandalised or POV edited 4 or 5 (rather than just 1 or 2) other articles in total, as well as the zoophilia and other furry articles. It seems a decision on handling is needed, not just enforcement of an existing ruling.

His 2004 warfare was given a second chance by ArbCom, by removing him from the one subject only ("Thus we are not throwing the book at him this time"). His November 2005 actions through another sock-puppet in breach of the ArbCom ruling, were given a second chance by myself, to walk away without escalation and save face. Having been given a chance so recently, I feel that in continuing to vandalize other articles this way, DrBat has now reached the point that I have to pass this one back to ArbCom to decide how to handle it.

FT2 13:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DrBat

1)The request was to move zoophilia to bestiality, which most people associate the term with. No changes to the article were made, and it was put to a vote.
2)South Park does not have bestiality as a recurring theme, and South Park itself is not connected to bestiality. Almost all of the stuff seemed taken out of context. If you asked Trey and Matt, they would probably also say bestiality is not a recurring theme in the show. Furthermore, the question on if it was relevant was put into talk when I removed the bit. No one else has commented on it or reverted it until you came. If actual SP fans didn't feel it was meant to be in the article, and they left it alone, I don't see how it would be vandalism. Do you even watch the show?

UPDATE
...And deletes again the cited South Park section, after reading and responding to this RFArb, again without consensus. [33]
The above "2)" still applies. --DrBat 13:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3)On 'Savage Love' the term bestiality was already mentioned and linked at the top of the page. Hence my removal of the link when it was mentioned further down the page in relation to the Santorum controversy.--DrBat 22:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

SlimVirgin: Abuse of Administrator Priviledges

Involved parties

vs.

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

The particular matter of this request for arbitration is, in my opinion, a fairly direct matter of facts and interpretations. There has also, however, been a long-running clash of opinions and personalities involving both myself and SlimVirgin, going back as far as mid-September. This has spanned several articles, and at one point I filed a request for comment for one article. The discussion at [35] and [36], which went on for several weeks and involved several editors, should give an idea of the intransigence of the parties with regard to each other. John Kenney (talk · contribs), who was part of that discussion and who at times played the role of a moderate, might be consulted (with my apologies) to confirm that, no, we cannot all just get along.

With regard to why the particular matter cannot be addressed at a lower level, I frankly would mistrust, with regard to any dispute I have with SlimVirgin, any process in Wikipedia that was not transparent and at least mildly accountable, and I would not be confident that SlimVirgin would not feel free to disregard an opinion from any but the highest level: two current members of the Arbitration Committee have been involved in the broader dispute. Also, I believe that there is little action that can be taken against administrators below the Arbitration Committee level.

Marsden 23:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Marsden

On December 6, SlimVirgin blocked me in response to an edit I made at the questions page of a candidate for ArbCom. SlimVirgin had previously posted an invective against me on that page, and had deleted edits both from me and from another editor, describing the latter's changes as "trolling." The reason she gave for her block was "for disruption and violations of WP:NPA."

I contend that my edit was a legitimate question to be posed to a candidate for ArbCom, and therefore not disruptive, and that it was not a prejudicial question, and therefore it was not a personal attack. Also, while the page in question was not an encyclopedia article, SlimVirgin's action violated the spirit of the prohibition against the use of admin blocking power in an editing conflict, and it served to obstruct the purpose of the candidate's question page, which is to allow scrutiny of the candidate's qualification and suitability for the office.

Further, after I requested via email that SlimVirgin remove her block and after she refused my request, I began preparing evidence on my talk page for this RfAr against her. She then erased my preparations and protected my talk page. I asked her to remove the protection, noting that it impaired my RfAr preparation, but she refused, and claimed that I had reposted my original edit at the candidate questions page by way of a footnote that included a link to the diff of the edit, and that I had posted the contents of emails that I "did not have permission to post." She also indicated that she would inquire with other admins about extending my block, which she subsequently did. My transcript of the email exchange is at User:Marsden/SlimVirginRfAr.

SlimVirgin's claim that I reposted the original edit is spurious because, in the first place, I doubt very much that my talk page gets any public traffic to speak of, and in the second place because the "repost" was at two removes: through a footnote and then through a link. Also, because SlimVirgin's half of the email exchange that I posted was in her role as an agent of an official Wikipedia policy, she had no reason to expect confidentiality. Finally, SlimVirgin posted a link at the Admins' incident page to the edit on my talk page, which link probably generated several times more exposure to the allegedly offensive edit than it ever had on its own.

In light of SlimVirgin's behavior, I would like her to be reprimanded for abusing her administrative powers and reminded in no uncertain terms that, as noted at WP:adminship, "Administrators are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility," and that, "administrators do not have any special power over other users other than applying decisions made by all users."

Addendum: SlimVirgin has subsequently indicated that she will not even revert a question that she claims to be substantially the same as the question that she blocked me for.

Statement by SlimVirgin

Comment by Andjam

I've questioned on Marsden's talk page the factual accuracy of his statement. Andjam 00:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the above statement, I was referring to the "Confirmation" section, not the "Statement by Marsden". Sorry for the confusion. He has since removed the phrase in dispute.

Further with respect to "confirmation that other steps have failed", apart from a use of profanity in an edit summary, to the best of my recollection those who disagreed with Marsden in Israeli-occupied territories (which I was involved in) did so civilly. Andjam 01:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Benjamin Gatti, Zen-master, Simesa, Katefan, Woohookitty

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • 2 requests for content comments at Price Anderson, 2 Mediations for content disputes at Price Anderson, Oh yes, and we also tried Arbcom early today for Locking Price Anderson (But, and I repeat (recursively and without end)) This has nothing to do with Price Anderson. Benjamin Gatti 05:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Benjamin Gatti

(Please limit your statement to 500 words) (Or if you're more important than the rules - feel free to ramble)

Have a look at the case listed just below. There are 15 edits involved. fully 7 people (including the blocking admin) made edits that day. 3 editors made four or more edits. No one violated 3rr, and the article was never the same twice. I suggest that the rejected versions include more factually accurate statements, include phrases with higher Google hit counts than the alternatives, and include phrases used by the Supreme court to describe this contentious issue (bear in mind the Supreme court did not agree with the Fourth circuit court on this issue). Bear also in mind that the Army field manual describes the medical effects of radiation on fetuses in explicit detail, and that these highly sourced effects (mental retardation, severe deformity etc.) were censored from the article even though the purpose of Price Anderson Pseudo-Insurance is to cover Catastrophic Nuclear Incidents. I believe that the personal complaint is noise; however, the issue could bear the attention and guidance of the Arbcomm as it is admittedly intractable. Benjamin Gatti 14:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Issue of Price Anderson is ripe for appeal to the Arbcom having been the subject of multiple RfC, and 2 incomplete mediations. Personal issue are not ripe, there being no ad hominem mediations or RfC.

Whitewashing


POV-Pushing

has been redefined in this complaint as insisting on the use of words and facts from such sources as the Supreme Court of the United States. If such is POV pushing, I welcome the label. [41]

Compare and decide

The original article completely omits that state's rights are suspended, that Industry is shielded from liability (Federal indemnification) - even for criminally negligent acts, and the name has been shortened to omit the words "Nuclear Industry Indemnification". Simply compare [42] the POV of the initial article to the end result, decide if the over-correcting heuristic has produced a more excellent article, and then decide if there is a place at wikipedia for people who care more about facts than a popularity contest - and let us know how you decide.

Prayer

If it please the Arbcomm to beatify Mike for his Cyber-Inquisition, propheteering, channeling, and otherwise representing the spirit and wrath of Arbcomm against the great unwashed, for it is clear that the quest is not like to end short of the goblet; thus, for the cause of windmills everywhere, would the Arbcomm kindly give the frogs their king?


Statement by Woohookitty

First of all, this request is not related to Ben's request involving the most recent protection of the Price-Anderson Act (I'll use the short form of the act just for briefness). This is a request that has been brewing for several months, but that we've held off on because we've made several attempts to resolve the situation, but we've been unsuccessful.

Anyways, honestly, it's hard to narrow down the policies/guidelines that Ben has broken or tried to get around. Most (but not all) of the violations have involved the Price-Anderson Act. He has also been disruptive at Looting, nuclear power and other articles. Ben is a master at Gaming the system and has done absolutely everything to game the system, including violating other policies/guidelines to do so. Here is an example of Ben violating No Personal Attacks (by crying "censorship", which he does alot), but then accusing others of violating No Personal Attacks. He's also been good at doing things such as quoting the neutral point of view policy, but not quoting the entire policy. In this case, he was claiming that "NPOV states that controversial statements are NPOV as long as they are attributed", while completely omitting the principle that NPOV statements also need to be fair and balanced by other statements. Other things he does to game the system is to be cooperative one day and then when he gets his way and we decide to give him a point, completely turns around and submits a ridiculous POV edit that no one can even start to edit.

We also have his constant POV pushing. His POV is that nuclear power is bad and that we must make the P-A and nuclear power articles into a push for renewable energy. Here is an example of this. This POV pushing has extended to other articles, such as nuclear power, where he's often submitted POV edits like this one and also POV edits at Looting and also Criminalization of politics.

And we also have violations of No personal attacks such as listing anything that's against his view as similar to enslavement or the Holocaust by basically saying that those of us who say that the consensus is for a certain way puts us in the same "dark moral ground" as the Holocaust and enslavement.

And finally, we have disruption. We actually just had a great example of it with his ridiculous request on this page. Even after being told that this wasn't the place for discussing undoing a protection, he added to his arguments anyway. And he's very good at mocking processes with adding sections like "Prayer". When I briefly had a practice RfC for him on my userspace (which is within policy), he mocked it by saying that the opposite parties were him and "God". --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention the main thing he's guilty of, which is excessive edit warring. He does this edit warring despite any talking with anyone else. he's done it despite mediation, protection (when he'll just transfer it to the talk page), threats of RfArs or anything else.

I'd like to urge that the Arbcom take this case. Just so you know beforehand, it might be an ugly one given Ben's purchance to disrupt...which is why I plan on asking for a temp. injunction against him once we get started. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. This is in response to Ben's statement here. Again. This has nothing to do with the protection dispute going on. The personal stuff is not "noise". It's the entire case, Ben. Your actions here are the case. You violated 5 major policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and you still are. The arbcom should note that a couple of the diffs up above are from the last 3 weeks. It's not as if Ben is getting better. And to me, this whole protection dispute shows that he refuses to fully learn and follow the rules. The arbcom does not take content disputes. I've told you this on P-A several times (as has katefan0) and we've told you on here and yet you keep plugging away on content. This ArbCom case I am starting is not a content dispute. It's not about the issues in Price-Anderson and what should and shouldn't be in the article. It's about your unceasing edit warring and general misconduct. Ben, we could literally use half of your edits in this case against you. The problem is that you have an anything goes/slash and burn style. As long as you win your point, you don't think it matters how you do it. It's "noise". Well it isn't. And you're going to learn that the hard way through this arbcom case. And if you notice Ben, I've yet to mention a single issue in the Price-Anderson Act article. Not a one. You're the issue here. Not Price-Anderson. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum II. Ben, my statements about zen have no place here. The case is not about zen. It's about you. It's not about Price-Anderson. it's about you. ArbCom, I'd appreciate it in your votes here that you make it clear that this is not a content dispute and that you are not accepting this on that basis. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Katefan0

I first encountered Benjamin Gatti when I responded to an RFC filed on the article Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act. I quickly realized that Benjamin edited from a strong anti-nuclear/pro-renewable energy viewpoint. [43] [44] [45] This would not be a problem, except that Benjamin was not properly sourcing contributions, and often inserted essay-like, blatantly biased opinion as fact. I chalked this up to inexperience and tried to show him Wikipedia’s policies, taking pains to demonstrate how to properly source criticisms, and how to attribute assertions of opinion to groups. (Which he responded in one instance by suggesting I was trying to censor him [46]). While Benjamin has been most disruptive for the longest period of time on energy-related articles, he has made disruptive edits across numerous unrelated articles.

Benjamin continued this pattern of very disruptive editing, even after he was well aware of Wikipedia's policies and their applications. Here he has begun using in-line links to references, but instead of characterizing them as the opinion of those groups, he simply states those opinions as fact. [47], [48], [49]. In response to admonishments on this point, Benjamin here makes it clear that he views his purpose as above such suggestions "i am not bound by courtesy, wikicourtesy or otherwise".

Benjamin has at times been rather uncivil, but has generally refrained from making serious personal attacks, with the exception of a rather unsavory incident involving Simesa, with whom he has been squaring off the longest. Simesa is a retired nuclear engineer, and as such has been the target of Benjamin's unfounded ire on several occasions. Here casting aspersions on Simesa's motives [50], [51]. But perhaps the most offensive action in this regard was when Benjamin awarded Simesa the "Chernobyl medal," stating Simesa is awarded the "Liquidator of Consequences" award for his work in scubbing the wikipedia clean of the consequences of nuclear radiation. Benjamin finally relented when Simesa, in defending himself, revealed that part of the reason he is a former nuclear engineer is because he was a whistleblower.

It's clear to me that Benjamin is a crusader more interested in using Wikipedia to spread the "truth" about the evils of nuclear power and other political causes rather than presenting a subject neutrally, particularly as it regards energy or political topics. He has regularly conducted what amount to breaching experiments and blatantly bad faith edits, and is not afraid of violating policies, disrupting Wikipedia, edit warring and any other tactic if it furthers the dissemination of what he considers the "truth." For instance, when Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act was protected because of the ongoing edit war, Benjamin went to the Price-Anderson Act redirect page, pasted in his preferred version of the article and continued to edit there. When challenged he justified his action by suggesting it was all right because the protecting admin did not list it on WP:PP, [52] [53], then began to edit war in an attempt to retain his edits [54], and posted an announcement on the protected article's talk page asking other editors to "drop in" to edit the redirect [55].

His heavily biased edits have not only been to nuclear-related topics. He has also inserted blatantly biased opinion at Indentured servant, Pat Robertson, Looting, United States Department of Defense, George W. Bush, and others. In my opinion, there is no other way to view these kinds of additions except as disruption bordering on vandalism.

I believe Benjamin is only concerned about Wikipedia insofar as he can use it as a platform for broadcasting his liberal ideologies. (Here saying "I'm not here to make friends, I'm here to make a difference") [56], (Here creating a page called "Wikiblower protection") [57], (Here announcing his willingness to edit war to protect "the truth") [58]

I regretfully join this arbitration — regretful because Benjamin is clearly intelligent and has the capacity to contribute usefully if he could only abide by WP:NPOV and related policies. However, the idea that he could begin complying with these directives seems increasingly unlikely to me, as he has been given months of chances to demonstrate that he has any interest in neutrality and has failed each time. I believe that like most crusaders Benjamin is well-intentioned insofar as he feels he's doing the right thing "for the good of all mankind," but his passion to spread "the truth" without following Wikipedia's policies has wreaked havoc across every article I've ever seen him edit. I feel that this disruptive editing has reached a point where it can't be allowed to continue in this fashion. He continues this editing pattern even up to today Edit dated Nov. 7; Edit dated Dec. 10.

Statement by Ral315

As mediator in this case, I'd prefer not to make a statement at this point. If the arbitration case is accepted, I will help in any way that I can, but as I'm still mediating this dispute, it would be a conflict of interest to divulge anything. Ral315 (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simesa

I am a former nuclear engineer who is no longer in the industry, probably at least partially because I became a "whistleblower". (Other than to write to the Nuclear Energy Institute and to American Nuclear Insurers for information for Wikipedia, and a noncopyrighted picture, I have had no contact with the industry for a decade.) I have been involved with Nuclear power and Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act since June 22nd (I authored the latter). I filed the first RfP and first RfC (which brought in Katefan0 and Woohookitty).

There has been horrendous edit-warring in both articles since Ben first edited Nuclear power on May 19th (nearly ceasing in Nuclear power since September 1st - 215 edits by him in that period). (Ben has made 196 edits to Price-Anderson Act.) Ben views Wikipedia as a confrontational battlefield for his views. He has said, "Yes - like any respectable conflict, both sides claim God, NPOV, and common sense are on their side. In that respect at least, this is a proper pitched battle." [59] and (in the Price-Anderson dicussions) "Truth is a battle" [60]. Ben once wrote "And as for drastic - if an article is NPOV - it deserves drastic - no apologies." [61]

Ben once unilaterally moved all or portions of Nuclear power to a different article, which I believe was Nuclear debate [62]. user:Ultramarine and user:Dalf recall this, Ultramarine had it reverted, and they may give evidence later.

Ben has made no bones about his intending to fight Price-Anderson and nuclear power. His history comment on the first edit he made to Price-Anderson was "without the Act = no plants" [63] [64]. In addition to his wife having been in Kiev at the time of the Chernobyl accident, Ben sees himself as a competitor to nuclear power, as evidenced by his website [65].

One personal attack on me was to post a "Chernobyl liquidator's" award on my Talk page [66]. I hold that award in even more disgust than Ben does (if that's possible), as being a nuclear engineer I know about Chernobyl, the aftermath and the cleanup (where the Soviets had cleanup crews picking up radioactive fuel fragments with just their hands). Ben also once referred to nuclear-involved engineers as "deadbeat engineers." [67] Finally, Ben has repeatedly tried to tie me as financially dependent on the nuclear industry in an apparent attempt to discredit me [68] [69] (as stated above, I have no contact with or dependance on the nuclear industry).

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

Sortan

Involved parties

Sortan (talk · contribs)

User:jguk

This is a request that ArbCom rules (1) that accounts that are not being used to help improve the encyclopaedia can be banned on request to ArbCom; and (2) that User:Sortan is one such user and should be blocked.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Sortan informed of case against him

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This is a request that, based on an edit history lasting a number of months, a user should be banned from editing. The dispute resolution process does not allow bans otherwise than imposed by ArbCom.

Statement by jguk

The biggest cause of major contributors leaving Wikipedia, aside from personal circumstances, is accounts that make very little or no positive contribution to the encyclopaedia, but who are content to argue, harass, harangue and/or make occasional personal attacks. Often they attach themselves to one or two users. This makes it difficult to remove them - they are not clear vandals or widespread trolls (and so do not qualify for automatic bans), however, they are trouble and bring no benefits to the encyclopaedia. They prevent editors with long edit histories that show a long record from making productive edits. They often tend to be litigious, demanding of their “rights” - which itself creates a problem, especially as our writers are here because they wish to write, not because they wish to defend 200+ of their edits in a RfC or ArbCom case. To my mind, it should be clearly stated that where ArbCom finds an account is not here in order to better the encyclopaedia, then it should be blocked.

I invite ArbCom to do this in the case of Sortan (talk · contribs). This account’s contribution history constitutes evidence demonstrating that this user has made no real contributions of note, but has been involved in many disruptive disputes is in the edit history. I think it is so self-evident that if ArbCom members were to open 10 or 12 of this accounts edits at random, and consider the purposes of those edits, they will see what I am referring to. The underlying principle is Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (which, although semi-humorous refers to our fundamental purposes. I urge ArbCom to take this case to determine (1) that accounts that are not being used to help improve the encyclopaedia can be blocked on request to ArbCom; and (2) that User:Sortan is one such user and should be blocked.

Statement by Sortan

I would agree that the cause of contributors leaving Wikipedia is persistent trolling from POV pushers, who do nothing but edit war to enforce their particular POVs. Such is the case with Jguk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has made no significant contributions to history articles, yet has engaged in hundreds of edit wars, and thousands of reversions with editors who do contribute. One only has to look at the histories of such articles such as Sino-Roman relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where jguk has engaged in revert wars spanning months against the article creator PHG over date styles. A similar situation occurs at History of the alphabet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where jguk revert wars with article creator Kwamikagami. This pattern is repeated over hundreds of articles where the contributors commit the cardinal sin of disagreeing with jguk over his preferred styles.

Dates are not the only matter with which jguk revert wars over, but other stylistic differences, including U.S. vs US, styles for royalty, and spelling styles (British vs American spelling).

Jguk is apparently claiming that my reverting him here [[70]] (where he changes start of the Common Era to 1 BC, and which is against his arbitration case and for which he received a block (see WP:ANI#Jon_Garrett_removing_references_to_Common_Era)), constitutes "harassment" and "stalking".

I too would urge acceptance so that Jguk's disruptive history of edit warring over styles can receive greater scrutiny.

Addendum:

Jguk's summary is without diffs or links of evidence. He claims I'm litigious, yet I've never started an RFAr (I added myself to Jguk 2, which was started by someone else). Jguk, on the other hand, has been involved in numerous RfArs and RFCs, even when he doesn't edit the subject matter concerned (eg. Instantnood 2). I would please ask for evidence where I've been litigious, or where I've hindered, in any way, Jguk infrequent constructive edits.

Addendum 2:

Perhaps David Gerard could enlighten me how my "trolling" jguk caused him to make these edits: [71], [72]?

Perhaps David Gerard could also enlighten me how he "missed" jguk's edits as an anon during his first arbcom case?

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

Pigsonthewing: Request for recall

I strongly urge a recall of the Pigsonthewing case, currently pending a close, to consider Karmafist's recent actions in releasing a block made on him, and subsequently engaging in block wars on this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the block was made under the temporary injunction and announced on WP:AN/I. I know no more about it. The details of his actions are in the block log. Having chatted to Karmafist online this afternoon, I think he's in a bad state, and unable to exercise good judgement in the Andy Mabbett case or, it appears, in general operation of his administrator powers. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to chat to Karmafist since then. I still think there's going to be an ongoing problem with Karmafist, unless he's able to let go of the Andy Mabbett thing properly, but if most arbitrators disagree with me, and you obviously know far more about the case than I do, well no problems at the moment. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karmafist (talk • contribs • page moves • block • block log)

I believe this situation may now have resolved itself peaceably. It might be good for Karmafist to talk about/review this some more, but further outside intervention may not be warranted. What do you think Tony? --CBD ✉ 17:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Karmafist blocked in the first place? Fred Bauder 15:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little bit hard to find now, but the original block cited the message Evilphoenix left on his userpage. At the time it was at the bottom and obvious. It cites this diff[78] as the reason. And here's the diff where Evilphoenix added the message[79]. --Phroziac . o º O (mmmmm chocolate!) 17:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. Need more information Fred Bauder 15:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is the third time in as many weeks we close a case only to have someone request we reopen it less than 24 hours later. Like all the previous ones, nothing substantive has been presented here to warrant reopening the case. Raul654 17:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I've reviewed the block log and while it's definitely true that Karmafist unblocked himself twice (and was reblocked twice by Phroziac), I don't see the sort of block warring that we saw with Stevertigo. At the moment, I don't feel that we have a well-conditioned complaint against Karmafist as an administrator to justify a review at this time. There are certainly a lot of disconnected pieces that are troubling, but nobody has put them together. And I don't think we should delay closing Pigsonthewing for this issue, which should be considered separately if and when it is properly presented. I therefore recommend rejecting this request. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Reject Fred Bauder 20:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 20:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for Clarification

Requests for clarification from the Arbcom on matters related to the arbitration process.

Pigsonthewing

ArbCom decided to ban Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one day. He is currently under a 48 hour block, should the ban run concurrently with the block, or should it be run consecutively? --Phroziac . o º O (mmmmm chocolate!) 18:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consecutively Raul654 18:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC) (you can safely assume that our blocks always run consecutively unless otherwise stated.) Raul654 18:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, you're wrong there. Or at least, to put it another way, all ArbCom remedies are stated to run concurrently (unless explicitly stated to run consecutive). Every "Proposed decision" page clearly states "Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated". This has been the case for quite some time now. There's good reason for this being the case - eg Suppose Arbs were to vote both for a three month and a six month ban for exactly the same thing and it being argued that this really means a nine month ban.
Incidentally, I strongly recommend keeping the default where Arbs are silent on the matter aws being "concurrently". If Arbs bugger up, this is the least damaging default, jguk 23:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes our remedies run concurrently, but the 48 hour block was not imposed by us. So it kicks in after the current block. It is intended to be a reminder and must clearly visible and annoying to be effective (on the theory than any ban is effective). Fred Bauder 20:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Based on his talk page comments, I'm not forseeing a happy outcome here:

The arbitration commitee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing case. Raul654 18:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I shall treat that with the utter contempt that it deserves. Andy Mabbett 10:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Calton | Talk 10:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just blocked Pigsonthewing for 48 hours for breaching his Arbcom ruling - the first block. See WP:AN/I for details of the excessive reverts. David | Talk 12:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

InstantNood

InstantNood has continued his revert warring tactics since the closing of the ArbCom case. Rather than revert him and continue the game, I've reported it on WP:AN/I as instructed in the notice put on our talk pages [80].

InstantNood is filibustering [81] [82] there on the plain meaning of "any article which relates to China which you or they disrupt by inappropriate editing".

Can ArbCom make a statement that:

  1. "Any article which relates to China" means exactly that, and is not somehow restricted in scope to previous articles brought up in the case
  2. "disrupt by inappropriate editing" includes slow revert wars. Reverting once a day on schedule, or even returning weeks later to some old dispute to start reverting again (without discussion, of course), is inappropriate editing.

The filibustering makes any admin loathe to make a strong decision and enforce the terms of the probation that all parties to the case were put under. SchmuckyTheCat 21:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


IMHO there is little reason for the probation, as a decision of our ArbCom case, to extend to all China-related entries, including those that are not, or marginally, relevant to the issues that led to the case. If my action were disruptive, actions could be taken against me (and/or the other party/ies) no matter the problem were China-related or not. As for " InstantNood has continued his revert warring tactics since the closing of the ArbCom case ", the matters around the articles that SchmuckyTheCat has listed at WP:AN/I has been surfaced before the ArbCom case was closed, and are not relevant to the ArbCom case. — Instantnood 21:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood placed on probation

4) Instantnood is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article which relates to China which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. Instantnood must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. They may post suggestions on the talk page of any article they are banned from editing. This remedy is crafted to permit Instantnood continuing to edit articles in these areas which are not sources of controversy.

Any article related to China. Any administrator using their own judgement. You have wide discretion. Any of the mentioned examples could fall within that wide discretion. Fred Bauder 21:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification Fred. Does that mean any of us (user:Huaiwei, user:SchmuckyTheCat and I) could be placed on probation according to the ArbCom remedies as long as there's disruptive behaviour around any China-related entry, even if the entry/ies are not relevant to our ArbCom case? — Instantnood 07:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what it means. Fred Bauder 14:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I must confess to being baffled: what part of any article which relates to China is unclear? I don't see a "but" or "except" or "other than" attached to that clause. --Calton | Talk 07:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. As it was within the context of the remedy of an ArbCom case, it's reasonable to expect it refers to entries which relates to China that are relevant to the case itself. — Instantnood 08:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As Wolfgang Pauli reportedly once said, that's not right, it's not even wrong. What part of the adjective any in that sentence did you misunderstand? --Calton | Talk 14:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think I've misunderstood anything. It was within the context of the remedy of the case. It's natural to have thought it refers to any article which relates to China that are relevant to the case. — Instantnood 20:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think I've misunderstood anything. Clearly untrue, given your demonstration that the meaning of the three-letter adjective any continues to elude you. --Calton | Talk 00:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zen-master

The ruling against Zen-master seems to be very specific regarding Race and intelligence, but he's currently editing in the same disruptive manner at Conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): editing against consensus and when he can't get his own way, slapping the NPOV tag on it, replacing it when he's reverted, and making complex, partial reverts so that it's hard to see whether he's violated 3RR. Given that the same behavior seems to be involved, can the ruling be extended to this article too? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is adding the {npov} tag to a disputed article a disruption? I assume that most of the recently active editors of Conspiracy theory (of which Slim is not among them) would agree with the statement that we are making some progress with the article NPOV wise, so what is the basis for her complaint exactly? Please provide citations and an explanation of how a particular wikipedia policy is being violated. zen master T 02:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think, despite Zen-master's Race and Intelligence block, that you need to Assume good faith - especially Fred Bauder, who, as an administrator, should try to be more objective. For example, on the mailing list, he apparently called a number of authors 'POV-pushers', 'POV-warriors', etc. (myself included) [83], [84], etc.
"Exactly, excellent parallel; although, this POV bunch is a bit bigger and better organized. And intimidating."
"Exactly, but are we all going to be bullied by POV warriors?", etc.
I fear that a belief in a 'POV cabal', of which Zen-master is apparently a member, may color Fred's opinions unduly. Indeed, what does the addition of an NPOV tag to an article violate? It happens a great deal on the other side of many of the ideological 'conflicts' I've seen Zen-master and others involved in. Ganging up on Zen-master without a clear idea of what's been violated just doesn't seem fair, nor objective. Just my $.02. And I am not trying to blame, nor accuse - just to remind folks of the need to be objective.
Last, extending the block to 'all articles', and making it 'indefinite', is, in my opinion, completely unwarranted and disproportionate to Zen-master's behavior, and I would hope such actions were not taken lightly against such users who are not fundamentally ill-intentioned, nor intentionally destructive to Wikipedia. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I don't know that I have ever considered your edits regarding any matter, but certainly we should be fair to Zen-master and not overdo it. Fred Bauder 03:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I am one of the editors that was being (imho, maligned) in that mailing list conversation, which is why I was aware of it having transpired. Honest thanks for exercising your best judgment, Fred. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zen-master has been relentlessly POV pushing on the subject of conspiracy theories for many months. A block on his editing conspiracy-related pages for three month would be a modet and appropriate response to his disruptive actions. SlimVirgin has bee a saint trying to deal with Zen-master.--Cberlet 03:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cberlet, I'm not surprised at that - SlimVirgin has shown herself to be a well-intentioned, even-handed editor and colleague. The issue here, however, is whether Zen-master should be indefinitely, totally blocked as a result of his behavior. While I disagree wholeheartedly with a lot of what I saw on Race and Intelligence, I cannot see the rationale for such an action on that basis. He's an editor with very strong opinions, an aggressive style and a lot of passion - but not an intentionally disruptive, nor destructive editor. I think there is a fundamental difference there, that necessitates discretion by the administrators. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cberlet, I don't think our positions on the Conspiracy theory matter disagree all that much, take a look at my most recent tweak of your intro changes and let me know either way on the talk page. I think we are making progress towards clarity and NPOV there. zen master T 03:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of who's POV pushing, or if anyone is, I'd like to point out Zen-master's edit warring. It doesn't show any sign of slowing. In fact, ZM has violated 3RR on Conspiracy theory recenlty, for which I *almost* banned him from it (except for the little fact that I couldn't). I don't know about indefinite, but I think it is certainly fair to extend probation to all articles, especially considering probation does not restrict contributions, that's it's point: it only restricts disruption. Dmcdevit·t 03:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zen-master, you asked for examples of policy violation. I'm alleging violations of WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:NOR, and WP:V. You've been engaged in a vigorous campaign for months to stop the phrase "conspiracy theory" being used in Wikipedia. You tried to have the term banned as a page title, and lost the vote decisively, posting dozens of repetitive posts, refactoring the voting page to change comments or the sequence of comments, fabricating (with no hint of irony) conspiracy theories of corruption between the editors opposing you. You edit-warred around the same issue in the same way at AIDS conspiracy theories, with 3RR violations; complex, partial reverts; reverting over what tag should be on the page; and making accusations of bias against everyone who disagreed with you. You're now doing it on Conspiracy theory, where you're opposed by Carbonite, Willmcw, Tom Harrison, Jayjg, Adhib, BrandonYusufToropov, Shoaler, Rhobite, Cberlet, and Calton, whose edit summary of "been there, done that, got the t-shirt" when he reverts you [85] tells the whole story. You've posted 40 largely repetitive posts to talk in the last three days; edit summaries saying you're "cleaning up" the intro, when in fact you're changing it completely to reflect your inaccurate and unsourced POV in violation of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability [86]; adding the two-versions, NPOV, or totally disputed tags and revert-warring when people try to remove them [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] making personal attacks in edit summaries, [95] and at least one recent 3RR violation. [96] There's more, but I hope that's enough. You're a handful, Zen, to say the least. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, I admit to 3RR (and served my time), though most recently the cases were me trying to add the {npov} tempalte to the Conspiracy theory article to merely signify the existence of a neutrality dispute, which I am still surprised my fellow wikipedia editors aren't/weren't willing to allow (even if they disagreed with my content changes). It may seem like I am repetitive on the talk page but I am indeed vigorous, as you say, trying to understand your and everyone's POV and either logically convince you and others of my interpretation or understand yours to the point where I could become convinced of it. I apologize if I have riled you up, you may not believe me but I can only assure you I am interested in improving and working toward a bipartite version of the article. zen master T 04:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question only of POV, but of accuracy. Your versions (the ones I've read) are inaccurate. It's not true, for example, that "Conspiracy theory has a literal definition and a popular culture usage ... Literally, the phrase means exactly what its individual words mean, a theory alleging a conspiracy." That is your fabrication, and it would mean that the accepted story of 9/11 (that al-Qaeda hijackers flew planes into buildings for the reasons stated by Osama bin Laden) was a conspiracy theory. But that term is in fact always used in a way that's a great deal more complex and more loaded than that (always used that way; not just in what you're calling popular culture) and it's recognized by, I think, everyone else editing that article that "conspiracy theory" is a very particular narrative genre. In any event, even if you were 100 per cent correct, you're editing disruptively against consensus, and it's your behavior that's objectionable, not your beliefs. You should also bear in mind that the editors opposing you have very different POVs from each other, and yet they've found common cause in opposing you. That alone ought to tell you something. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest (and I don't mean to minimize your points in any way), the subtlety of the issue as you present it doesn't communicate 'Zen is disruptive' to me, as a completely outside viewer. It communicates to me that the issues are deep and exactly the kind of thing that well-intentioned editors struggle with. The fact that other editors oppose his perspective doesn't make it disruption. I've seen a lot worse behavior tolerated a whole lot more around here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, take a look at the histories of Conspiracy theory, AIDS conspiracy theories, and Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory, and also look at the talk pages. It may take you a few hours unfortunately to get the full flavor of it. I disagree about your view of what counts as disruption. If I'm opposed by ten or more good editors (and that's the point here: they are all good editors) over a period of months on multiple pages regarding almost every edit I make, and if I find myself unsupported and left to post 12 posts to talk every day that say the same thing, then at some point I have to ask myself whether I might be wrong. Zen-master never does that, and that's the problem in a nutshell. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what's happening, I agree it's indeed disruptive. I've dealt with that kind of thing from other editors as well - but my personal experience with Zen was that he was a lot more even-handed than that. If not, an RfA should/will lead to a formal expansion of the probation he is under. I'd just hate it if Zen, whom I have seen edit in a constructive and cooperative way, is blacklisted. It would make me question whether there was a grand conspiracy afoot against him.
Yes, I was being both ironic and facetious. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, I have seen how the phrase "conspiracy theory" has been used on wikipedia talk pages. For example, editor A has said "let's include allegation X" but editor B comes along and says "No, allegation X is a conspiracy theory!" with no regard to whether allegation X is cited or otherwise appropriate for article inclusion. Wikipedia policies should be exclusively used to determine if something is appropriate for inclusion, not alleged association with some genre, right? Wikipedia policies should be exclusively used to neutrally present a subject, and be unaffected by alleged association with a genre, right? The first paragraph's definition we have in Conspiracy theory now is actually synonymous with the literal definition (says the same thing with more words, a theory that alleges a conspiracy). At this point, the only change I would recommend to the intro is we should specifically note the two definitions/meanings are often confused, do you agree there is confusion? Separately, I've been wondering what do you mean by "narrative genre" exactly? In my interpretation this issue we are trying to find a bipartite way of describing is best thought of as an "allegation" and not as a "story" nor "narratives" nor anything related (at best it is indeterminate what they are and relevant places should make that point clear). If someone believes, even subconsciously, that a particular theory is a story or from the narrative genre or should be categorized within the conspiracy theory genre the article is still required to cite exactly who is counter claiming that about the theory, which is why I believe we need to have a sufficiently clear definition in Conspiracy theory to make that point/requirement as clear as possible. zen master T 04:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. "Narrative genre" means "type of story". There is no "literal definition" of "conspiracy theory." That's like saying the literal definition of kindergarten is a garden for children. But that's not what it means, either in German or in English. Meaning has to do with the way words are in fact used in the world, and "conspiracy theory" is always used in a certain way, which I have explained to you a thousand times, as have others, so I'm not doing it again. But you are missing my point, I assume deliberately. The problem is your behavior, not your beliefs. You are editing disruptively, have been for months, always do, show no sign of stopping, show no indication that you even understand what is meant, show no remorse, feel no concern about the amount of time you waste, give no indication that you do any research into the topics. Your presence at a page invariably signals deterioration, both in terms of quality of content and in terms of relationships with other editors. I'm sorry to be so blunt. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The literal definition is important to note and understand because people may be confused into unconsciously assuming that any theory that alleges a conspiracy is a member of the "conspiracy theory" genre, they have the same name. Recall that editors argued in favor of "conspiracy theory" in wikipedia article titles because, they claimed, some subjects are "literally conspiracy theories" so it seems to me the implied literal definition is the exponentially key source of the confusion here, and we should fix it or at least clearly point it out. zen master T 05:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zen-master, please do not extend your battle over "conspiracy theories" to this page. The issue at hand here is whether your conduct amounts to disruptive editing within the ambit of our previous order. Regretfully, I would say that it does not; clearly our previous order was insufficiently broad. At this point, I concur with my colleagues above, in that we should definitely consider expanding the scope of our order to all pages. I would have to say that you have demonstrated quite clearly your capacity for disruptive editing, just with your edits to this page. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How are my edits to this page disruptive? I've just been trying to explain the issues. zen master T 06:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem at Conspiracy theory, but it's one of those mothcandle articles that will always be at the sharp edge of such problems so long as Wikipedia retains its open-armed stance, which I take it we here all support. So it would seem to me to be wrong to exclude Zen-m for insisting that his rare views be respected by the article. If he goes, someone else will stand in his place (see Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations for a related article suffering identical problems without Zen-m's input). I agree that Zen-m's mode of insisting imposes a heavy burden, and approve of the suggestion on his talk page to try to limit edits to one per day. Wouldn't it be nicer still if we could just informally agree with him that all parties should back off, say until the New Year, to do their research and come back to the fray with substantial new cites and materials, the better to illuminate the current impasse? Or, perhaps, give SlimVirgin and her 'co-conspirators' the month off by locking-down the article. But picking Zen-m out is no solution, besides being unkind. Adhib 21:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored this as we are now receiving a complaint about Zen-master's editing at [[97]]. Fred Bauder 00:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to explain. It's about the Price-Anderson Act article, which has been highly contentious. We've gone through 2 mediators and we're on our 5th protection. Well I had shown zen the article 3 weeks ago while on IRC. I didn't even really say much about it. Yesterday, out of the blue, he started to get involved in it. What bothered me is that he made this edit where he added just a few words. I warned him about it. Basically said that he needed to get up to speed before diving into this. So what does he do...he joins the revert war we had yesterday on the article. We literally have 600K of talk on this article. It's not something you can dive into. Despite 3 warnings from me, he got into it anyway. I'm not sure that it violates anything, but it does bother me more than a bit that once again, he doesn't seem to listen to others real well. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did revert that article one time, so what is the violation or issue exactly? What are you specifically saying that I should be listening to? I reverted because I thought others may have confused my small change with Benjamin Gatti's much larger change (I tried to apply my change to both competing versions of the intro), though I should have expected I would get sucked into the larger dispute after only trying to add my 2 cents to an article already in the middle of an edit war. zen master T 01:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one that put a complaint in about it and it's not my decision as to what was violated. I was just reporting what was happening. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "he doesn't seem to listen to others real well" that is doing a lot more than mere reporting. When you are ready to present a non-nebulous complaint or point to a specific policy violation please let me know. I interpret the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act article to be mistating or understating the critics' view in the intro, it also seems as if some subtly pro nuclear industry editors are the ones who have engineered this but I am not yet certain. zen master T 06:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As dmc says below, you are missing the point. I told you 3 weeks ago when I showed you the article that it was contentious and that we had gone through 2 mediators and 5 protections. And yet you came into the argument without reading any part of the 600K in archives we had and then you engaged in edit warring, including doing a revert. What are you violating? You are being disruptive. Disruptive is walking into an article that you know is contentious and yet, even after 2 warnings, flying right into it and engaging in a revert war. That's disruptive. That's adding tension to an already tense situation. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Formal motion to extend the scope of the probation

Following Kelly Martin's suggestion, I'm making this a formal request. Zen-master's response here seems to be clutter and muddling the point with content issues. The main issue here is that Zen-master has a fundamental misunderstanding of conflict resolution in Wikipedia, and views edit warring as a viable means of accomplishing it. The previous arbitration has shown that, and the recent edits at conspiracy theory especially, violating 3RR for something as petty as a tag, demonstrate no change. Zen-master has shown a propensity to be disruptive in any article where a dispute arises, and extending probation to all changes would curb that. I think it's important to note that probation shouldn't be a restriction, unless he's being disruptive. Both SlimVirgin's and Woohookitty's pleas are good enough evidence for me that disruption occurs outside that one article, and it needs to be addressed. I was also worried that his response to my reminder to refrain from edit warring yesterday was basically that probation didn't apply there (rather than addressing my real concern of edit warring). Dmcdevit·t 06:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with dmc. What bothers me with this whole thing is sort of what dmc said. Zen was put on probation...he was banned for a week...and yet...here we are again. We need to broaden the scope of the probation. Hopefully, eventually we'll get it through to him that he needs to reform. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Votes by arbitrators
Discussion
Please show me evidence of edit warring on Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act? I came upon a previously existing edit war and merely tried to add clarity to both of the two competing versions of the article, then moved to the talk page. In my interpretation that article currently misstates or understates critics' views, is that what you actually find to be disruptive here? Are you pro nuclear industry like many editors of that article seemingly are? I followed the 1 revert rule on that article just like other editors that have definitely been engaging in edit warring, why the double standard? Please point to a specific policy violation on my part?
In my interpretation the NPOV policy is not "petty", when the neutrality of an article is disputed the {npov} tag is generally added to it, but since I was the only one a number of weeks ago on conspiracy theory I eventually digressed. Though, it is worth noting that since then I and more than a handful of other editors have made significant progress on the talk page towards a consensus NPOV intro of conspiracy theory (a little work still needs to be done).
I am starting to detect a pattern here, I criticized a seemingly racism inducing and unscientific method of presentation in race and intelligence and I was blocked for a week and put on article specific probation (full disclosure: I was blocked for personal attacks, I labeled that article's method of presentation as being "nazi-esque", I subsequently apologized for not making myself clear and for using labels that detracted from my point that I interpret a highly biased and biasing article, but those criticisms remain unaddressed). Then you called me disruptive for trying to add clarity to a subject and article in dire need of disassociation: conspiracy theory. Now you are proposing expanding the scope of my earlier race and intelligence probation after I criticized the misstatement or understatement of critics' views in an article about an act passed by Congress that is basically a massive pro nuclear industry government subsidy which also eliminates or lessens the public's right to seek civil law recourse in the event of a nuclear accident. I repeat, what policy am I violating here? I am trying to work towards neutrally presented articles. zen master T 07:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's considered disruption, because you made these changes to the article without discussing them first. You even had an edit summary of "rv, i think the "consensus" version is mistating critics' views". That's joining an edit war. You seem to like to get into these things just to stir the pot up and I would consider that disruptive as well. You basically joined an article that you were told was contentious and had a long history (it says right on the top that we have 8 archives and that combined it's over 600K) and yet made a change...was told that any changes are contentious on this article...you said well you don't see how this could be contentious and did it anyway. And in the end, you ended up making the edit war much worse because if you look at the history of the article, a bunch of the reverts that led to protection were reverts of your addition. What should have happened here is that you should have said hey...I'm new...get me up to speed and I'll see what I can add here. Instead, you hopped right into an edit war on an article you had never posted on before. Again. it's disruption. And the pattern here is that the only thing linking these 3 articles (race and intelligence, conspiracy theory and P-A) is that they are controversial. You seem to get taken off of one article and then you go right into another one and do the same things. That's why probation is warranted for all articles. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 18:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How is that "joining the edit war", I was the first person to note that specific point about the critics' view misstatement? I learned the article was contentious after I tried to add a small bit of clarity to it. How will I know if something is contentious or not unless I am bold and edit it? I did not support either side in the edit war. I am ok with the article being reverted if my fellow editors disagree with my changes but it's not my fault that other people are reverting to my version of the article. I applied my changes to both version of the article because I thought people were confusing my small change as being Benjamin Gatti's version. Anyway, all this detracts from and discourages improvement of Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act which needs to include a much more accurate and complete synopsis of the critics' view and position. zen master T 19:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zen, you need to learn that it's how you do things that matters on Wikipedia more than anything else. You added the text, which is fine. But then I warned you. And then you readded it and then you did the revert. You need to learn to discuss things like that first. I almost wonder if the mentorship program would be appropriate for Zen. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You warned me against getting involved in the edit war which from my standpoint I did not. How is one revert to an article (when I assumed there was confusion) considered an edit war? After my last change was reverted I understood fellow editors disagreement with my specific proposed change so I headed to the talk page where fellow editors have yet to really directly address my point about critics' views being misstated. Also, some editors seem to be subtly arguing a very pro nuclear industry position (stating the act is "better") even though they separately claimed to be "flaming liberal", it doesn't add up. zen master T 19:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zen. It's called arguing for a NPOV on an article. People can believe one thing but push for another because they are trying to make the article neutral. There is a principle here called writing for the enemy. It basically means that you believe one thing, but you write another in an effort to make an article NPOV. Ben's never understood that and I don't think you do either. It's a very good thing to learn. Am I a flaming liberal? Yes. But I want articles on here to be neutral, so I will write things into an article that I might not believe in an effort to make it NPOV. And by the way, what you did is considered getting involved in an edit war because you clearly said in the revert you did that you were reverting the consensus version because you didn't agree with it. So you were admittedly bucking a consensus. If that's not joining an edit war, I'm not sure what is. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The NPOV policy can't be used as some sort of justification for mischaracterizing or downplaying cited arguments. The core issue here is presentation accuracy for any summary of the critics' view. It's also worth pointing out the fact that misstating a cited source is a direct violation of NPOV policy. Feel free to argue on the talk page the act is "better" for the public in some way but don't mischaracterize the position of critics, they specifically argue forcing civil law (and presumably criminal violations too?) out of state court and into federal court was wrong, for multiple of reasons. Whether you claim to be a flaming liberal or not is irrelevant as far as understanding your argument and apparent duplicitous advocacy is concerned. I did revert the "consensus" version one time to specifically note my complaint that the intro was and is misstating the critics view (which is itself an NPOV violation). When that was reverted by someone else I become aware that you and others either disagree with my interpretation or you want to preserve the misstatement of the critics' view for some reason. zen master T 23:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not for content disputes. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this page is for arguing some sort of policy violation has taken place, when you are prepared to do that please let me know. In fact, it seems to me supporters of that article are the ones violating policy here, mischaracterizing cited sources is not good. zen master T 02:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Um zen? Look at this. It's one of the things you were blocked a week before and put on probation for. it's the exact same thing here too. And if I wasn't making good points here, why would the arbcom be extending your probation? And you were also blocked/put on probation for misusing sources. It's all right here. Like I said, i wonder if you'd be a good mentoring candidate since it's clear that you still don't realize what's acceptable here and what isn't. You reverted a consensus version. That is edit warring no matter how you argue it. And I'm sure the arbcoms haven't seen this yet, but zen is now arguing for compiling a list of NPOV violations on Price-Anderson. I have a feeling we're going down *that* road again. This is the diff. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Woohoo, please point to specific edits of mine that violate policy. One possible explanation is some members of the arbcom are complicit in censorship etc. I was actually blocked for a week and placed on probation for interpreting an extremely biased, biasing and even racism inducing race and intelligence article. If there are two editors who disagree with your version of an article you can't claim there is a "consensus" version, see definition of consensus. What is wrong with compiling a list of NPOV policy violations? zen master T 11:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom, zen just basicaly said that you guys are complicit in censorship. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, he just blasted your decision on race and intelligence. We also have this diff on Price-Anderson where he basically calls me a liar or a hypocrite or being insincere or any other way you want to take it. Please commence the extension ASAP. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where did arbcom say that? Where was my decision [do you mean my interpretation?] "blasted" on race and intelligence? I was blocked for "personal attacks" which is a convenient way of ignoring my fundamental criticisms of the article. No one has responded to my challenge to explain what appears to be a biased, biasing, and racism inducing method of presentation in race and intelligence -- compared to that the misstating of critics views and the regurgitation of pro nuclear industry talking points in Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act seems like small potatoes. zen master T 19:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Question

Zen was just blocked for violating 3RR on conspiracy theory. So has he violated probation? We have 4 votes now but I have no idea if that made it immediate or not or what the threshold was on this. The violations all came *after* the 4th vote went in. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to know if the probation has been expanded yet. I'm not sure how many "accept" votes are needed, but I do think it would be ideal if the probation was expanded by the time Zen-master's current 3RR block expires. Carbonite | Talk 17:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Otherwise, there is nothing to stop zen from doing this again. Btw looks like the block was extended to 48 hours so we have until sometime on Wednesday before he returns. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parole

Just thought I'd bring this page to your attention: Wikipedia:Parole. It was not really sanctioned by Arbcom (and was started by a current party to the climate change dispute). I'm not sure what you'd want to do with it, it might be a good idea to have, but currently, it's not really in anything near a useful state. Dmcdevit·t 09:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be deleted but improved to reflect what the arbitration committee means by parole, revert parole, personal attack parole. We could use another on ban and any other remedy we use regularly. Fred Bauder 13:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a pretty good article on Wikipedia:Banning policy which goes into detail on enforcement mechanisms. There is a redirect there from Wikipedia:Ban. I've updated it to mention the arbitration committee's occasional delegation of banning powers (in probation and mentorship). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdanov Affair question

Now instead of working on the Bogdanov Affair page, the users who were banned from editing the Bogdanov Affair (including CatherineV) are editing the talk page of the article instead. Can they be blocked for doing that or not? The RfAr decision isn't clear on that. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This decision should be modified to include the talk page. Fred Bauder 13:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I will hold off on doing anything until it is. We have Catherine and I'm pretty certain that LaurenceR is a sock of the Laurence blocked already for Bogdanov. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's the status on this? I don't mean to be pushy but the people who should be blocked from talking on the talk page are still talking on the talk page and until the decision is altered, I can't do anything about it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Lauder-Frost & Monday Club

  • An edit war, or vandalism, has taken place on these two sites, and on people and organisations connected to them, by two Canadian left-wingers who are intent upon character assassination and demonisation. They are clearly under the impression that they are above reproach. I am told legal action is in the pipline. Administrators need to address the activities of these users CJCurrie and homey on these sites. 213.122.32.154 10:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an actual Request for Clarification. In any case, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard for two related entries. Homey 19:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comment at this time, except to say that I completely reject User:213.122.32.154's interpretation of events. Readers are directed to Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost and Talk:Monday Club for context. CJCurrie 21:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked with CJCurrie and Homeontherange on hundereds of articles, and having observed their edits, I can vouch for their adherence to the principles of NPOV. The complainant, on the other hand, has repeatedly violated both NPOV and WP:NPA. Ground Zero | t 02:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obviously I cannot fight this little gang of Canadians myself with virtually no assistance. I am a highly educated individual and I find their overall comments gratuitously offensive, as though they are somehow superior human beings. This is not the way forward for Wikipedia. Robert I 08:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=31076071"