Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DV8 2XL (talk | contribs) at 02:48, 4 March 2006 (→Statement by [[User:BSbuster|BSbuster]]: fmt). 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
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area   6 November 2024 0/5/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Yasuke 13 Nov 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al none (orig. case) 7 November 2024
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee none none 7 November 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

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 against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an arbitrator or clerk may do so.



How to list cases

Under the below Current requests section:

  • Click "[edit]";
  • Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting 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

Uriah923 and omninerd.com

Involved parties

In mid 2005, uriah923 added links to various articles published on omninerd.com from various WP articles. The removal of such resulted in edit wars and much arguing. The issue eventually died out with the entry of Redwolf24 and the start of much non-omninerd related contribution from uriah923. Recently, it resurfaced when Taxman found that omninerd-unrelated admins/editors had (in a handful of instances and at the request of uriah923) investigated and added links to articles on omninerd.com from WP articles. The current state of affairs is a blacklisting of omninerd.com at the protest of uriah923.

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

Statement by uriah923

I have listed this request in response to the discrimination of Taxman and Dmcdevit against me and omninerd.com. Admittedly, it began in June 2005 when I began adding links from various WP articles (WPA) to articles published on omninerd.com (ONA). When one of them was removed, I questioned it. (The removal seems obvious looking at the situation now, but I didn't know any better then.) The remover, of course, investigated my contributions and saw they were almost entirely centered on omninerd.com and reversed the vandalism. Arguments and edit wars began, and right when you think it's going to be a story you've heard a million times...

During the course of the seemingly endless arguing, I began to like WP. I mean really like it. I had come with misguided excitement, but ended up wanting to seriously contribute. I tried to communicate this to Taxman and Dmcdevit, but was unsuccessful. Right when it appeared I would forever be dubbed a vandal, doomed to edit without the privileges of other editors, Redwolf24 came along and talked some sense. He recognized I had been making positive, non-omninerd related contributions, encouraged me, and removed some of the restrictions.

After a couple more months of contributing significantly to WP (and quite enjoying myself), I felt confident that I had earned back full privileges. Not the right to break policy, of course, but the right to edit as any other editor - within the rules. Following Redwolf24's directive that I was "permitted to talk about OmniNerd when the context is appropriate" and feeling confident that I was acting within WP NPOV policy, I messaged admins or dedicated editors on a couple of WPA to see if they would review a potential link or reference to an ONA and then add the link themselves - if they thought it worthy. A good example of this is the interaction between Mushroom and me here. Eventually, Taxman stumbled upon this, called foul play, and indiscriminately removed anything linking to a ONA from a WPA. He and Dmcdevit argue that even bringing up the idea was outside of my rights, but I can find nothing in WP policy to support their claim. I took obvious and deliberate precautions to maintain NPOV and stay within policy and feel I acted in the best interest of WP.

I am no longer the WP pup I once was; I have shown myself to be a quality contributor and I plan on staying one. Why even bother with all of this, then? Because I believe in fairness and consistency. Because I don't like the idea of being steamrolled by a couple of admins that act as if they can only see my first 100 edits. Because I believe I have earned the right to edit as any other: within WP rules (not Taxman's rule). Because I believe that Taxman and Dmcdevit have acted without proof in WP policy, my edits, or the content of omninerd.com. Because most of all, I like WP.

uriah923(talk) 20:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Taxman

I urge not wasting any time at all on this case. There's already been too much wasted time and it seems like the situation has already been finally resolved correctly. The site (OmniNerd, On for short) that Uriah923 has been promoting has been put on the spam blacklist so the behavior of Uriah923's that was not beneficial to Wikipedia cannot happen. Please reject the case, with specific guidance to uphold the previous consensus that Uriah not promote ON at all, subject to blocking for disruption, and just leave the site on the blacklist. - Taxman Talk 21:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and lets not forget, Uriah923 is an administrator at ON, and lists as one of his primary roles promotion of the site. Motive, evidence, crime, done. We can't afford to allow sites like this one to use our project for their benefit. See point 2 in UC's essay

For more detail and background:

A specific consensus (of unanimity -1 in September) was developed against his actions, and without any support or ability to get anyone to agree with his position, he has brought this request which can only result in more wasted time. I repeatedly asked him to consider what everyone was telling him, that his actions in this matter are not in the best interests of the project, and to let it go, so no more time would be wasted and everyone could go on to efforts that would improve the project. His unwillingness to do that shows clearly that promoting his site is the most important thing to him. Uriah's other contributions that are not at all related to ON especially since the consensus was developed in September have been reasonable. Therefore the current situation where only the negative behavior cannot occur, and he is allowed to contribute positively is the best situation. Please reject the case, with specific guidance to uphold the previous consensus that Uriah not promote ON at all, subject to blocking for disruption, and just leave the site on the blacklist.

You'll see a consistent pattern in this case of a consensus developing against Uriah's actions, him refusing to stop, and repeating the conversation elsewhere. In September enough became enough and a consensus was developed against Uriah923 promoting ON. Specifically it stated "that links to ON should not be in Wikipedia articles unless added by a longstanding contributor, and not prompted by Uriah." Yes those are my words, but that statement was made or signed onto directly by quite a number of users. I only stopped gaining further support for it to minimize the time wasted on the issue. That consensus was strengthened through discussion on his talk page (Archive, and current) after Uriah had to be blocked a number of times to try to enforce the consensus. This included the following quotes:

It's been decided to not link to the site, or anything in the site's domain from our articles. For now, just links from your user page. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 00:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As Wesley said to Buttercup... uriah923(talk) 02:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Review of those blocks on the Administrators noticeboard only strengthened the consensus for the most part.

After that, despite specific consensus not to promote the site anymore, Uriah decided erroneously that the consensus didn't apply anymore and again inserted links and restarted the same tired debate on a number of different pages: Talk:Conventional warfare, Talk:Battle of Poitiers (1356) (where he had incidentally asked people to include a link to ON when not logged in so that people wouldn't know about the issue here), and Talk:ITunes, where he asked someone who was unfamiliar with the situation and consensus to uncomment the link he added against specific consensus on that very talk page. Due to this behavior, and the extraordinary amount of time wasted on this issue, the site has been put on the blacklist so there can't be links to it from Wikimedia project articles. I believe that is the best way to end the issue with the minimum amount of wasted time. There's no need for an RFC or arbitration committee case to waste hundreds more hours to come to the same conclusion as the consensus page already has. - Taxman Talk 21:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dmcdevit

The issue is quite clear, and needs no arbitration. The problem (Uriah923's spam) has been solved by spam blacklisting the site, which is better than the alternative, blocking. Months ago, Uriah923 began adding links to Omninerd articles/essays to Wikipdia articles related to them, and probably touched dozens of articles with these external links. The links were deemed spam for several reasons, mostly concerning the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and despite Uriah's exhortations, Omninerd is not really a Wikipedia:Reliable source: it's user-posted, not published or peer-reviewed, and indeed, not a very noteworthy site, among other possible references. Also, as a tertiary source (like Wikipedia), most of the inclusions in articles were nonsensical; Encyclopedia Britannica is a fine reference book, but not really appropriate as a source (its sources are).

Long story short: links were removed, Uriah continued to protest, so an RFC was formed (User:Uriah923/OmniNerd) and there was consensus from nearly everyone but Uriah, many admins included, that the links don't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. Fastforward to present: Taxman finds the links back in articles, removes them again, and Uriah protests. Apparently, having now gained seniority as an editor, he now feels allowed to promote his website again. Well, he isn't, and based on the demonstrated consensus that this is spam, I asked for it to be put on the spam blacklist, which solved the problem rather nicely. Uriah923's frequent and bizarre assumptions of bad faith on our part (when I have had little contact with him) notwithstanding, there's nothing here to arbitrate. Dmcdevit·t 22:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarkMcB

I am the founder/primary coder/admin for OmniNerd.com, the disputed site. As Uriah923 states above, this whole issue started with the intent to place what Uriah923 thought was encyclopedic information on Wikipedia. After the battle of words mentioned above by Uriah923, I finally realized that what was going on was not in the interest of Wikipedia and could be viewed as an SEO campaign by OmniNerd, so I asked Uriah923 to cease work on adding OmniNerd article links to Wikipedia. It seems that in the process of all of this, Uriah923 got hooked on Wikipedia and started doing more useful work.

I thought all was well until I got word that Taxman was deleting all links relating to OmniNerd as "SEO campaign" or "spam." I discussed with him that I did not like how he was discrediting the name "OmniNerd" simply because he had a past grudge against Uriah923. Additionally, I told him that I felt he was acting in a biased manner as the booting link he removed was nothing more than a cleaned up version of an article that had been on wikipedia for some time and had been re-written/improved by the original author for OmniNerd. Only the link changed on wiki. Another user even moved it from bootstrapping to booting because it seemed like a better place. Taxman's removal of the link made it clear to me that he was not concerned with the content provided in the article, but rather with his personal bias against Uriah923 and subsequently, OmniNerd. A quick review of the other external links in that article make this more than obvious.

After seeing this, I requested specific information pertaining to why he (Taxman) was doing this and asked for recent evidence he has against Uriah923. All I was told by Taxman was to use "strong words" and have Uriah923 stop promoting my site, with no evidence provided. As Uriah923 stated, all of his actions since his newbie days have been in accordance with wiki policy. I am mostly concerned that this vendetta held by Taxman and a few others is detrimental to my site. The slander tossed about wrongfully labels my site as one with an "SEO campaign" or as a "spam" site. Neither is true and both are slanderous in nature. The fact is that 3rd parties on Wikipedia have found my site's articles to be useful and have posted them. I feel that if there is an issue here, it is with Uriah923 and not OmniNerd. To be clear, I am not concerned with ensuring links to OmniNerd, but rather that links to OmniNerd be judged fairly and not removed for reasons that are not true and poorly reflect on my site. MarkMcB 21:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Redwolf24

Statement by Essjay

I'm not involved at all with the issue on Wikipedia, but I was involved as a Meta admin, initially putting the site on the spam blacklist on Meta. After issues were raised about whether it was appropriate for the blacklist or not, I removed it, and yielded the decision to other admins. As of 00:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC), it is again on the blacklist (listed by Mindspillage: #1 Mar 06 (requested by Dmcdevit, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uriah923/OmniNerd)). If it is to remain on the blacklist, there isn't much sense in the AC considering the matter, since the AC doesn't oversee the blacklist (as it's a cross-project list, rather than specific to a given project). I encourage the AC to identify the matter as a cross-project issue, rather than one facing only the English Wikipedia, and refer the discussion and decision to m:Talk:Spam blacklist. Essjay Talk • Contact 00:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lou franklin and Societal attitudes towards homosexuality

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Apart from the diffs above, a note of the RFAR has been posted on Talk:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality [1].

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Lou franklin nominated the article for deletion: here.
  • Lou franklin filed a request for mediation, after some abortive attempts, which can be found here. The mediation was closed, with Lou's failure to assume good faith an important factor in that.
  • Extensive discussions have taken place on Talk:Societal attitudes towards homosexuality and User_talk:Lou_franklin, including attempts to get him to recognise policy and consensus.

Statement by Malthusian

Lou franklin is conducting a nearly continuous POV edit war at Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. All his edits have related to this article with the exception of one to the sandbox.

His behaviour has included:

  • frequent insertions of POV edits which consensus has always reverted, including:
    • an assertion that homosexuals molest children more frequently than heterosexuals [2]
    • removal of a quote from Joe McCarthy containing the word 'cocksucker' on grounds of vulgarity, despite the fact that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors and consensus on the talk page is in favour of keeping the quote [3]
    • addition of the words 'so-called' and scare quotes before and around the phrase 'gay rights movement' and variations[4]
    • All the above edits were repeatedly reinserted against consensus, with the result that Lou franklin has been blocked three times for 3RR violations in the space of a week, and once more a week before that.
  • Lou franklin continually characterises those who revert him as part of a gay cabal pushing propaganda, violating WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF.
    • From the AFD: "What you have here is a small yet vocal militant group using Wikipedia to get their agenda out" [5]
    • From an initial attempt at filing an RfM: "The article is maintained by a small well-organized group of (mostly) gay people who use Wikipedia to get their agenda out." [6]
    • From the properly filed RfM: "The article is maintained by a well-organized group of activists." [7]

The more visible results of his incivility are that Rhobite withdrew from the RfM [8] and Sethmahoney has refused to attempt to work with him further [9] .

Lou has also made what appears to be a threat to use sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry [10] and filed a spurious 3RR allegation against Sethmahoney [11] - as the edits he listed were Sethmahoney trying to work with Lou, this is a particularly egregarious example of Lou dissuading anyone from attempting to work with him.

Societal attitudes towards homosexuality is not a perfect article and was even less of a perfect article before Lou entered the scene. Lou's edit war has drawn attention to gaps in its coverage. However, his edits are nonetheless disrupting attempts to improve the article in three ways:

  1. defending against extreme right-wing POVs makes it more difficult to cover them fairly;
  2. his long-winded diatribes dominate the talk page, distracting from potentially constructive discission;
  3. his assumptions of bad faith and attempts to game Wikipedia mechanisms such as 3RR create bad feeling among those editing the article.

While he has been blocked four times for a total of 96 hours for 3RR violations, and editors have continually attempted to work constructively with him, this has not yet stopped his edit warring or his incivility, so I am requesting that the ArbCom intervene.

Statement by Sethmahoney

Malthusian has covered it pretty well above. I'd only like to add a vague impression and a request: There's something in Lou's tone and, for example, the way he often refers to other users' edits as vandalism, his remarks about everyone in Wikipedia ganging up on him, and his insistence on choosing the most inflammatory sections of the article to make suggestions about, that make it seem to me as if he is intentionally trying to get people riled up, which is the main reason I stepped out of this, and the main reason I want this to stop. The request: I know its weird, but if we could get at least some straight admins' participation, maybe that would help to quiet accusations that gay people are secretly running the show here and squelching viewpoints other than their own. -Seth Mahoney 20:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Amicus curiae statement

I have been an editor of this article and while I am open to working with anyone, I am quite troubled by the following statement by Lou: ". . . I can't stop them unless I organize a group of a dozen or so opposing editors to have a holy war. If that is the only way to get a voice here I can do that, but I'd rather not. I am not a "far-right extremist bigot" (and I resent the accusation, by the way) but I know where to find some. But I suspect that the article will suffer if we have to go that route."

I think we can accommodate anything in this project except force, or the threat of force. This, to me, is reads like a very clear declaration that this gentleman WILL change this article to suit himself, either the easy way (we accommodate his wishes) or the hard way (he will make us). I hope that my interpretation is incorrect and that Lou will repudiate any such plans or intentions. Haiduc 19:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lou Franklin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT has a list of "what Wikipedia is not". The page says that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" and asks that we leave "opinions on current affairs" out of Wikipedia. It says that Wikipedia articles should not be "propaganda or advocacy". Wikipedia says that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view. This article is clearly in violation of all of those standards.

This article is maintained by a dozen radical gay people who use Wikipedia to push their agenda. (I understand that one editor, "George William Herbert", is not gay, but almost everybody else openly acknowledges that they are gay right on their user page).

Wikipedia claims to be an "encyclopedia" and most users believe it. So when some kid comes along and reads that "only 38% of the general public think that homosexual behavior is wrong" he has no reason to doubt it. When he reads that "all mainstream Western health and mental health professional organizations have concluded that reparative therapy is ineffective" he believes it. When he hears that "damage from natural disasters correlates with Protestantism" he says, "gee I never knew that".

Well he never knew it because it is a lie. All of those statements are lies, and if you look through the history of this article you'll see many other lies. They are not misunderstandings, typographical errors or misprints; they are lies. They were added to the article for the express purpose of "convincing the people in the center to change their opinion" and "changing voters' minds". (Those quotes come directly from the talk page where strategy is devised to craft the article "from the gay rights advocacy point of view").

The editors of this article are deceiving people, and it is wrong. It's never easy to take on the establishment, but what is going on here is dishonest and a disgrace.

I stumbled upon the article one day and saw that it was propaganda from start to finish. My corrections were reverted by the well-organized gay group that maintains the article. When I reverted them back I was blocked for violation of the 3rr rule. They were not blocked for 3rr because they took turns tag-teaming their reverts.

When I requested mediation, the Chair of the mediation committee (whose user page says he's "gayer than Christmas") assigned a gay mediator. I explained to Wikipedia that they are being used as a PR vehicle by a group of zealots, but apparently they didn't care.

I requested arbitration myself a few weeks ago hoping to raise a red flag about this badly biased article. The article is clearly propaganda and should be removed.

Isn't there somebody at Wikipedia who cares that a group of extremists is using Wikipedia to push their agenda?


Amicus curiae statement by Georgewilliamherbert

This is a tale of an article torn between two extremes; the original article, whose authors were roughly as biased as Lou portrays, and the new article, which is considerably evolved and improved and yet is being pulled by an extremist on the right wing.

As far as I can tell, nobody who's been working on this disagrees with the premises that there were flaws in the article to start with, or that there was some highly non-neutral point of view propaganda there.

What we have now is being constructively improved by consensus of editors who, regardless of their interests or orientations, want to do the right thing with it. That consensus has, in fact, adopted chunks of editing Lou proposed... for example, the current section on Criticisms of the LGBT civil rights movement has material largely originally sourced by Lou.

Lou's getting in trouble now not because of an evil homosexual conspiracy to thwart any reasonable article improvements; he's getting in trouble because he is extremist far right wing biased, and is attempting to make edits which are as far from neutral as the original article was, or worse. He's repeatedly tried to use opinion articles as fact sources for claims that homosexuality and pedophilia are connected, though he stopped that a couple off weeks back. Currently, he keeps trying to edit out an infamous quote by Senator McCarthy, which is correct, notable, sourced, obscene, and relevant to the article's discussion. That specific tidbit is what got him 3RRed three times in the last week.

Lou thinks he's mainstream conservative and knows what reasonable NPOV is here. I dispute that; he may not think so, but he is functionally far past mainstream conservatism into fringe homophobia. He does not seem able to comprehend that the consensus of editors on the article does include a spectrum from self proclaimed gays to mainstream conservatives. We are all getting along and working on improvements. He is adding some good material and viewpoints, but also some far right wing extremist material. I don't know that there's anything that anyone can say to him to convince him that his opinions really are that extremist. And as long as he can't stop making extremist right wing edits, perhaps he should be blocked from editing the page proper. He can communicate his opinion effectively on the talk page without main article edits, and despite his contentiousness he is still being listened to when he has specific points of criticism or improvement in the current article. Other, that is, than the McCarthy quote he wants to genocidally dispose of... Georgewilliamherbert 07:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Macedonia naming dispute

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Discussing on the talk page, but without success:Macedonia article talk page, Macedonia article talk page, country article talk page

Also, there was a poll for the naming of the Macedonians article, but it finnished without reaching a consensus:[27].

Statement by Bitola

The reason why I’m requesting this arbitration is the edit war around the naming policy of the articles related to Macedonia that is going on for years. I deeply believe that this issue can be resolved only by assistance of the Arbitration committee, because there are so many editors included in the dispute for years and jet, the consensus hasn’t be achieved. I propose the following changes that should resolve this meaningless dispute once for all:

1. Change of the article name from Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia

2. Change of the disambiguation page name from Macedonia to Macedonia (disambiguation) and including a links to this disambiguation page from the following articles: Macedonia, Greece, Bulgaria etc.

3. Change of the article name from Macedonians to Macedonians (disambiguation)

4. Change of the article name from Macedonians (ethnic group) to Macedonians

I would like to explain why I’m proposing these changes:

1. Change of the article name from Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia

Almost every article about a country on Wikipedia uses the short, most commonly English name of the country: Belgium (officially: Kingdom of Belgium), Croatia (officially:Republic of Croatia), Bulgaria (officially: Republic of Bulgaria), Greece (officially: Hellenic Republic) etc...

There is a naming dispute around the official name of the country, but that is already appropriately described in the article and the dispute shouldn’t interfere with the name of the article. I also checked the Naming conflict policy article and I will try to interpret their directions about resolving naming conflicts: A ways to provide the objective criteria are (taken from the naming conflict article):

  • Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations).
I performed the following Google searches:
Macedonia –Greek –Bulgarian –Former -Yugoslavian:[[28]] 82,900,000 results
Republic of Macedonia:[29]- 4,760,000 results
FYROM:[30] 5,050,000 results
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia:[31]- 2,080,000 results
Online encyclopedias:
Encyclopedia.com:[32]
Britannica online: [33]
Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.[34]
Canadian Encyclopedia: [35]
  • Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)? The Macedonian Constitution uses the term: Macedonia (Republic of)
  • Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term): Yes, Macedonians are using the term Macedonia and Macedonians when describing its country.

A ways to provide the subjective criteria are (taken from the naming conflict article):

  • Does the subject have a moral right to use the name? : Greeks claim that Macedonians have no moral right to use that name.
  • Does the subject have a legal right to use the name? : Greeks claim that Macedonians have no legal right to use that name.
  • Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights? : Greeks claim that the use of the name Macedonia is an infringement.
  • Is the use of the name politically unacceptable? : Greeks claim that the name is politically unacceptable.

I think it is clearly enough to find which term should be used throughout Wikipedia articles based on the objective/subjective criteria.

Also, the following example is mentioned in the naming conflict article: Suppose that the people of the fictional country of Maputa (Greece) oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" (Macedonia) as a self-identification by another ethnic group. The Cabindans (Macedonians) use the term in a descriptive sense: that is what they call themselves. The Maputans (Greeks) oppose this usage because they believe that the Cabindans (Macedonians) have no moral or historical right to use the term. They take a prescriptive approach, arguing that this usage should not be allowed. Wikipedia should not attempt to say which side is right or wrong. However, the fact that the Cabindans (Macedonians) call themselves Cabindans (Macedonians) is objectively true – both sides can agree that this does in fact happen. By contrast, the claim that the Cabindans (Macedonians) have no moral right to that name is purely subjective. It is not a question that Wikipedia can, or should, decide.In this instance, therefore, using the term "Cabindans" (Macedonia) does not conflict with the NPOV policy. It would be a purely objective description of what the Cabindans (Macedonians) call themselves. On the other hand, not using the term because of Maputan (Greek) objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Maputan (Greek) POV.In other words, Wikipedians should describe, not prescribe.

2. Change of the disambiguation page Macedonia to Macedonia (disambiguation)

Several examples that I think are providing appropriate evidence why I’m proposing this:

  • Greece – Greece is a disambiguation term, but when you type Greece in the search box, you will end up in the Greece article and at the top you will get the link to even 2 disambiguation pages: Hellas redirects here. For other uses, please see Hellas (disambiguation); for other uses of the word Greece, please see Greece (disambiguation).
  • Australia – Australia is a name of a continent, but also of a state, but if you search for Australia, you will end up in the article about the state, giving an opportunity to go to the disambiguation page at the top of the article: For other uses, see Australia (disambiguation).
  • Belgium (For other uses, see Belgium (disambiguation).)
  • England (For other uses, see England (disambiguation).)
  • Maybe this last example is the most appropriate, because Luxembourg is a country, but also a province in Belgium (in the same manner as Macedonia is a country, but Macedonia is a region in Greece and Bulgaria as well). When you type Luxembourg, you will end up in the article about the country, with providing a link to the disambiguation page: For other uses, see Luxembourg (disambiguation).

The bottom line is that a country has more relevance than the region in some other country, so the search for Macedonia should lead to the article about the country, not to the disambiguation page.

3. Change of the Macedonians to Macedonians (disambiguation)

4. Change of the Macedonians (ethnic group) to Macedonians

  • If you type Americans in the search box, you will end up in the article about the US, not about the inhabitants of the whole continent.
  • We all know that there are Ancient Greeks, Modern Greeks, but, when you enter the word: Greeks in the search box, you will get the article about the Greeks as the nation. (For other uses of the name "Greek", Greek (disambiguation))

The bottom line is that there is a controversy about the relation between Modern and Ancient Macedonians, but, for that reason the disambiguation page exists, the article named Macedonians should lead to the existing, living nation, not to the disambiguation page that should make a distinction between the modern nation and the people that lived several thousands years before.

Statement by Miskin

I wouldn't consider myself as an "involved" person since I hardly ever edit this article, and most importantly, I'm not involved in any disputes. I've been watching the Macedonian Slavic related articles because they're constantly subjected to POV-pushing by certain not so neutral editors. I really don't see where the dispute is. You have failed to point out a specific on-going dispute here, you're just proposing a bunch of solutions to a problem which is not even mentioned. As far as I'm concerned you're trying to use arbitration as substitute for "Discussion", which is really not a good idea. Miskin 14:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bomac

I agree that Republic of Macedonia should be moved to Macedonia etc. Republic of Macedonia is the official name of the country. Does that mean that R.of Macedonia can't have a short name? And, think about it - Country is a higher level of organisaion rather than a region in Greece (Makedonia) or Bulgaria, not to mention the nationality. So, definnitely the article heading about the country or nationality should be Macedonia / Macedonians. Bomac 22:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alexander 007

While I have no comment at present about the name of the ethnic group article (I'd rather leave this to others), I disagree with a move to Macedonia for Republic of Macedonia. See also Republic of Moldova, thus named because Moldova is also a large region in Romania. Alexander 007 22:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also Republic of the Congo and the Republic of Ireland. It should stay at Republic of Macedonia. Alexander 007 22:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Jkelly

Naming dispute (obviously). My impression is that discussion amongst the principle editors has actually been improving over the last few months. Many of the editors listed above are making good faith, if sometimes heated, attempts to keep this constellation of articles accurate and somewhere in the general ballpark of NPOV. I would suggest that there are some user conduct issues that have the potential to wind up at ArbCom , but that any such arbitration attempt should be framed to avoid the larger political questions. Jkelly 22:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Politis

Dear contributors. I am afraid that I have just discovered a straight forward explanation regaridng the portal. Please allow me until tomorrow (or later today) to compose the facts of the situation. Thank you, efxaristo, blagodaram.Politis 16:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by +MATIA

One day, either the ArbCom or some other WP officials will have to deal with these name disputes, to state the obvious (as it is covered by existing policies and guidelines) in a naming policy. During July there was a big poll (60 or more users voted) about Macedonian Slavs. In October, after some modifications on the naming policy and a poll of about 10 users, the article was renamed as Macedonians (ethnic group). Every now or then someone (either a MacGreek or a MacSlav) comes who disagrees with one thing or the other etc etc. Yes WP doesn't take any side, but this is not a content dispute, this is (or should be) a simple disambiguation problem. Ok perhaps not too simple, but surely not as complex as it sometimes appeared to be. A fair naming policy must be written especially for these articles, and perhaps after that instead of dealing with names people will write articles, expand stubs and cover topics that still aren't covered at all at WP. talk to +MATIA 14:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

RJII (3)

Involved parties

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

Statement by Infinity0

I have tried to add criticisms of anarcho-capitalism to the Anarchism#Anarcho-capitalism and Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism articles. RJII accuses my edits of being "communist" and "distorting facts", then repeatedly re-words the paragraph so either no criticism remains or the focus is taken away from the criticism.

RJII is already on probation and general probation, for violation of NPOV, NPA, and CIVIL: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug#Remedies

WP:NPOV

  • Attaches POV comments to dispute tags: [37] [38]
  • Repeatedly refers to source writers as "communists" even though they are not: [39] [40]
  • Persistently removes key points and replaces them with irrelevant or repeated ones: [41] [42] [43]

WP:NPA and WP:AGF

  • Accuses me of distorting ideas: [44] [45]
  • Accuses me of trying to attach communist ideas to Tucker: [46] [47] [48]
  • Accuses me of "injecting communist POV into Tucker": [49]
  • Claims I am coming from a communist perspective: [50]

WP:CIVIL

  • When I ask him to stop POV pushing, he re-asserts his own view as the truth: [51]

False claims

  • Falsely claims that my version claims C, or does not claim D, when it does/doesn't: [52]
  • Reverts because the article did not make claim C when in fact it did: [53].

Consensus

  • Support for my version: [54] [55]
  • Consensus reached and support: [56] [57] ([58] - [59])
  • Support for his version: [60] - the only sign of support from the whole debate, from User:Hogeye (block log) - and I had already stopped using the term "wage labour", nor is it a purely Marxist definition.

Avoiding consensus

  • Adds his disputed version to an article I am not watching: [61]

Statement by RJII

Infinity can't get away with distorting information about Benjamin Tucker in various articles, so he's filing an arbitration case. I provide sources showing he's wrong time after time, yet he refuses to acknolwedge them. He's trying to attribute a communist POV to the guy, when Tucker even called anarcho-communism "Pseudo-anarchism." There is nothing communist about Tucker. I'd like to file an case against him as well. Should we just do it in this case or do I need to make a separate case? RJII 18:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it's bizarre that he calls my assertions of him making Tucker look like a communist as personal attacks. Go figure. He's the one making the personal attacks, as can be seen in this edit summary: [62]

He complains I'm adding things when he's "not watching." LOL!

Also, Infinity is wrong about a consensus. The fact is, no one supports what he's doing. Infinity has obtained no consensus whatsoever. RJII 18:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Pages concerned

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Mediation was offered after an earlier Request for Arbitration: it is the Mediator's opinion that further discussion would be detrimental to the project.

Mediation pages

Statement by Physchim62

Mr Salsman has strongly held views that exposure to uranium is a cause of Gulf War syndrome, views which he wishes to give the highest possible exposure on Wikipedia. In doing so, he does not hesitate to use selective citation from his sources, invented citation (pretending that a reputable source says something which it does not) and ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with him. He has previous engaged in serious, for not to say libellous, attacks on other editors [63]. He has now accused a non-involved editor of sock-puppetry [64]. His lack of good faith dooms the mediation to failure and his hypocrisy prevents other editors from improving these articles. I am now of the opinion that a case can be made purely on the conduct of Mr Salsman: he will doubtless attempt to cloud the issue with the dispute over content, but this is ancilliary. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox. Physchim62 (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum
(since these seem to be in fashon around here)
"Invented citation" might be a bit harsh a term: I think that James honestly believes that his sources support him. Unfortunately they don't and, even if they did, it would not excuse his conduct. Physchim62 (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by James S.

My views on the relation between Depleted uranium and Gulf War syndrome are widely held because they are directly supported by several recent and longstanding peer reviewed sources from the medical and scientific literature, whereas the opposing side in mediation has been apparently unable to cite a single peer-reviewed or recent source in support of their position, and most of the sources they do cite are economically conflicted.

The charges of selective and invented citation and ad hominem attacks are unspecified, new (as far as "invented citation" go), and so vague that I can not address them fully until specific charges are made. I have raised serious issues about the content of some of the parties' statements, but have not made ad hominem attacks. I asked for guidance on this issue and I believe I have followed the consensus advice. I stand by my comment referred to above as a civil, reasonable, measured, and appropriate comment on the seriousness of the issues involved and correctly reflecting the facts. I have avoided making any legal threats, but another party has demanded that I be banned for alleged "libel" against them (a pseudonymous editor who refuses to allow their claimed medical doctorate to be verified.)

I deny any lack of good faith; depleted uranium and Gulf War syndrome are heated issues upon which reasonable people can reasonably disagree, and upon which there are documented instances of the production of misinformation on both sides of the issue. I am certainly not the only editor who has been supporting the truth in the articles in question, and the other parties to mediation are certainly not the only ones who have been removing carefully sourced facts from them.

My questions about sock-puppetry were so well-founded that mediator Physchim62 chose to run CheckUser to investigate them; this clearly shows my suspicions were reasonable.

I am sorry that the mediator has withdrawn. I thought we were making good progress when he explained the calculation of quantities of production of UO3 gas vapor from U3O8 particles, but when I raised the issue of the ratio of surface area in micrometer-scale particles to those cooling from the plasma of a flame, he has not yet directly responded to the question. Moreover, I have provided dozens of pages of peer-reviewed primary source material at the request of the mediator, who has chosen to withdraw from mediation rather than discuss the relation between surface area and the total amount of uranium trioxide gas produced; indeed, the production of uranium trioxide has been admitted by the opposing parties. As the peer reviewed literature states, "health impact assessments for ... DU munitions should ... take into account the presence of respiratory UO3...." (Salbu et al. 2005.)

I have done nothing wrong. My hundreds of hours in the library working to bring verifiable, peer-reviewed sources to this controversial issue which the opposing parties would whitewash, as evidenced by their frequent attempts, should be commended.

I ask for joinder of the parties who originally brought this dispute to the ArbCom. --James S. 18:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addenda

In response to Dr U's statement below, I have accused Dr U of false edits surrounding medical subjects on the topic of depleted uranium, and in many cases he has later agreed and later corrected his mistakes. The fact that he claims to be a medical professional means that his statements do rise to the level of professional misconduct from that perspective. I have never threatened legal action. I have said, "If you think you can make general diagnostic statements, expressing your opinion of the medical condition of tens if not hundreds of thousands contrary to peer-reviewed research, and not run afoul of professional misconduct regulations, then I would like to know why." Still to this day, I would like to know why -- the question remains unanswered. Dr U's assertion that he doesn't claim to edit based on his medical expertise is not consistent with his username and signatures; he claims his medical credentials on his user page. --James S. 19:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Apparently, the subject of the new "invented citation" claim against me concerns a limited-edition book by A. Ross Wilcock, M.D.: 

Uranium in the wind / edited by A. Ross Wilcock.
  -- Woodstock, Ont. : Helical Publications, 2005.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 0-9736153-2-X : $25.00

1. Radioactive fallout--Physiological effect 
2. Uranium--Health aspects 
3. Uranium--Physiological effect 
4. Projectiles--Health aspects 
5. Projectiles-- Environmental aspects

I. Wilcock, A. Ross, 1940-

RA1231 U7 U72 2005     616.9'897     0501

I propose that we invite Dr. Wilcock to participate. He is familiar with the physical chemistry and epidemiology involved. --James S. 20:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to William M. Connolley's comment below

These false allegations are completely unrelated to depleted uranium. Clearly Wm. Conolley feels strongly about this issue, but not strongly enough to have tried alternative avenues of dispute resolution before contacting the ArbCom. I stand by my graphs as properly depicting trend information, and I stand by my edits to the global warming and related articles as properly sourced and consistent with the remainder of the articles to which they were made. I further deny allegations of bad faith; I am certain that Wm. Connolley is a fine man, but his edits are often representative of spineless apologism kow-towing to those who have been documented as being paid to argue against the scientific consensus on the issue.

It is not appropriate to join the depleted uranium issue to the global warming issue, and so I ask that the ArbCom remind Wm. Connolley to persue alternative avenues of dispute resolution before raising content disputes with the ArbCom. --James S. 19:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Gerard re sockpuppet checks

James S.'s claim that "My questions about sock-puppetry were so well-founded that mediator Physchim62 chose to run CheckUser to investigate them; this clearly shows my suspicions were reasonable." is not in fact the case. I checked on all of James S., Smokefoot and DV8 2XL. None showed anything that looked like sockpuppetry at a glance. A checkuser check is in no way and has never been evidence there is bad behaviour; however, examples like this show why the checkuser log is not public and is not going to be public - David Gerard 00:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dr U

User:Nrcprm2026 has repeatedly bashed me personally. He has accused me of professional misconduct for making wiki edits that don't support his point of view!!!!! Can you imagine the implications to Wikipedia in general if this type of behavior goes unchecked? Ever science teacher will be intimidated from posting anything related to science because they could be accused of "misconduct." Every engineer will be intimidated from posting about engineering. Every nurse. Every professional of every sort. The types of people wikipedia wants to attract as editors will go away.

He has accused me of lying. He badgered me on my user page despite repeated pleas that he stop, and he only stopped because an administrator told him to. He never apologized. He never retracted his statements. Here is the proof:

Proof #1 Proof #2 Proof #3 Proof #4

"Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." I should not have to defend myself against personal attacks because of my profession. Especially, since I never claimed my edits were better than anyone else's because of my profession. Acussing me of professional misconduct for a wikipedia edit made in good-faith borders dangerously close, if not crossing the line of conduct addressed on WP:Personal attacks: "Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time which may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery."

I ask that Arb:com make an example in this case, not so much for the sake of the article in dispute, but to prevent a chilling effect that will keep editors from all professions from posting on wikipedia because of these types of personal attacks. Dr U 19:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adenda

Arbs, please note that this was my response to his questions. Also note that in his above adenda above once again accuses me of a "false edit." It also implies that I admitted to mistakes I didn't admit to. My user page and signiture predate my involvement in this topic. One again, there will be a SERIOUS chilling effect if I am allowed to be treated different than any other editor. "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme" is not allowed. Being a physician does not restrict my right to free speech. I am editing the same topics he is; and if my edits can be construed as giving medical advice, then he is doing the same, and without a license. Clearly making wiki edits is not practicing medicine. Dr U 20:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DV8 2XL

For months the article Depleted uranium has been the subject of an edit war between those that would have an encyclopedic article, and those who would use Wikipedia as a platform for conducting a campaign against DU in general and the United States' involvement in the Mid East in general. User:Nrcprm2026 is attempting to insert a great deal of material that violates WP:NOR ether by wildly misinterpreting published results by others, or selectively quoiting published material out of context. This user has no scientific training and other editors who have, have shown a great deal of patience with him attempting to explain where he has made errors. User:Nrcprm2026 is not being reasonable, and is not able to see that perhaps he simply doesn't understand the material he is writing about. While expertise, in and of itself is not (and should not) be a limiting criterion for contributing to this project, at some point the ill conceived opinions of amateurs must yield to the generally accepted paradigms of science.

Other have presented evidence, but I will hold mine until and if the evidence stage has been opened.

The statement by User:William M. Connolley (below) is welcome and relevant, as this is not a content dispute but a charge based on the behavior of User:Nrcprm2026 --DV8 2XL 02:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TDC/Ten Dead Chickens

The above plaintiffs have summed it up fairly nicely, but since my name is here I will elaborate. There was a tentative agreement hammered out by the parties that James scrapped, [65] [66] , [67], [68], [69][70]. This was done in bad faith, and ruined weeks of work by all the editors. James has attacked the credentials of all participants, and I hoped that Physchim62 could step in a settle this, as his credentials are well known and he is a very respected editor/admin. The arbitration committee should use this case to make it clear that Wikipedia can be a source for good current information on a subject, and not the stomping ground for junk science. Ten Dead Chickens 02:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by William M. Connolley

I have no opinions about Uranium, but I do have comments about Nrcprm2026, in relation to the climate related articles. Oddly, the problem this time is not about excess skeptic (as it was last time, but excess "alarmism". N's behaviour is disruptive and irritating but not worthy of arbcomm of itself, but since this case exists I'm going to mention it. If you'd rather not consider this as an unwelcome complication, remove it and we'll resolve it elsewhere.

N has been spamming an inappropriate graph into a pile of climate related articles: [71] shows him repeatedly re-inserting it against 3 editors; GW has an entire archive dedicated to this [72] and again, everyone disagrees with him. Unfortunately this behaviour continues [73] now. Everyone else agrees the graph is (a) original research and/or (b) unjustified extrapolation and/or (c) misleading, in attributing future damage to GW.

But there is more... probably best shown by Effects of global warming hist. N is basically making things up, based on nothing but his preconceptions, and adding them in: e.g. [74]. Sorry, this is going to get technical: N added (amongst other incorrect bits):

Wind produced from differences in barometric pressure has increased as radiative forcing increases the relative amount of daytime thermal expansion of air, and is also expected to continue to increase.

AFAIK, there is *no* evidence that winds (in general) have increased; nor any attribution of that to radiative forcing; nor any predictions of future increase. Note that edit includes a "reference" (I had previously reverted out that text, on the grounds that it was unref'd). However, that reference is completely beside the point; as the discussion on the talk page [75] shows. What the talk also makes clear is that N simply grabbed the first google hit to prop up his views.

In summary: N is editing things he doesn't understand, and grabbing irrelevant refs to prop up his preconceived notions: which notions are in general wrong, and totally ungrounded in the science.

William M. Connolley 18:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies: just one more bit: N's bad faith is shown in User_talk:Vsmith#Your_opinion_on_the_storm_cost_extrapolation_graph, in particular [76]. William M. Connolley 19:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by BSbuster

Connolley represents as a standard what he knows (AFAIK), misconstrues N's arguments and then launches a personal attack ("he doesn't understand"). N wrote nothing about winds in general. N refers to a widely discussed effect of radiative warming on Wind produced from differences in barometric pressure. A 2005 National Research Council report concluded regional variations in radiative forcing may have important regional and global climate implications that are not resolved by the concept of global mean radiative forcing. and Regional diabatic heating can cause atmospheric teleconnections that influence regional climate thousands of kilometers away from the point of forcing. If there is any debate, it is over the degree of wind increased caused by radiative forcing. Connolley perhaps should be the subject of a RFA instead, debating in bad faith by launching personal attacks against writers who cite literature instead of debating the content of the cited literature, then mischaracterizing the debate he refused to participate in. Connolley's sustained involvement in edit wars, RFAs and unresolved conflicts warrants investigation. BSbuster 02:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chad Bryant posts real life information

Involved parties


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

I have asked Chad Bryant many many times to refrain from posting this information, he has refused. Other editors have warned him not to post the information, he has ignored them. I have informed him of my request for arbitration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chadbryant

Statement by party 1

Chad Bryant has been continuously posting, what he claims to be, my real life name. He has also recently posted two links to websites that correspond to the individual he claims I am. I have stated many times that I am NOT this person, yet Chad Bryant, despite my requests and the requests of others, continues to do so. (NOTE: The individual Chad Bryant maintains I am does not, by all appearances, have a Wikipedia account and is probably unaware of what is happening) I provide these links to several of the instances where Chad Bryant posts the information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.131.237.219&oldid=40754090 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rec.sport.pro-wrestling&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PyterTaravitch&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AvengerRSPW&action=history

I wish to also draw attention to Wikipedia rules regarding the posting of alleged real life information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:HAR

I feel this matter cannot be solved any other way. The posting ofr real life information, even if it is incorrect, for the intentpurpose of harrassment, cannot be tolerated. Thank you for your time TruthCrusader 23:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This matter has NOTHING to do with the conflict between Alex Cain and Chad Bryant. This is about Chad Bryant posting supposed real life information, not about any flame war between Chad and anyone else. Please try and stay focused on the matter at hand. TruthCrusader 08:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

This is coming from an individual who originally registered as User:ChadBryant to vandalize and harass, and who has posted what he believes is the name of my employer (see [77]). This individual does not have "clean hands", and his request is merely another ploy to cause trouble. I refuse to dignify this request further. - Chadbryant 01:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Gerard

I have some small familiarity with this case. User:Chadbryant is a normal good editor. However, he has a troll who followed him here from Usenet after Chad wrote a Usenet FAQ about the troll many years ago, and who will not let up. I remember blocking multiple sockpuppets of the troll several months ago. I can't say at a glance if this is that troll, but every conflict I've seen with Chad on one side has the troll on the other or pitching in - David Gerard 07:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the different editing style, I just ran a checkuser. TruthCrusader has a consistent IP in eastern Europe, as per his talk page, which doesn't appear to be the pattern for Chad's pet troll. I would assume TruthCrusader is a single individual who is not the troll and would suggest regarding him as such - David Gerard 15:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Curps

The situation between Chad Bryant and "Alex Cain" has dragged on for many months. Dozens if not hundreds of sockpuppets have been created by the "Alex Cain" persona (see Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Dick Witham, which "Alex Cain" repeatedly tries to depopulate), which usually engage in repeated personal attacks (mostly in the nature of schoolyard taunts) and occasional vandalism. Chad Bryant may have crossed the line sometimes in fighting back. I don't believe any kind of mediation is possible. -- Curps 07:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside statement by McClenon

"Alex Cain" is a notorious Usenet troll who uses hundreds of sockpuppets. If the ArbCom were to open a case, they would conclude that Alex Cain is a troll, and would ban him and his sockpuppets. However, I see no reason why ArbCom action is necessary. There should be Wikipedia consensus (with the exception of the hundreds of sockpuppets, who are only sockpuppets) that these trolls and sockpuppets should be blocked. Robert McClenon 08:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think TruthCrusader is Alex Cain (Chad's pet troll) - David Gerard 15:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Notorious Usenet troll?" What brought that up? --Eat At Joes 02:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tv316

While the subject of Alex Cain is still being brought up in this discussion, Chad's recent behaviour to other users has been no better than Alex Cain's. His contributions are full of personal attacks against users not named Alex Cain. But enough of that, because this is about the 'Stephen Signorelli' harassment.

Alex Cain is a troll with hundreds of sockpuppets on Wikipedia whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is to harass Chadbryant. TruthCrusader is not Alex Cain. Therefore, Chadbryant has no right to constantly personally attack and harass TruthCrusader as it defines what harassment is on Wikipedia in WP:HAR. TruthCrusader claims to not be this person. Do I know him personally? No, so he very well could be, just as he very well probably isn't. The point is, in WP:HAR it says "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether the information is actually correct) is almost always harassment. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media."

Whether the information is correct or not, TruthCrusader has never acknowledged it on Wikipedia, and, therefore, it should not be allowed to be posted everywhere Chadbryant wants to post it to. Both right and wrong information are against the policy if the person in question does not want his name plastered everywhere. tv316 19:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requests for Clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process.

CarlHewitt

If the anon 24.23.213.158 is CarlHewitt, then I believe he's violating Remedy 1 in editing Arbiter (electronics). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me how that is autobiographical editing (and not just editing in his field)? Otherwise I don't see the justification for an IP check. Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to have created the concepts, according to the references and previous discussions. But whether or not the Admins (or whichever level administers blocks) agree that his current edits are autobiographical, it should be noted that he and now Anonymouser may be Carl. See the history of Talk:Indeterminacy in computation for details. (Also, to whose attention should I bring questions of identity related to Arbitration remedies.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These don't appear to check out as Carl Hewitt, according to the location of that ip. Fred Bauder 01:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood 3

Instantnood has made a request [78] that someone representing ArbCom address that the case was opened properly. SchmuckyTheCat 08:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that ArbCom cases do not have a hard time limit, Instantnood being blocked around when the case was opened is immaterial. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=42144260"