Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:22, 13 June 2006 view sourceHalibutt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers34,067 edits →Involved parties: adding self← Previous edit Revision as of 20:25, 13 June 2006 view source Grafikm fr (talk | contribs)11,265 editsm →Statement by []Next edit →
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 111: Line 111:


I request checking all involved parties by CheckUser: the style of ] is very similar to that of ]. They might be sockpuppets.--] 19:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC) I request checking all involved parties by CheckUser: the style of ] is very similar to that of ]. They might be sockpuppets.--] 19:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

==== Statement by ] ====

Since quite some time, there was a strong nationalistic uprising on Misplaced Pages, originating from various Warsaw Pact countries and former Soviet Republics, including but not limited to Ukraine, Poland and Baltic states. Quite a few editors thought it would be extremely funny to perform some POV-pushing and bend history in their own way, sending USSR history in the mud to please their new political masters. This has led to several RFCs and blocks of various people during these several months, along with quite a few mediation cabals. You will notice that the main protagonist of this RFAR, ] was ] by this very Arbitration Comitee last January. While I am absolutely certain that content should always supercede the contributor, it is nevertheless clear that I cannot take claims from him with the same degree of seriousness as a truly NPOV contributor.

As for the subject, however, the main issue here is the use of term "liberate" in mainstream research. As pointed out on ], where this discussion started and on Village Pump where it resumed, the word "liberate" is used by a load of both Western and Russian historians. Basically, should ] prevail on ]. Meaning, if a term is considered POV by '''a minority''' but used in historical research, should it be discarded and thrown away??? The issue is debatable, but I don't think so. What is even more funny is that NPOV is hereby suggested by protagonists who are all but neutral in their own edits. My own stance on the subject is to use the word "liberate" for any territory or city belonging to URSS as of June 22, 1941 when the Soviet-German War started, since clearing your own territory from a foreign invader can only be considered liberation, IM(NS)HO.

As for Ghirlandajo, I deny completely being his sockpuppet. You can check me as much as you want, it will be quite difficult for you to prove that my French IP is the same thing as a Russian one...:)))


==== Statement by party 2 ==== ==== Statement by party 2 ====

Revision as of 20:25, 13 June 2006

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 (ArbCom).

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

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

Clarification and Amendment requests
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: American politics 2 none (orig. case) 15 January 2025
Arbitrator motions

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. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. 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. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four accept votes are cast. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details.

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.

See also


Purge the server cache


How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

  • Click the "" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;
  • 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

Neutrality of the word "liberate" and its derivatives

Involved parties

consider using the word "liberate" and its derivatives in the context of (re)establishing the Soviet control over Ukraine and other Eastern/Central European countries during WWII as contradicting NPOV policy.


insist on using the word "liberate" and its derivatives in the Soviet Union related WWII articles.


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request , ,

, , , .

User SuperDeng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was not notified because his talk page is protected. Admin action is needed.


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Mediation was proposed but it was refused by Grafikm fr . Mediation makes sence only if most of the involved parties agree to participate, this was not the case .

Request for comment was submitted .

A discussion at Village pump was initiated .

Statement by AndriyK

The word liberate is generally understood as to set free from oppression, confinement, or foreign control . Or "to change from not having freedom to having freedom". Athough there is no doubt that Nazi occupation was oppressive and definitely can be characterize as "not having freedom", (re)taking the territories of Ukraine and other Eastern/Central European countries by the Red Army did not bring freadom to the people. Stalinist regime that was (re)established on those territories resulted in new repressions and one more artificial famine that claimed more than one million human lives. Millions of Ukrainians were deported to Siberia. Ethnic minorities (Crimean Tatars, Germans and others) were deported en masse, many people died on the way. Calling this "liberation" is extremely unneutral and can be even considered as offensive by the people who lost their relatives in the famine and the repressions.

The word "liberate" assumes sympathy to the Soviet Army, which contradicts to WP:NPOV stating that the neutral point of view "is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject".

I propose using neutral wording like "Soviet Army took control over ..." or "advanced into a certain region" etc. But this proposal was not accepted by the group of users listed above. Morover these users were persistently removing the that was suposed to indicate the ongoing discussion and prevent the edit war. Then Grafikm fr requested protecting the article misinforming the admins that me was "the only one to claim it is POV" (in fact, a few other people stated their disagreement on the talk page , , , with the unnneutral wording used in the article). I think, such a behaviour of Grafikm fr and others is highly uncooperative and hardly helps to improve the Misplaced Pages content.

I request checking all involved parties by CheckUser: the style of Grafikm fr is very similar to that of Ghirlandajo. They might be sockpuppets.--AndriyK 19:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Grafikm_fr

Since quite some time, there was a strong nationalistic uprising on Misplaced Pages, originating from various Warsaw Pact countries and former Soviet Republics, including but not limited to Ukraine, Poland and Baltic states. Quite a few editors thought it would be extremely funny to perform some POV-pushing and bend history in their own way, sending USSR history in the mud to please their new political masters. This has led to several RFCs and blocks of various people during these several months, along with quite a few mediation cabals. You will notice that the main protagonist of this RFAR, AndriyK was convicted of "aggressive Ukrainian nationalist position" by this very Arbitration Comitee last January. While I am absolutely certain that content should always supercede the contributor, it is nevertheless clear that I cannot take claims from him with the same degree of seriousness as a truly NPOV contributor.

As for the subject, however, the main issue here is the use of term "liberate" in mainstream research. As pointed out on Talk:Battle of the Lower Dnieper, where this discussion started and on Village Pump where it resumed, the word "liberate" is used by a load of both Western and Russian historians. Basically, should WP:NPOV prevail on WP:NOR. Meaning, if a term is considered POV by a minority but used in historical research, should it be discarded and thrown away??? The issue is debatable, but I don't think so. What is even more funny is that NPOV is hereby suggested by protagonists who are all but neutral in their own edits. My own stance on the subject is to use the word "liberate" for any territory or city belonging to URSS as of June 22, 1941 when the Soviet-German War started, since clearing your own territory from a foreign invader can only be considered liberation, IM(NS)HO.

As for Ghirlandajo, I deny completely being his sockpuppet. You can check me as much as you want, it will be quite difficult for you to prove that my French IP is the same thing as a Russian one...:)))

Statement by party 2

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

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


Iloveminun

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Here User:Iloveminun informed. He is currently blocked and I have suggested that he respond in email to an Arbitrator or an unrecused clerk.
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Tony Sidaway

This extremely disruptive user has engaged in personal attacks, vandalism, disruption of deletion debates, inappropriate nomination of pages for deletion, and sock puppetry for the purpose of block evasion. I have moved for a community ban but this was strongly opposed by editors whom I know and trust, who know his edits and, while condemning his behavior, believe that banning would be inappropriate. Thus I bring the case before the Committee. In view of the comments to the proposal for a community ban, I think that probation and general probation may work well. --Tony Sidaway 12:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement/Comment by Sceptre

I should make at least a comment as I've run across ILM quite a few times in the last two weeks. As Tony has pointed out, he has been disruptive. He also seems to be stalking HighwayCello, if it is the correct term, to the point of sheer obnoxiousness. While HC may have initiated this conflict, ILM is taking it too far, especially with the cross-userspace move. Will (message me!) 17:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Statement by HighwayCello

I guess I'm the one that can tell the other side of this story, the harassment that's just referred to as that, opposed to what it was. ILM didn't like me for goodness knows why, I was wary of him for a while, which led me to think that ILM could be using socks (you know what I mean ;). I caught the sockpuppet, and it has just escalated from there, ILM has tried to tell everyone not to trust me, inform everyone that I shouldn't be an admin or harass me or my friends here in general. (A full collection of harrassment and vandalism can be found at User:HighwayCello/Minun). It is true I have been "following" ILM, but I don't see reverting unintentional damage done to templates can be consider stalking, or even creating a template to help him with a manual job he was doing, as harmful stalking (I would do the same with any other unsteady editor).

ILM has shoved me to the point of breaking down and almost leaving the project on several occassions, even leaving harmful comments about me at the top of his userpage and deleting my "shield", by moving it to his own userspace and speedy tagging it. ILM has badmouthed me both on his talk page, as well as WP:AN, and harassed (shouting at, moaning at or generally annoying with his consistent winging) User:Actown, User:Celestianpower, User:Smurrayinchester and User:A Man In Black. I just want to be left alone, I don't know if I'll ever get back the trust I've lost from some editors because of this ordeal, I don't want to lose any friends. Highway 21:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

As a party to this case, Tony Sidaway is recused as a clerk.

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

Veselin Topalov

Involved parties

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

In 2005, FIDE Chess Champion Veselin Topalov was accused of cheating during the San Luis World Championship. This has been widely reported in the chess media, and Dionyseus would like to remove all mention of this cheating.

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')
  • Talk Page ]
  • Request for Third Opinion ] - Have tried this twice - with but one exception, all third parties have agreed with me (Danielpi)
  • Mediation Cabal ] - (Dionyseus has violated compromise agreement)

Statement by Daniel Pi

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

I have provided citation showing that the accusation of computer assisted cheating was widely reported in the chess media. Dionyseus has declared all of these (widely recognized and highly regarded) sources as illegitimate. He continually distorts facts, misquotes users (including myself and the mediator), and unilaterally edits without consultation or consensus. He has (I believe) deliberately misrepresented my position on a number of occasions, and he baldly disregards authority. He has previously accused me of sending him death threats (I hasten to add this is false), claiming to have my email address and IP (he posted these without my permission on my talk page, however he was incorrect about both my IP and email, so this is of no particular concern). I have found it quite impossible to deal with these "tactics", and would prefer to have this matter settled once and for all. I would simply like the facts stated objectively in the article that Veselin Topalov was accused of cheating during the championship. I am not claiming that he actually did cheat- simply that the accusation was made.

Ideally, I would like my original sentence included in the article: "Furthermore, allegations of computer assisted cheating during the FIDE World Chess Championship 2005 have become widespread, although no evidence has yet been produced to support the claim that Topalov cheated." This would include links to online sources. I believe this phrasing is factually correct and objective. It does not imply whether or not the accusations are true or false, merely that they have been claimed. Incidentally, the accuser was a participant in that 8-player tournament, making the claim a credible (although not necessarily true) claim.

I have repeatedly attempted to take the high road. I requested Third Opinion twice. I requested Mediation twice. I allowed Dionyseus's edit to remain online pending mediation. And once again, while seeking arbitration, I am willing to let Dionyseus's edit remain online pending resolution. However, I do want it noted that I have attempted to concede these things in the interest of achieving compromise, whereas Dionyseus has made (in my opinion) no concessions whatsoever.Danny Pi 23:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Dionyseus

The cheating allegation was not widely reported at all, Daniel's claim has already been disproven in the mediation case months ago. Please look at the discussion page and the mediation case, Daniel's claims that I am an irresponsible editor are false, in fact it is Daniel who has repeatedly resorted to name calling. Before that mediation case, the Topalov page was at peace for many months until Daniel showed up and repeatedly inserted the cheating allegation into the article. In the mediation case we agreed to restrict mention of the cheating allegation only to the external links section, and the Topalov page was at peace again. A few weeks later I thought that after Topalov's impressive win at Mtel 2006 in which he won the last four games in a row against world class grandmasters, Daniel would no longer care about the wacky cheating allegation so I removed the mention, but I saw that Daniel still cared about it so I placed it back as per mediation agreement. Daniel however was not satisfied with that and attacked me which prompted me to search for information about Soltis, the author of the article that contains the cheating allegation, and I found evidence that Soltis cannot be considered a reliable source. According to respected chess writer International Master John Watson, Soltis has a tendency to exagerrate to put drama and excitement into his articles, he is also known for using unreliable sources and passing them off as being reliable .

Furthermore the person who made the allegation has remained anonymous. He has remained anonymous for eight months! No one other than Daniel has mentioned the allegation for over half a year.

Now as for the death threats, I did indeed receive those two death threats from Daniel, I can provide the IP and the emails if requested. Dionyseus 00:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Cyde Weys

I was the mediator in the aforementioned mediation cabal. Unfortunately, it didn't seem to have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. As for the cheating allegations: can we please get some citations on that? Thank you. --Cyde↔Weys 13:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

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

User:8bitJake

8bitJake's continued edit warring, misuse of various mediation tools, lack of civility, and neglection of community consensus has caused disruption in WP's article space, and the situation as such has caused at least one editor to consider leaving leave the project entirely.

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
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

In my statement, I link to the results of a mediation request w/User:Dan100 from December of 2005. I am unable to find the diff for the actual request at this moment, but I will add it as soon as I'm able to. Mediation request. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by badlydrawnjeff

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Essentially, 8BJ has been disruptive to the point of driving an editor to leave the project . . 8BJ was first involved in a mediation dispute about content in December 2005, where thoughts about notability, verifiability, and published sources were given to him. They didn't matter, as he began warring recently at Henry M. Jackson , eventually being blocked for 3RR twice in a three day span, and three times in less than 10 days, and at Christine Gregoire . 8BJ has also shown incivility in his edit summaries ("Biased gang-bang editing", "Someone has an axe to grind", "Sour grapes editing") misleading edit summaries (Citing nonexistent talk consensus here as well), and various false and often incivil arguments on article talk pages ( ). He has consistently ignored consensus at both Jackson and Gregoire, and has also been known to blank warnings on his talk page, making it difficult for passing admins to deal properly.

  • badlydrawnjeff talk 11:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. If anything, Badlydrawnjeff has understated the nature of 8bitJake's bad-faith edits and unwillingness to discuss issues reasonably. I will state that "disruptive to the point of driving an editor to leave the project" is an overstatement. If 8bitJake were an aberration in Misplaced Pages, I'd still be around; the problem (as exhibited in part by the comments to this RFA) is that 8bitJake is far too typical. I'm leaving Misplaced Pages because it is overwhelmed with bad-faith editors like 8bitJake, and because the procedures being used to combat the problem aren't even close to a finger in a crumbling dike. I'm leaving Misplaced Pages because events have persuaded me that it is not possible for a good-faith editor working on Misplaced Pages as a hobby to make a positive contribution proportional to the time required to make that contribution. -- FRCP11 03:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Bazzajf

I find this RFA a futile ego-driven exercise. It is evident that 8BitJake has a useful contribution to make if you look at his list of contributions. It is churlish of you to take a dispute to this arena. Disputes over content of an article should take place in the discussion page of the relevant article, you are as guilty of as many reversions as himself on disputed articles. I find your recourse to this action pathethic and not worthy of further investigation as it reflects a personal witch-hunt on your part without any substance of note. I move that you apologise to 8bitjake for taking this action and desist from your ill-conceived and foolhardy finger-pointing forthwith.

Bazzajf 12:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by 69.178...

I have no knowledge of 8BitJake or his edits, but I take issue with badlydrawnjeff's statement above, "...driving an editor (User:FRCP11) to leave the project". Also see FRCP11's prior page. I agree with Bazzajf's assessment of FRCP11's demeanor ("galling", "self-righteous", "...imposing one's opinion on others relentlessly") here. FRCP11 appeared to self destruct with obliging help (strict enforcement) from several admins after many, many tirades. I have had extremely contentious edit situations on alt med, and although FRCP11 responded with some formal civility, he was among the worst to repeatedly rush past simple facts, without investigation, to try to cram his opinion down without any meaningful discussion, most intransigently, and in preference to previous, other far better qualified, vociferous critcs of orthomed. Apparently FRCP11's opinion and prejudgement are more important than basic subject definition in the articles (according to his points in talk).--69.178.41.55 01:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The record will reflect that I used the talk page to object to the tremendous violation of NPOV in several "alternative medicine" pages, where the pages fail entirely to reflect mainstream medicine's assessment of the therapies as unproven, unsound, and dangerous. 69.178 is unhappy that I refused to engage him on a debate on the merits of whether certain pseudoscience was quackery; whether the proponents of orthomolecular medicine are correct or incorrect is irrelevant to the violation of WP:NPOV, as I explained multiple times--NPOV requires that the page present both sides of the debate, rather than just the minority view. The fact that 69.178.41.55 has taken advantage of my future absence from Misplaced Pages to delete the POV tags that I added to those articles without doing anything to address the underlying NPOV problems reflects precisely the bad-faith editing that Misplaced Pages rewards, and that I have come to the conclusion it is a waste of my time to try to resist. 8bitJake's behavior, and the failure of Misplaced Pages administrators to adequately address it, is just the straw that broke the camel's back; it's a symptom of the problem, rather than the problem itself, though I welcome any small steps to correct that problem. 69.178's edits, and his insults on this page and on various talk pages, are similarly symptomatic, as is the fact that dozens of pages on my watchlist were sanitized over the weekend by political activists. I'm not coming back. Administrators can delete my account, and I have requested that through the speedy deletion process. -- FRCP11 02:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you counselor for your demonstrative responses, although I would have preferred to not have had my first two evidentiary links cited, above, to your self views, expunged. Cached versions while they last are: , . I invite any and all to see whether OM gives adequate consideration of conventional medical views (descriptive fair warnings that there are disagreements between the groups) after DocJohnny (DO), Andrew73 (MD, Harvard fellow), InvictaHOG (MD, Harvard fellow), Midgely (vociferous MD), CDN99 (science b/g, conventional med supporter) and Jfdwolff, a prolific conventional MD editor - all potent conventional medical article editors, contributed without the projective attitude, unsubstantialted allegations on NPOV, and insults. SPOV has also been a significant factor here. Another of the trenchant conventional med editors, Tearlach, specifically advocated use of the Orthomolecular Medicine format,here. --69.178.41.55 09:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

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

Irishpunktom

Involved parties

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.)
  • Here notification of Irishpunktom. A one week block recently imposed has been lifted to enable him to respond.
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried (If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)
Chronic edit warrior who shows no sign of improvement over a long period (block log).

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Irishpunktom has been blocked about a dozen times for edit warring--around half of those blocks in the past five months. His chronic misbehavior is soaking up administrator resources and is probably having a severe net bad effect on the articles he edits. The only question in my mind is whether or not a probation or similar remedy would improve his behavior to an acceptable level. --Tony Sidaway 22:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Irishpunktom

Dispute resolution = Block log? - Each case must looked at on its own merits. Tony's assesment of what is "probably" happening appears in fact to be the opposite of what has happened. While I have "revert war"ed too much, each case must still be judged on the circumstances. Do you want me to go through them ?--Irishpunktom\ 10:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Raphael1

I know Irishpunktom from the Islamophobia article and therefore I can attest, that many of his reverts have been against subtile cases of vandalism. It seems pretty obvious to me, that an editor who puts this on his user page, has no genuine interest in improving the Islamophobia article. Another problem Irishpunktom has to face is Wikistalking from Netscott, who openly planned to attack Irishpunktom to get him censured as a Misplaced Pages editor. See also: Raphael1 10:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:Jeremygbyrne

FYI, whatever this was seems to have been permanently removed. &#0151; JEREMY 16:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Irishpunktom

Jeremy, Karl added this link to his homepage, with the summary "Muslims, we're soo sorry!!", or similar. --Irishpunktom\ 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Karl Meier

I agreed to remove the above link that Irishpunktom mention from my userpage months ago, and I have already admitted that it was a mistake to place it there. However, more recently, and several months after I agreed to have the link removed, Irishpunktom and Raphael1 has continued to make endless and very serious personal attacks against me on talkpages, in editsummaries and elsewhere, using the external link as an excuse to do so. Irishpunktom first ended his endless personal attacks against me, after he was warned by an admin that he would be blocked if he continued this behavior. If it is of any interest to the ArbCom and these proceedings I would like present evidence regarding his campaign of personal attacks against me. (see the report I filed on this problem here) I might also add evidence re his incivility when addressing other people that he doesn't like, such as when he labeled Danish non-Muslim's "Kaffirs" in an article that he was editing. -- Karl Meier 09:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by David

I have found Irishpunktom to be an extremely difficult editor to work with, even when we happen to share broadly the same point of view. Specifically, when he dislikes an edit, he will often revert without explanation, and if reverted, he reverts again. While quick to castigate other editors for failing to use article talk pages, he rarely outlines his problems there, and when he does, it is in a combative way.

I appreciate that Irishpunktom has contributed useful articles and edits about Islam and I would not myself favour a lengthy block from editing, but his style of editing is aggressive and time-consuming. The ArbCom may wish to consult a draft RFC which I did not get round to filing due to pressure of work. I am considering adding myself to this RFAr as an involved party. David | Talk 13:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Tom Harrison

On 5 June I blocked Irishpunktom for disruptive edit warring on Peter Tatchell. He presented what seemed to me a good case that he wasn't the only one edit warring, so I unblocked him and protected the page instead. Discussion, cautions, and warnings on ANI followed., .

On 8 June, Karl Meier told me that Irishpunktom was edit warring on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I checked and found that to be the case. I blocked Irishpunktom for one week. On his talk page, he said he thought that was harsh but fair. At Tony Sidaway's suggestion, I unblocked him shortly after that so he could respond to the arbitration.

I think Irishpunktom has come to regard his frequent 3rr blocks as the cost of doing business. It's hard to imagine that any other form of dispute resolution would be useful. Tom Harrison 19:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Jersey Devil

I have not had direct participation in editing articles which Irishpunktom edits but I have had several encounters with him and have found him to be aggresive and sometimes uncivl. In one dispute in which I had with another user which he objected to I showed him diffs of the aforementioned user incorrectly claiming "vandalism" in edit summaries. To this Irishpunktom responded in my talk page with the header "Stop being a Vandal" stating that I was lying about those false "rv vandalism" edit summaries (you can look at them and judge for yourself). Until now I was really unaware of any other problems with this user aside from occasional hostility but after reviewing his blocking log and the revert wars in which he has participated despite being warned several times before not to I do think some action should be taken. The simplest solution would just be to give admins the right to give this user an extended block for any other revert wars in which he participates.--Jersey Devil 07:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

As a participant, Tony Sidaway is recused as a clerk.

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

Pudgenet

Involved parties

Pudgenet is unable to control his emotions on discussions related to Perl. In earlier month this took the form of very hostile personal attacks. Lately it has become more serious and converted into sustained personal attacks as part of a campaign of harassment against Barry and attempted intimidation against other editors who have attempted to intervene to prevent further harassment.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Attempts by Barry to engage in productive dialogue deleted:
    • Deleted requests for mediation
    • Attempts to join in discussion (see edit summary)
    • Other attempts at mediation turned down
    • Third attempt never responded to
  • During the RFC process for Barry, jbolden1517 and Simetrical attempted to instruct Pudgenet that his behavior was unacceptable and constituted sustained personal attacks against Barry
  • Attempted administrative intervention by Durin in which Pudgenet attacked administrator questioning his understanding and his ethics once he attempted to prevent Pudgenet's harassment of Barry
  • Failed mediation in which Pudgenet refused to engage (mediator was jbolden1517 very active member of Mediation Cabal)
  • Administrative guided mediation which Pudgenet has engaged in sustained personal attacks against the mediator and has been successfully disruptive preventing much progress (governed by jbolden1517 under Durin's supervision).

Statement by -Barry-

Pudgenet has been a problem for an administrator (User:Durin) regarding the Perl article, and for me regarding Wikipedians with articles, where he's continually reverted the links that I added to brian d foy's entry, which had been agreed to here. I managed to get Pudgenet to discuss this a bit here, before that discussion was considered off topic and reverted by a mediator for a different issue. Pudgenet has an unusual interpretation of what was agreed to on the talk page of Wikipedians with articles, and I believe he's not being honest. He's certainly not trying to work it out on the appropriate page.

Pudgenet has also been uncivil in this and this edit summary, in this post to my talk page, and has criticized me here, on his user page, without me being able to respond because he deletes everything I post to his talk page without responding . Probably worst was when he vandalized the Perl article with this paragraph (at bottom left) in which he insulted me.

Pudgenet claims that use.perl.org is his site and I believe he's biased in favor of Perl and in favor of notable Perl guru brian d foy, aka Scarpia, whose biased edits he keeps covering up by reverting my links to them. -Barry- 06:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by jbolden1517

I became involved in Perl mediation as part of a request made to the Mediation Cabal. I generally specialize in mediating religion cases (which needless to say are often very heated); but I took this programming related case because it is in a language that I am knowledgeable about and the subject matter was highly technical (issues like various compiler flags used to modify the runtime engine have come up). The culture on the discussion board related to Perl was entirely unacceptable and in my opinion crossed the line into abusive. My attempts at stopping this abuse and creating an environment designed to write a high quality encyclopedia article have met with limited success mainly as a result of Pudgenet attempting to intimidate me (and possibly other editors) into allowing his personal vendetta against Barry to continue. It should be mentioned that Barry and Pudgenet know each other from other discussion boards going back at least to early 2004, as do many of the other editors. Pudgenet has successfully driven Barry off other Perl related discussion sites and this campaign of harassment did not start on Misplaced Pages.

As part of my investigation I conducted a survey of Pudgenet's postings on Perl related discussions (Perl related includes biographies of leaders in the Perl community, and cross programming language discussions) . There were 50 which violated policy (out of approximately 75 posts) so his major contribution to Perl appears to be insults and harassment. None involved any substantial content, which is curious given Pudgenet's substantial expertise in this area. Conversely on other discussions about the Iraq war and political figures (Iraq war, Doug Roulstone, Stacey Tappan, Mike McGavick) there was not a single violation and he has conducted himself admirably. So Pudgenet knows how to be an effective wikipedian he is either unable or refuses to do so on Perl related topics.

It is likely that Pudgenet is going to respond to this filing by arguing that Barry in some ways deserved this campaign of harassment, and that I am incompetent. I can provide references from other cases if my judgement becomes a primary point of dispute. However addressing the issue of Barry, his actions have been examined by 3 senior wikipedians. All have agreed that while there are minor problems with his edits the much more serious problems were in Pudgenet's edits. Given the history that I was not aware of until recently I would say that Barry has conducted himself admirably. More importantly, Barry has graciously accepted guidance from more experienced wikipedians, has responded to critique in a positive manner and has acted to facilitate the dispute resolution process.

jbolden1517 11:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Since posting the above the situation has gotten more urgent. I initiated mediation on a completely unrelated case Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-09 Special rights. This topic far removed from any one on which Pudgenet has ever been involved in his six months on wikipedia. He did this within 11 minutes of me wrapping up my initial posting that the page was going to be under a mediation process. I warned Pudgenet about my feelings regarding his sudden interest constituted wikistaling . He however has refused to comply and continues to involve himself .
I'd like him to be prevented from derailing another mediation as part of a personal vendetta. Pudgenet has proven he is able to successfully derail mediation so without such a ban I'll have to drop this and all the other cases he goes after. I would like a summary ban issued due to wikistalking. jbolden1517 19:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Durin

My role in this dispute has been relatively minor. I first came to it last month, where I had observed a revert war underway at Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians with articles regarding some content (added, reverted, added, reverted, etc). Being that there was a dispute over content, reverting the content was not simple anti-vandalism work thus WP:3RR#Vandalism did not apply. I issued what I would call "soft" warnings to User:-Barry- and User:Pudgenet to end the revert war (,).
Shortly thereafter, Pudgenet deleted my warning from his talk page , and then continued the revert war (,). My energies at that point became focused on Pudgenet, and I conducted no further evaluation of -Barry- or any others party to the dispute. I was concerned about this behavior, and some rather hostile edit summaries left by Pudgenet (,,). I engaged Pudgenet in a fairly lengthy discussion regarding his behavior which can be seen at User_talk:Pudgenet/PerlJunk#Ignoring_revert_warring_request. At the end of this discussion, I bowed out of overseeing the dispute and trying to end it. Frankly, I didn't have the time or energy to manage it at the time.
Two weeks later, User:Jbolden1517 contacted me to provide administrator assistance to help resolve the issue. Thus, I became re-involved in the dispute. Shortly thereafter, I observed a rather hostile edit (see edit summary especially) by Pudgenet. Based on that, I issued a civility warning to Pudgenet . Further discussion followed between he and I regarding civility (see User_talk:Pudgenet/PerlJunk#Civility warning).
Following this, I monitored the ongoing mediation attempt and made attempts to get Pudgenet involved in the mediation process. I was not able to do so (see User_talk:Pudgenet/PerlJunk#Regarding Perl mediation). Pudgenet refused mediation, and continued to castigate the mediator Jbolden1517.
At this point, the revert war continues, with no indication of stopping (Pudgenet: , , ) (Barry: , , ). I feel that both parties carry guilt in this process, and the failure of the mediation process (regardless of the source; Pudgenet claims incompetence of the mediator) has left us in this state.
I do not consider Pudgenet's behavior to be irredeemably bad. On civility, I have observed since my warnings to him that he has toned it down some, though as noted the revert war continues apace. Given that an RfC has failed to bring resolution to this dispute, and the attempted mediation has been rejected by Pudgenet, I feel that arbitration in some aspect of this dispute is warranted. Both parties have been deserving of blocks regarding the revert war, but even with blocks I doubt the dispute would end; it would simply continue once the blocks ended. In Pudgenet's case, my warnings have had little or no effect, he has refused mediation, and (it appears) he is ignoring this request for arbitration. I'm at a loss as to how to correct his behavior. -Barry-'s behavior may be just as problematic; as I noted I have not evaluated his or any other party's behavior in this dispute. --Durin 19:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Addendum: I would like to note that the dispute on Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians with articles between -Barry- and Pudgenet is related to the dispute on Perl. Further, the issue at hand here is not a particular article, but the interactions of two users who are apparently incapable of working together and seeming unwilling to stop working on areas of mutual interest. Thus, without arbitration this dispute is likely to continue indefinitely into the future. --Durin 19:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Pudge

I disagree with some of what Durin said, much of what Barry said, and almost all of what Jbolden said. However, and most importantly, most of what was said here is entirely off-topic, according to Barry; worse, he has specifically misrepresented the case and the process.

To wit, he notes in the above link that this arbitration request is regarding Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians with articles (though he does not make that clear here, at all, which is troubling), which I agree is the only outstanding dispute between us (despite the implications by Jbolden, my last edit to the Perl article was almost a month ago, and more than a week before mediation even began, and even before then my edits were few and far between; clearly nothing I am doing on the Perl article can require a need for arbitration, since I am not doing anything on the Perl article).

So, we have Barry saying his RfA is only about Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians with articles, and we have the fact that no other article constitutes an active dispute between us. And yet, Barry says in this RfA that, as per Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes, that there has been "Failed mediation in which Pudgenet refused to engage." This is false. There has been not a single attempt at mediation regarding Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians with articles (indeed, Barry's attempt at discussing Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians with articles in Jbolden's Perl mediation process was properly deleted by Jbolden deleted as off-topic), and I therefore suggest you direct Barry to go back and attempt this route before wasting your time further.

It may be true that I have deleted requests for mediation regarding Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians with articles; I don't know, as I consider Barry's use of my talk page as vandalism (due to actual vandalism there by him), and I just delete what he posts there without reading it (including his notice of this arbitration request). That could possibly be assumed, though incorrectly, a tacit rejection of informal mediation. However, it could not be considered a rejection of formal mediation, which no one has even attempted, despite Barry's claim. I do preemptively reject any mediation in which Jbolden is the mediator, however, and do not consider it my job, as not being the one instigating mediation, to find a suitable replacement (side note: if you cared, and reviewed the record, I am confident you would find Jbolden's claim that 50 of my 75 edits violated policy to be wholly without merit, and indeed would find much that Jbolden himself has done wrong).

To the end of not wasting your time, I will not attempt at this time to further correct or clarify the offered record against me, where errors are many, except to note that despite Jbolden's claim, I, to my knowledge, have never had any interaction with Barry before this. I know of only two other sites he has ever been on, and I only discovered he was on those sites in the last few weeks. One is my site, use Perl;, where I noticed him for the first time last week. The other is PerlMonks, where I have only 15 posts to my name since 2002 (compared to his nearly 500), and none of those is within three weeks of any of his posts, except in May 2004, where we both commented on the same day in completely different and unrelated discussions. To my recollection, I'd never heard of Barry or Wassercrats until last month (though the name sounds vaguely familiar, and perhaps I'd heard other people mention it on IRC or somesuch in reference to PerlMonks discussions I was not privy to). Jbolden's assertion is simply false, and that he asserts it as a matter of fact further troubles me regarding his judgment.

Again, I see no actual case for arbitration here. Direct Barry to formally request mediation as the dispute resolution procedure requires before further wasting your time.

Regards,

Pudge 16:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Jbolden is being wholly dishonest. What he calls "wikistalking" clearly is not. Look at the definition of wikistalking. Nothing I did matches the definition. Further, that I've not posted on the subject on Misplaced Pages before is beside the point; my interests are far broader than my Misplaced Pages activity. I saw in my watchlist -- as it was added there automatically when I sent Jbolden a message previously -- that Jbolden added something to his page about "special rights," something I obviously do have a keen interest in, so I went over and looked. I saw some serious problems, so I posted my concerns about it on the talk page. What I posted had nothing to do with mediation, or with jbolden, as he implies, but was only about the article itself, and from anyone else would have been considered a perfectly valid edit. I have absolutely no plans to participate in his mediation process, I was merely adding my two cents to the talk page, separate from the mediation process.
I see nothing in any Misplaced Pages policy that remotely even implies that my edit was inappropriate, and as I have a very strong ability to be dispassionate, I refuse to segregate myself from articles that Jbolden is involved in. I will restrict myself from participating in his mediation processes, or even doing anything to remotely interfere with them (except for the one I was a party to, and only then in a manner expressly allowed by Durin), and I did so restrict myself.
He is also being dishonest about me derailing a mediation process. The process in Perl is derailed (it is?) because most of the participants have no faith in Jbolden, as has been made clear by those other participants. I may have a hand in convincing them of this, but I can only take that as a compliment, since I think he is an objectively bad mediator. If I convinced people to not particpate because of his misdeeds, that is a good thing.
But I have no interest in stalking him, and have not done so; if I had wished to stalk him, I'd have done so before now. I only posted on the Special rights discussion because it was something I was interested in. If there is any policy against anything I did there, let me know, because I am not seeing it, Durin didn't mention it, and Jbolden only linked to a wikistalking page that does not describe anything I did.
As to Durin's addendum, I am really confused. There is only one area of mutual interest Barry and I are involved with, and only one place where there is a current dispute: Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians with articles. And there's no reason to think formal mediation could not resolve that dispute (maybe Durin is confused by the fact that I firmly expressed a lack of faith in the mediation process, but that expression was quite specific to the Perl process and my belief that consensus was sufficient to deal with the problem there, which obviously is not the case in Wikipedians with Articles). There is no significant problem between me and Barry, just this little thing. I don't understand what he is referring to.
There is, however, a growing problem between me and Jbolden, as he keeps removing edits of mine that he has no business removing (and has been doing so for weeks), and apparently to me, and others, does have a significant vendetta against me. I will initiate some sort of process, perhaps arbitration, against him if he doesn't stop it. I asked Durin to give him a nudge to try to head this off, and he has refused, instead choosing to claim I was being incivil by saying Jbolden's claim of stalking was "insane," ignoring the inherent incivility of the claim itself. I am giving up on trying to get any help from Durin, that's for sure, and it unfortunately damages my faith in Misplaced Pages admins in general.
Pudge 20:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Scarpia

Actually, Pudgenet did not know who Barry was until last month, when I pointed him to Barry's alternate life on Perlmonks. You really just don't know enough to be making these sorts of accustations, so you should really try to stay within what you know. It's pretty clear that you have an emotional reaction to this because you two don't get along, but don't confuse that with actual knowledge. Scarpia 17:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Barry caught everyone's attention by trying to defame O'Reilly Media, Randal Schwartz, and brian d foy, and arguing with Harmil over trivialities in the definition of PerlMonks, revert warring with Harmil over benchmarks

. Barry had already caused problems before Pudgenet showed up , after which he continued revert warring and attempting to embarrass Randal Schwartz and O'Reilyl Media . Unsucccessful the actions of several editors, Barry decided to declare the entire Perl article as biased , which several editors removed. Barry then removed Perl from the Good Article list. Pudgenet had very little to do with any of that, and most of the things of which you accuse him happened in over Talk places, which didn't really affect the editing of Perl. I think you may have skipped most of this history is deciding Barry is "reasonable" and "admirable". It was certainly happening before Pudgenet and I got involved. Scarpia 18:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Clerk notes

The word "disruption" was removed from the title by me to bring the case name into conformance with other cases. Most cases before the Committee involve alleged disruption. This change is not intended to imply a judgement either way on the conduct of Pudgenet or the judgement of those bringing the case. --Tony Sidaway 00:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Moby Dick

Involved parties

In the opinion of several administrators, Moby Dick continues to stalk another editor despite warnings. He is believed to be the sock of an editor who was formally warned by the Committee not to engage in this behavior. He may also be in breach of a one-year ban on editing articles which concern politics.

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

See:

Statement by Tony Sidaway

In the opinion of myself, Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and MONGO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Moby Dick exhibits stalking behavior similar to that of Davenbelle (see Cool Cat arbitration) who was one of three editors warned against stalking Cool Cat. He has persisted despite warnings. Davenbelle's last edit is too old to permit technical means to be used to verify this user's identity.

Davenbelle is also enjoined from editing articles which relate to politics (Trey Stone and Davenbelle arbitration, August 2005) and Moby Dick's identity may have a bearing on that ban. --Tony Sidaway 18:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Moby

This is absurd. User:Cool Cat and his friends are defining stalking as making reasonable edits to articles that he happens to not like. I have made many reasonable edits to articles and talk pages, added cited facts, and have sought consensus. Unfortunately, User:Cool Cat does not like the facts and does not seek consensus. He seeks his way and harasses anyone who does not yield to his will. His allegations of sockpuppetry are merely an attempt to run me off from the very group of articles that he was found to have made many POV edits to.

User:Tony Sidaway has stated that User:Cool Cat repeatedly attempts to promote the removal of categories, templates and content related to an ethnicity that, while not having a single national entity of its own, is significant enough to be treated seriously by an encyclopedia. Editors who complain about his activities and his attitude thus have a solid basis upon which to do so. diff

In User:Cool Cat's current complaint about my editing on wp:an/i, he states that I opposed him on all of the vote options on Talk:Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict — Not True, he also opposed four of the moves that I opposed. And it is entirely reasonable that I'm involved in that article. I voted on the AFD that resulted in its being renamed and I edited the article proper before User:Cool Cat ever did.

Of course I participated in the CFD on Category:Kurdish inhabited regions, as I did the previous CFD. I have been attempting to categorise Kurdish homelands and User:Cool Cat hates the Kurds and has been highly disruptive of such efforts by myself and others.

User:Cool Cat has shown up on a number of pages right after I've edited them: Talk:Nationalist Movement Party diff, CFD of Category:Imposters of Moby Dick diff. And he has bee hyper-aggressive on pages such as Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 27#Category:Kurdish inhabited regions, badgering every user that does not agree with his POV.

It is User:Cool Cat who is stalking, harassing and seeking the deletion of encyclopaedic content related to Kurds and the users who edit in ways that he does not like.

See also: User:Cool Cat's disruption of Kurdish categorization efforts

--Moby 11:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Cool Cat

  1. I have a script that allows me to automaticaly watch articles I edit (primarily for vandalism), on occasions I manualy add articles to this watchlist such as various political parties and other potential vandalism targets. If Moby Dick edits articles on my list (weather it is an article talking about Oh My Goddess! or Nationalist Movement Party) I would have a way of knowing about it.
  2. Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict is an intresting article. Unlike what moby claims I actualy particiapted in that AFD. All of the faces on previous RfAr are present on the AFD. We have:
    • User:Karl Meier (my former stalker) who voted 4 minutes after nom. Karl is currently revert waring on the article
    • User:Moby Dick (a suspected Davenbelle sock) who voted 10 hours after my vote on same day. Moby was reverting to Kral's version on a number of occasions.
    • User:Fadix (my former stalker) who voted after me on the same day (10 hours after Moby).
    I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences.
  3. Here is a complete list of the deletion votes I participated involving kurds. You'll see over a half are red links as the concensus was over half of the time: delete.
    • I'd also like to point out that some of these categories were created by User:Diyako and/or his other aliases, a user arbcom banned for a year.
    • As for Category:Kurdish inhabited regions, my views are still the same. It should be deleted for the same reasons as Category:Hispanic inhabited regions was deleted. I am not going to bring a content dispute here but I believe I have very good reasons from my stand point which I can discuss if arbcom requests.
  4. It is irrational for someone interested in the novel featuring Moby Dick (so much that he choses it to be his nick), to make minimal edits to that area (hardly any edits, in fact none to article Moby Dick) and make majority of his edits to issues regarding Turkey and Kurds.
    • I would not be suprised if a checkuser placed Moby into the same geographic region as Davenbelle who said he was in bali.
    • The more I look at Moby's contributions the more evidence I can come up with...

--Cat out 12:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Karl Meier

I don't really want to be a part of this ArbCom case if I can avoid it, because I haven't really been involved in the conflict between Moby and Cool Cat, and I have followed (and intend to continue to follow) the ArbCom's advice to let other editors, and especially his mentors, take the lead in dealing with any POV editing or other violations by Cool Cat. However, I noticed that Cool Cat has mentioned me in his statement, and I feel that I should respond to it, as what he says is very inaccurate. First, it must be made clear that Cool Cat followed me to the Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict. As the history of the article clearly show, he had never made a single edit to the article or the talkpage when I started editing the article. Also, I don't know why he find it interesting or relevant to his latest ArbCom case that I made my first comment on the vote for deletion page a few minutes after it was nominated, but perhaps Cool Cat could explain in more details exactly why he find it relevant to mention that? For the record I was discussing what should happend with the article on the talkpage at the time when it was nominated, and as mentioned, Cool Cat had never edited that article or it's talkpage. Anyway, Cool Cat followed me to the Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict article a few days later, and his comments on talk and edits to the article, makes it obvious to me that his behavior haven't improved since my last contact with him, which was more than half a year ago. His edits and comments on talk, makes it clear he is still editing and acting according to his pro-Turkish government POV. -- Karl Meier 09:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

As a participant, Tony Sidaway is recused as a clerk.

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

Conspiracy theories in History of South Africa in the apartheid era

Involved parties

User:Phase4, User:Kuratowski's Ghost, edit war in History of South Africa in the apartheid era under "Destablization and Sabotage" subsection regarding the inclusion of the text:

Although South Africa agreed to cease supporting anti-government forces, their support of RENAMO continued. In 1986 President Machel himself was killed in an air crash in mountainous terrain near the South African border after returning from a meeting in Zambia. South Africa was suspected of sabotaging Machel's Soviet-built presidential aircraft.

On December 21 1988 UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, was en route to the signing ceremony in New York, whereby South Africa was to cede control of Namibia to the UN, after over a decade of defiance of Security Council Resolution 435. Carlsson was among 270 people killed when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie in Scotland. Because foreign minister Pik Botha and a 22-strong South African delegation were due to travel on the doomed flight — but cancelled their booking at short notice — some also suspect South African involvement in the PA 103 sabotage.

Statement by User:Kuratowski's Ghost

User:Phase4 insists on including the above conspiracy theory text at the end of the section. It includes original research claiming South Africa continued to aid RENAMO after the Nkomati Accords. It includes weaselly repetition of the conspiracy theory that SA somehow sabotaged Machel's plane, already receiving questionably large coverage in the Samora Machel article. It repeats the conspiracy theory that SA was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing already given ample coverage in the article Pan Am Flight 103. These fringe conspiracy theories do not belong in the section, at most there could be a sentence mentioning conspiracy theories of ongoing sabotage by SA linking to the articles dealing with them, but it makes no sense to give detailed repetitions of these bizarre claims as if these are substantiated cases uncovered by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and / or other Commissions.

Statement by party 2

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

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

Editor Abuse, Threats, and Uncivil Conduct

Involved parties

User:DV8_2XL
User:Ewrobbel

DV8 2XL has been abusive, threatening, and uncivil in mediation case and before.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
User_talk:DV8_2XL
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-28_Editor_abuse_and_threats

Statement by Ewrobbel (talk • contribs)

Review of DV8 2XL's remarks in the mediation case will show a pattern of abusive and threatening treatment of me, and intimidation of both myself and the mediator.--Ewrobbel 23:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by DV8 2XL (talk • contribs)

This editor has been attempting to insert a link to his website where he sells books he has written and self-published. A quick look at his contribs will show that he has only made edits on this one topic. Discussed with the editor who is complaining on his talk page here: ; Discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents here:; went to the Mediation Cabal the first time here: (mediator e-mailed a response explaining spamlinking, case closed); returned to Mediation_Cabal here: ; and finally in edit summaries here: , here: , and here: .
This Request for arbitration is just a transparent attempt to game the system and stop me from keeping his spam off Misplaced Pages. I do not think this issue is worth the committee's time and at any rate Ewrobbel has not exhausted all other dispute resolution options. --DV8 2XL 01:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Followup by Ewrobbel (talk • contribs)

I am not arguing the case. I lost. That's over. I am accusing DV8 2XL of being abusive, threatening, and uncivil in the mediation case and before. His behavior shows a pattern of abusive and threatening treatment of me, and intimidation of both myself and the mediator.--Ewrobbel 03:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party Christopher Thomas (talk • contribs)

I tend to agree with the AN/I statements that User:Ewrobbel is linkspamming and self-promoting. In particular, he's been adding references to his own books to Transistor radio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Crystal radio receiver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and links to his web site under Walkman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). As far as I can tell from both the links and the discussions linked above, the only work of utility to Misplaced Pages from these would be the photograph of various old Walkman models.

Skimming several of the discussions involved, I don't see any serious justification for User:Ewrobbel's statement that threats are being made. User:DV8 2XL stated his intentions to continue removing linkspam in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies. In my past interactions with User:DV8 2XL, I've only ever seen him act in good faith. While I think he could have phrased his statements more diplomatically, I get the strong impression that User:Ewrobbel is using this as a delaying tactic in order to continue self-promoting. The discussions on AN/I and elsewhere make it clear that classifying the edits as linkspam has substantial community support.

This has been through a mediation attempt and was discussed at length on AN/I. I don't think further attempts at dispute resolution would work. User:Ewrobbel brought this to ArbCom; let him reap the results. --Christopher Thomas 03:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: As far as I can tell from the mediation case and elsewhere, the claims of attacks and threats are baseless. The statements that User:Ewrobbel considers "threats" were along the lines of, "I will continue to remove edits that violate Misplaced Pages policy". --Christopher Thomas 04:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion... Ewrobbel (talk • contribs)

No one is claiming "attacks" as Christopher Thomas misstates. DV8 2XL is simply accused of abusive, threatening, and uncivil treatment of me, and intimidation of both myself and the mediator. I trust the arbitrators will be more careful in their reading of the accusation and their review of the mediation case than Christopher Thomas has been.--Ewrobbel 15:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A Culture of Rudeness? Ewrobbel (talk • contribs)

When DV8 2XL tells me "don't let the door hit you on the way out" on my talk page, and that (among many other things) is considered by admins SimonP and James F. as "at worst a bit curt," I can only suggest that there is a culture of rudeness in these back pages of Misplaced Pages which many seem so steeped in they don't even notice it anymore.--Ewrobbel 16:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/3/0/0)

Requests for Clarification

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

Election

The complainant has never even sought mediation (there has been no survey, no 'third opinion', etc.), nor a request for an advocate, before bringing this RfAr. How is it that the case has been accepted? Are cases brought by admins subject to lesser restrictions vis-a-vis process?

Here's Phil's comment about mediation (he never pursued it after Robert's comment) . He did not follow thru on the possibility of mediation. Here's Noosphere's next discussion regarding possible mediation of disputes And again here's Noosphere, not Phil, seeking mediation after a round of fierce warring: and the continuing thread, ending in the removal of the mediation request due to a lack of interest .-- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"excuse me, but please let me point out that you all asked for a mediator: perhaps this is a good topic for me to help with. if I don't get something to do here, I'll just go back and say you case is closed because no one is responding. :-) Ted 01:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, mediation was skipped on this article. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"Where a dispute has not gone through Mediation, or the earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, the Arbitrators may refer the dispute to the Mediation Committee if it believes Mediation is likely to help." - from WP:AP. I imagine this is the reason. Phil Sandifer 18:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
If that's the case, Fred Bauder (who said it was his view that mediation should work) or another admin should have referred the dispute to the Mediation committee. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
But they are in no way required to. See "may" not "will." Phil Sandifer 18:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Fred's comment read ""There is a suggestion by RyanFreisling that mediation might be productive, see his talk page. I think that may be a much more productive solution. Having the arbitration committee take the sheep shears to the articles is not going to make for a very nice haircut. "
For you to claim that the 'Misplaced Pages process has spectacularly failed', don't you think you should have followed the process as closely as possible? Wouldn't that have been necessary for you to make that claim? How can Misplaced Pages process have failed, if it hasn't been attempted in good faith? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Do the Arbitrators even read the proposed decisions talk page?

Fred Bauder is the only arbitrator who I've ever seen make a comment on the proposed decision talk page. from how they are blatently misrepresenting my beliefs, and even my statements... -- assuming good faith here, i can only assume that they simply 'do not read said talk page.

This logical conclusion is derived from the following (besides the stated assumption of good faith):

So in light of this, what I want clarified is: are the arbitrators who have already voted on what i believe (and i'm rather new to the idea of having a select committee decide what my beliefs are for me) going to read and consider the statements of the parties, or make judgements and put words in their mouths without giving the people involved a fair hearing (and that means actually listening)? I actually do want an answer to this question. It's not just rhetorical. I seriously don't know the answer and I want this issue clarified. Kevin Baas 22:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course we read them.
James F. (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It may help instill user confidence in the Arbitration process if a comment or two were provided when a decision is made. Thanks! Dr1819 12:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Merecat/Rex071404

As mentioned above in my request to reopen 'Rex071404_4', Merecat/Rex071404, who was banned by ArbCom from editing John Kerry and sockpuppeted as Merecat in order to circumvent the ban, has engaged in disruptive editing under the guise of Merecat, resulting in indefinite bans.

Rex' 6-month ban from Rex071404_4 has also apparently ended. Please extend the ban and widen it, in light of this willing violation of ArbCom policy and continuing disruptive conduct. If Rex can simply assume another sock, and violate a permanent ban, there appears to be no solution to his attacks on Misplaced Pages process. Please consider this, in order to minimize the impact of the next disruptive sock proven to be Rex. (update) Mr. Tibbs has above suggested limiting Rex to one account. Please advise on the correct course of action in light of Rex' willing circumvention of ArbCom. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Rex/Merecat has spawned more sockpuppets: . Arbcomm please advise what we are to do about this. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Ryan and Mr. Tibbs have not explained the status clearly, this message will: 1) User:Merecat did edit John Kerry. 2) If Merecat was a alternate acccount for User:Rex071404, then Merecat can be deemed a "sockpuppet" and blocked on that basis, because Rex was not supposed to edit JK. However, if you read the full dialog on this (here), you will see that the check user policy is being abused. The users which Tibbs refers to are Neutral arbiter and Wombdpsw, neither of whom have transgressed in any manner. For this reason, if they are indeed alternate accounts, (which is permissible - see here), the Tibbs's drive to "out" them is an egregious violation and misuse of check user. In fact, the original check user which was done that "outed" Merecat may not even have been valid on it's face as the request may not have been properly founded. Be that as it may, Merecat is blocked by User:Katefan0 who has quit the wiki. But Rex is also blocked - by User:Cyde. However, the block against Rex is invalid as it says that Rex is a "sockpuppet" of Merecat. But, even a cursory check of their contributions histories will clearly show that Rex long pre-dated Merecat and Rex himself is absolutely not a sockpuppet. As it stands now, it appears that Rex would like to be unblocked and possibly cede to being deemed to being Merecat so as to be able to quit using the Rex account and instead use the Merecat account. It would seem that the Rex071404 account should be closed in favor of the Merecat account. On top of this, there may be a few loose ends to attend to, but on the face, no editor has made a strong case that Merecat is bad and for that reason, if Rex is Merecat, Rex should be allowed to transition to Merecat and drop the Rex account. On the other hand, if the ArbCom doesn't want to move this forward, then at minimum, Mr. Tibbs should be instructed to stop the witch-hunting. These new users that Tibbs acccuses are not sockuppets. In fact, they are either individual editors or at most, non-transgressing alternate accounts. Rex071404 is not under any sanction or ban that either User:Neutral arbiter or User:Wombdpsw has transgressed. Nor have these editors transgressed wiki rules. They are not disruptive, they are not doing 3RR, etc. There is simply no valid reason to keep fanning the flames of Mr. Tibbs vendettas. Also, if I am not mistaken, Ryan recently accused User:Tbeatty of being "Rex/Merecat". How many times will these two be allowed to accuse non-transgressign editors? It's time to retire the Rex bogeyman. Good ole John Kerry is not being molested and this type of bossing against others by Tibbs and Ryan is bad news. 69.46.20.59 07:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the checkuser indicated that the users are socks of Merecat/Rex. So the above looks most likely to be yet more mendatious doublespeak from a Merecat sock. Not all of the Merecat edits are directly POV pushing, his latest tactic appears to be an attempt to create an alternative reality by posting pieces to his opponent's user pages accusing them of being biased. (For evidence take a look at this then look at the other edits by this IP, it is hard to see why a newbie editor would immediately acquire Merecat's fixations, the post is a transparent attempt at deception and self justification/pity). Other posts are made to complain about the unfair treatment of Merecat. If the above paragraph was indeed factually accurate and the sockpuppets have not been found to be engaged in 'transgressions' it is hard to see how they would be identified as sock puppets. Clearly their behavior was suspicious enough. Merecat is a revert warrior and POV pusher. Keep the ban. --Gorgonzilla 17:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

When will this witch hunt end, We have User:Neutral arbiter, User:Tbeatty, User:Wombdpsw all accused of being Merecat. I am waiting for my turn to pop up on the list considering there evidence ammounts to use of "lets keep it NPOV" summaries. Are any of these even proven sock puppets? I think an admin needs just do a checkuser then state how long rex is banned as he and merecat cant both be sockpuppets. --zero faults talk 17:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

To extend the witch hunt, you have people accusing everyone of being merecat, its becoming silly almost: User_talk:RyanFreisling#Another_merecat_sock.3F If you touch an article that this group defends you risk being accused. When does this become fishing or even worse an intimidation tactic. --zero faults talk 17:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny that so many people who all just happen to edit the same set of articles in the same particular direction all use the same language in their pleas here. Of course that does not mean that they are all sockpuppets of a single person but there is a remarkable similarity in their approach. --Gorgonzilla 21:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Dug up this old link about Katefan's original banning of Rex/Mercat and the original RFCU. and some interesting arguements. Some more recent disturbances. And just so everyone knows now theres more talk about this on the admin noticeboard: -- Mr. Tibbs 07:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Love the idea that this is a witchhunt. Um. We have CheckUser evidence. Hello! --Woohookitty 10:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I dont see any of the following banned for being sock puppets: Wombdpsw, Neutral Arbiter, TBeatty or Cal Burrattino. Provide these check user evidence you have please. --zero faults talk 12:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The tactics this individual or clique use to evade bans show through in their edits. This smacks of being a propaganda campaign. They argue black is white then call people fools and liars for saying it isnt. They make the most tendentious POV edits imaginable then accuse others of POV peddling for reverting their nonsense. If someone was running a for fee Misplaced Pages scrubbing service for GOP pols this is what it would look like. Oh and BTW one does not have to assume good faith after a user is banned for repeated bad faith. --Gorgonzilla 22:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Odd the RfC doesn't say that. But you know that already cause its already been brought up else where. --zero faults 23:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to keep everyone up-to-date Neutral arbiter, Cal Burrattino, and Wombdpsw were all found to be sockpuppets of Rex071404 and have been banned indefinitely.. Also it turned out I'm not a sockpuppet, fancy that. I have no doubt that in the future we will be seeing more sockpuppets of Rex, so everyone keep an eye out. -- Mr. Tibbs 05:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I misread, but is Rex naming more socks here? Does his admission that he only wanted to disrupt Misplaced Pages alter peoples perception of the RfC against his puppet Merecat, which stated as much? Nomen Nescio 09:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Let it go, will you? If he's really gone, he's gone. If not, it will become obvious sooner or later. Meantime, go edit an article or something. Thatcher131 11:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
User:Rex071404 has spent 2 years disrupting Misplaced Pages and has said on numerous previous occasions that he was quitting. You're right though, it will become obvious sooner or later when he comes back. After his sockpuppets have caused much conflict just like what happened with Merecat. This isn't something that can be "let go" anymore than Rex's indef bans will be "let go". Which is basically what he's asking for in his "goodbye-note" and even in that note he has the nerve to hold Misplaced Pages hostage: "If and/or when I ever return, it will be under a single new user account and I will not be a source of trouble. However, in order for this promise to be binding on me, I ask that my request (which I am making here now) to delete and protect my user page and user talk page (same as user:katefan0 did) be honored." I have posted another RFCU regarding Rex's self-admitted sockpuppets. Also see Thatcher's incident report here. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agapetos Angel

Is within the prohibited editing by 203.213.77.138, 220.*, 58/56.* AA et al.? 203 has stated on his talk page that he thinks it is not within the prohibited edit set (see his talk page for details) and so I have brought the matter here for clarification. JoshuaZ 03:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

RfAr Blu Aardvark

A question has been asked: "Does Raul, a potential litigant, get to define the parameters of the case so that they do not include him?" I will ask a different question: What are the suitable steps to have the case also include those involved parties who actually hold power, both on Misplaced Pages and the foundation-affiliated #wikipedia, and have potentially abused it. I urge for realistic means to pursue this. Otherwise, the appearence will be that the powerless (Blu) are fair game whereas the powerful (Linuxbeak, Raul) are absolved, shielded, and unaccountable. El_C 19:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This would be the case except that the topic is very specific; Should Blu Aardvark be permitted to return to Misplaced Pages? It's not about this whole situation with MSK, Linuxbeak, etc; While the facts leading to his blocks and unblocks are relevant, sanctions against those who took those actions are not. If someone wishes to make a motion to expand the scope of the arbitration case to MSK, Linuxbeak, Raul, and the others involved, and it gets support, fine. Hell, I'd support it. Until that time, there needs to be evidence and motions within the confines of the topic, which is singluar and specific. --Avillia 20:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm interested in clarification from the Committee about the scope of the case. El_C 22:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
My own feeling is that it is of utmost importance that we sort out the status of Blu Aardvark soon. His is the customary appeal of a community ban to arbcom (there is similar situation up on this page, soon to be opened as a case). That is a case that has already exhausted dispute resolution. While I have my own opinions about Linuxbeak's unblocking and Raul's reapplication of the unblock (twice), I don't think this case is for that. Rather, the current RFC is the appropriate place for that, and any other necessary dispute resolution, and only after those avenues are exhausted, a separate request should be made here. This has been an extraordinary circumstance to be sure, but I don't really think Blu Aardvark's appealing of his ban should be occasion to jumo the dispute resolution process for administrators that are tangentially involved, even if they have shown poor judgment. Dmcdevit·t 07:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This answer leaves me with a strong impression of cronyism for higher-ups, and I'll be withdrawing my participation in protest. I'm not asking for sanctions, but I strongly object to what I feel is a double-standard masquerading as narrow proceduralism. El_C 21:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we just want to keep the case reasonably simple. Fred Bauder 22:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Intentions aside, the impression this narrow-sidedness leaves —simplicity over comprehensibility at the expense of accountability— will not address the underlying problems effectively, I fear. But I won't press the point. Still, it leaves one wandering at the whim(?) of who or what are some cases pursued more narrowly or broadly than others. El_C 03:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
We take on bureaucrats when they become insufferable, not every time a controversy arises. Fred Bauder 12:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I take on the arbitrators when their standards become controversial, not wait till they become insufferable. El_C 22:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

Archives

Category:
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions Add topic