Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:48, 21 August 2006

• ]

A 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).

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

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

• Arbitration policy
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case - Recommended reading: An (unofficial) guide to presenting effective Arbitration cases.
• Arbitration enforcement - Any user can request help here if it involves the violation of an ArbCom decision
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template

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

Rootology, MONGO

Initiated by rootology (T) at 21:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Rootology (talk · contribs)
• MONGO (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I left a notification here for MONGO. rootology (T) 21:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Please see the below sections, especially the Timeline of Wikistalking Accusations, where I have asked him for clarification (largely unsuccessfully).

My apologies for filing an overlong initial request (trimmed at Tony's request on my talk page). A summary of the unsuccesfull efforts to get clarification on this are in chronilogical order here.

My goal in filing this arbitration is for MONGO's actions and constant accusations toward me to be reviewed, especially wikistalking accusations.

(originally drafted here, if it's relevant or helpful)

Statement by Rootology

MONGO (talk · contribs), ever since an extremely bitter AfD in July 2006 (and it's fallout/appeals) has been at times civil toward me, and at other times not, but has over the past month (August 2006) begun to accuse me of Wikistalking himself and "other admins". This is distressing to me as I've been trying hard to make positive contributions toward the growth of the project and the encyclopedia. When asked to define the wikistalking, he would generally refuse to clarify or not reply at all, and I have been nervous about my editing in general due to this for fear of upsetting him, resulting in some sort of unappealable ban, and it has made my experience on Misplaced Pages since that AfD very stressful. I've tried to be nice to him--I've asked him for help and input twice on his talk page, for example--but he still persists with vague accusations of a bannable offense under WP:STALK.

I have been almost tempted to simply walk away and start over under a new name after a few months, simply so that MONGO would not know it was me, and so that I would not have to have his shadow looming over me like this. I actually DID close down my user page because of this, but decided to try again after a weekend--and his accusations and hostile tone began again. I believe this is all due to my being one of the more vocal voices that "stood up" to his stance in that AfD, and because of the fact that I don't think I'm intimidated by him--I respect admins, but I shouldn't feel intimidated. I opposed his viewpoint very firmly and stridently, under at the time what I read as policy, and in turn was attacked repeatedly during the process. I moved ahead, got on with things, and have since then worked to build Wikpedia--almost 2000+ edits in the past month alone, trying to do some positive work. But, he keeps hounding me with vague accusations, threats, and a needless attempt to have an intimidating tone.

I do not feel I should avoid any articles because he might have/been working on them, if our paths cross, simply because my presence appears to completely displease him. He's one of the more prolific editors. I have no way of knowing what is or isn't on his watchlist. I just want him to leave me completely alone at this point, not be free to try to use intimidation on me, not accuse of me any of these vague policy violations, and to let me work on Misplaced Pages in peace. As MONGO has in the past banned people simply for being things like "ED trolls", "sleeper trolls", or any other number of vague reasons, and also seems to have a habit of locking talk pages so people cannot appeal, I really would rather not have that specter hanging over me, making me think twice or thrice about every edit for the rest of my time here, worrying about displeasing him. I don't think my job should be to please an admin, but to build an encyclopedia. He's making it hard, unenjoyable and stressful to do that at this point.

Statement by MONGO

Just continued efforts on the part of this editor and others to attempt to attack me since the Encyclopedia Article was deleted. My perception is that rootology, et al, have wikistalked myself and a few other admins such as Tony Sidaway since the Encyclopedia Dramatica article was nominated for deletion. There was a failed attempt to restore the article and an Rfc was filed against me which was deleted. Rootology has repeatedly fought against my attempts to protect myself from harassment, argued above that User:Weevlos should not have been blocked, when that editor was using his userspace to post the same information that was spammed to hundreds of admins via email and talkpages, and no evidence can show that Weevlos ever recieved the spam himself via wiki...my guess is that Weevlos is partly responsible for the spamming. Rootology has "shown up" whenever it is time to attack an admin, especially those that have attack articles (against their wishes I'm sure) about them at the Encyclopedia Dramatica. Though it is difficult or impossible to prove that rootology edits Encyclopedia Dramatica, (and even if he did, that in itself is not evidence or reason for a banning unless it was proven he was attacking editors off site), his long fought battle to save the Encyclopedia Dramatica article from deletion, his concerted efforts to fight to have it restored, his active participation in the deleted Rfc against me (since I am supposedly a big part of the reason the Encyclopedia Dramatica article was deleted), his prior attempts to collate and collect information about my real IP address, his arguments with Tony Sidaway, and his active role in the most recent Kelly Martin Rfc, lead me to belive that rootology is indeed wikistalking myself and other admins that interest him. Should arbcom take this, I'll be glad to post diffs ad nauseum in the evidence section.--MONGO 22:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside comment by User:Badlydrawnjeff

Much further evidence can be found at the deleted talk pages at Encyclopædia Dramatica, the deleted history of Encyclopedia Dramatica, and at the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/MONGO 2, a deleted RfC that was put out concerning MONGO's behavior. I encourage arbitrators to review the deleted history of the articles in question prior to making any decisions on the matter.

Outside comment by David D.

This comment from MONGO in the Kelly Martin RfC did appear out of the blue. I participated on that talk page and it did seem unwarranted at the time. I have had no interaction with rootology, although I did support the deletion of the Encyclopedia Dramatica and from this perspective I would say I am neutral. I did noticed rootology was very keen to keep it alive and from memory, I would say it bordered on pestering. Nevertheless MONGO's accusations may well need to be tempered. David D. (Talk) 22:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Cyde Weys

Badlydrawnjeff and Rootology are both people with stronger allegiances to Encyclopedia Dramatica than to Misplaced Pages. I wouldn't say that either of them is a troll per se, but they have been known to lure the occasional passerby under their bridge and eat him. --Cyde Weys 22:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside comment by TheronJ

I'm not sure if this is a good test case or not, but any additional guidance ArbCom can offer on "WikiStalking" will probably be helpful. TheronJ 22:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

Appeal by David

Initiated by David | Talk at 20:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

Dbiv (talk · contribs)

This is an appeal against the ban on editing Peter Tatchell which the committee purported to impose today. For the avoidance of doubt, no other part of the judgment is being appealed.

Statement by David

The grounds of appeal are eleven in number:

1. My contributions to the article Peter Tatchell have been overwhelmingly positive and have raised the article from near-stub status to a fairly comprehensive one which is sourced and neutral.
2. No evidence has been presented that I have failed to work together with editors other than Irishpunktom on this article.
3. I resigned as sysop on 20th August and there is therefore no longer any reason to believe that I will misuse rollback, as I no longer have access to it.
4. The decision is founded on a factual error (that I used rollback on editors other than Irishpunktom who made good faith contributions). This is untrue.
5. The decision failed to take into account a private agreement between myself and Irishpunktom which prevents disruption. (Text available on request)
6. No evidence has been presented that I have engaged in disruptive editing generally.
7. No temporary injunction was imposed in the case, indicating that the ArbCom knew I was editing the article properly for the period of the case.
8. Factual errors in other parts of the case produced a biased judgment. Among these errors was the claim that I was blocked for a 3RR on 15th February, when the truth is that there was no 3RR.
9. The arbitrators have been unable to justify, when asked, the proposed decision.
10. The proposed decision does not have community support. I am unaware of a single non-arbitrator who has indicated their agreement.
11. The excessive time taken by a relatively small case (a record, so far as I can tell) has produced a faulty finding.

Clerk notes

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

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

MyWikiBiz

Initiated by Cyde Weys at 14:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties and confirmations

MyWikiBiz

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

ArbCom is the only kind of dispute resolution that is liable to work in this instance.

MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been writing and influencing articles on Misplaced Pages on a contract basis for pay.

Statement by Cyde Weys

MyWikiBiz is admittedly writing articles on a for-pay basis. This was noticed and he was briefly blocked and then unblocked by Jimbo after he promised that he wasn't going to do anything bad. Well, it appears that he has. Here we see him voting delete in an AFD, saying the subject of the article should have employed him if they wanted an article that should be kept. This reeks of a protection racket. He's also nominated a few other articles about businesses for deletion; one wonders if he did so because he offered to improve their articles for pay and they refused? I believe this case needs to be accepted to establish some sort of precedent about whether such an egregious conflict of interest with the core goals of the project should be tolerated. --Cyde Weys 14:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

More stuff to look at: Look at the deleted edits on Gregory Kohs and Gregory J. Kohs. I'm not quite sure what's going on here but User:Thekohser is self-admittedly an alternate account of "MyWikiBiz", and appears also to have been doing some suspicious business-related edits. --Cyde Weys 16:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

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.)

No statement to be expected, see . -- Kim van der Linde 17:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside statement by Doc

Jimbo has had some discussion with this editor/firm, and allowed them to edit. That's fine. (I might quibble but his word is final). However, it appears that the editor has breached the guidelines Jimbo set. Further, the conflict of interests means that we shouldn't quite treat this user like any private individual. Since Jimbo is involved, it is difficult for the community to make decisions here. This is new territory. I suggest arbcom accept this case, and confer with Jimbo to firmly establish what is and is not acceptable in these cases. This clearly won't be the last issue like this, so some precedents may be useful here. --Doc 15:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Thatcher131

"You should have used MyWikiBiz" might be an acceptable slogan in commercial advertising but is highly inappropriate on Misplaced Pages. In additional to the commercial implications, having a paid writer !voting to delete articles about non-clients is an unacceptable conflict of interest. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by JChap

Aside from the comments in the diffs in Cyde's statements, what bothers me about this user is a pattern of participation in AfD, always with respect to business articles. In Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Norman Technologies he really went to the wall to save an article that I can only assume from the redirects in his contribution history he had written. Is he also going to be allowed to advocate for these articles? In his comments in AfD'd for articles he hasn't written he has a pattern of voting delete' and suggesting that the article could be saved when written differently or by someone unconnected to the company (hint, hint) that go even beyond these two diffs. He also nominates articles (once again, on businesses) that he hasn't written. This is a clear conflict of interest and I doubt it was what was intended when he was allowed to edit. The proper party, either ArbCom or Jimbo Wales (or both), should determine whether this user has acted appropriately in this case. JChap2007 16:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Improv

I would like to suggest that arbcom reject the case and allow an admin to simply permablock the account (or alternatively execute summary judgement and do it themselves). The purpose of the account is unacceptable and outrageous to the community -- similarly, the actions are not something that should be tolerated. This is not a troublesome-but-productive user, nor is it something that can or should go through a RFC. I don't believe there's a basis for arbitration. --Improv 16:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

Ackoz appeal of community ban

Initiated by Ackoz at 23:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties and confirmations

I request a community ban review for my case, as I think the bans on both accounts and my IP are unfair and over-strict.

• Ackoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Azmoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 85.70.5.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Involved parties are me (usernames and IP above) and the blocking admins. I am unable to notify them about this because I was granted a conditional unblock only to edit ArbCom pages and I don't want to breach this in any way. (I posted notifications for you. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC))

• Geni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Mark (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Centrx (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by Ackoz (original username)

I started editing[REDACTED] like in March 2006. I was quite busy at that time, that's why I actually started contributing more around June, I created some articles (that were well-researched and I spent a lot of time on them), also uploaded some self-made illustrations (which actually ment a lot of work to me), I joined the wikiproject medicine and took part in its collaborations. I was blocked for 3 days as a result of a heated discussion on AfD or something. Whatever lead to this block, I decided I wouldn't contribute to[REDACTED] anymore, used the right to vanish, as I felt that my efforts here weren't fully appreciated. I came back as an IP editor to check how the vote on Caron goes, and re-registered so that my vote would be counted. I chose a new username, Azmoc, and I admit that I did some trolling on wp talk pages since then. I would, however, like to be unblocked so I can edit articles, especially medicine-related ones from time to time. If I get unblocked, I will not post on WP project talk pages, other than wikiproject medicine. I already said this on IRC to Centrx as I requested unblock for my IP, his reaction was however extending the block from Azmoc to Ackoz, replacing the userpages with "sockpuppet warning" and changing the lenght of the IP block to 6 months. He also warned the other admins about my "clever or annoying" reasons for getting unblocked. But my reasons are clear - I would like to have the access to editing[REDACTED] articles, not project talk, and I think my contributions or the articles I created (Abdominal_aortic_aneurysm, Antyllus, Transfusion-associated_graft_versus_host_disease etc.) or the other edits I made could convince you that I can be beneficial to the project, if I restrain from discussing the functioning of WP. The last two trolling things I did as the IP was that I posted "I concur" and "I second that" on ANI, that's why I was blocked. I think that 1/2 admins-issued 6 months ban is too much of a punishment for something like this. I would also accept probation or something similar. PS: I would like 1 account, preferably Ackoz, to be unblocked.

Statement by JzG

User is communtiy blocked, this is the logical avenue of appeal. I request that ArbCom accept the case. Just zis Guy you know? 23:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Geni

As long as the user agrees to stop the behaviour that got him blocked and agrees to stick to one account I have no objection to and unblock (would probably have done it myself if contacted).Geni 20:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment I will stick to 1 account, Ackoz. I didn't feel the need to contact Geni, as only Azmoc was blocked, Ackoz (my original account) wasn't and many admins knew that, for instance Zoe here but they chose not to extend the block to Ackoz, maybe because I was maybe disrupting a little, but not that seriously. Then I posted "I concur" and "I second that" at ANI, was IP blocked for that, and after I requested an unblock over the IRC, User:Centrx actually didn't reply to me (he only asked me if I was Ackoz too), just extended the block to include Ackoz, replaced the pages with sockpuppet warnings and prolonged the IP block to 6 months. It was like I did something to him. However, I admit my fault, I was trolling, and the truth is, even after how Centrx behaved, I don't want to interact so much with the others on WP. I just want to have access to editing the articles that I have interest in, i.e. medical articles, Czech history articles etc. If I see something controversial, I will just back off, I am not keen on interacting with these community members anymore. Ackoz 21:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

Image:Nasrallah and khamenei.jpg

Initiated by Patchouli at 11:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• User:Patchouli et al. No explanation suffices for the other party.--Patchouli
• tickle et al.

As first party, you may feel tempted to add a summary here. If you do, make it a single sentence of not more than twenty words. Please make your case in your statement.

Statement by party 1

I and others have given a thorough explanation for the licensing of ]. Kaaveh and Tmorton166(Review me) have elucidated on the copyright of the picture. Yet there are a few editors who can never be appeased with the licensing and wish to delete the picture as soon as possible.

The only solution here is arbitration for issuing a decree. Please see the image page, its talk, and history, and finally give a directive. I will abide by it. Hopefully, there will be a convincing reasoning with the decision.--Patchouli 11:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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.)

Statement by Tmorton166

I originally helped with the copyright tagging of this article as fair use - which I believe it is. However there is no specific source from MEHR news (the source) that allows for the image to be used - as has been indicated by the original uploader. Despite the lack of this link I don't believe that the image no longer qualifies for fair use, seeing as the source is noted (although not linked to) I think the disputing of the image sourcing was a little unfair.

Howevewr I also think that this case should be rejected, the involved parties have not tried any other dispute resolution process and have not even tried talking it out on the image talk page. --Errant Tmorton166(Review me) 11:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Reject. Solving every little dispute is not the role of the Committee. Sam Korn 12:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Jgp

Initiated by Dionyseus at 09:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• user:Jgp
• user:Dionyseus

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by User:Dionyseus

Jgp has continually attacked me personally. I'm not taking anymore of his attacks and I want him banned for an appropiate length of time for his attacks.

It all started on July 9, 2006 when Jgp assumed bad faith by claiming that I had some agenda. On July 12 he personally attacked me by stating that whatever I say cannot be trusted. The next day he attacked me again saying that I have gone off the deep end and that anything I say is suspect. I posted a warning on his talk page asking him to stop personally attacking me, and he responded by attacking me again.

I reported JgP at WP:PAIN, unfortunately the administrator who took the case did not recognize the personal attacks, and basically gave JgP a slap on the wrist for calling me a liar. Since when is calling me a liar, claiming that anything I say cannot be trusted, claiming that anything I say is suspect, and claiming I've gone off the deep end not considered personal attacks?

JgP then decided to take a break and all was peaceful again for a month. Suddenly he returned tonight and has attacked me yet again by posting a completely ridiculous and unwarranted POV warning on my talk page. He then went on to file a 3RR violation against me, but administrator User:William_M._Connolley correctly deemed it spurious and unwarranted.

Administrator User:Alex_Bakharev intervened and thankfully removed Jgp's unwarranted warning. I believe Jgp's personal attacks and mischaracterizations against me should not go unpunished. Dionyseus 09:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:jgp

First off, there have been insufficient attempts at dispute resolution. The only admin to comment on such so-called personal attacks (over a month ago) said that "it's a bit sensitive of him to call your posts personal attacks" . Regarding the whole "you can't be trusted issue": this came after he asserted that a perfectly valid news outlet is an "unreliable" "blog", an assertion that was outright absurd, and made it hard for me to take him seriously. I don't see why this is on RfAr: if my so-called personal attacks were so egregious, then why haven't I been blocked for personal attack yet? Why hasn't he taken it to ANI? Why was he told that my comments weren't personal attacks when he reported me to WP:PAIN? There's been no RfC, no Mediation, etc. He's jumping the gun by making this an ArbCom case. However, regarding Dio's conduct, Dio has pushed his POV on The Inquirer multiple times. He has added text that can be considered defamatory ( being the most egregious). In the past, he once re-added unsourced original research that was removed and made accusations of vandalism against the person who removed the unsourced information . Some of his comments were bad enough to draw the attention of the Inquirer's founder, who called his remarks libel . The most recent incident was of him removing relevant, sourced information to a mistake published by the Inquirer: the information shows that the Inquirer's source had misquoted its source, rather than it being a mistake introduced by the Inquirer, which is a very important difference. His removal of that information was POV, and thus he deserved the warning. jgp _C 09:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Danielpi

I would point out, with relevance to my current arbitration case with User:Dionyseus that this is yet more evidence of his pattern of wikilawyering and POV pushing. He has established further history of such conduct since began. I would certainly appreciate another look into his pattern of wiki abuses, as there do exist a substantial number. Thanks. Danny Pi 12:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Reject. Sam Korn 10:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests for clarification

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

Internal spamming/campaigning

There's an ongoing discussion at WP:SPAM about what constitutes acceptable talk page contact between users regarding discussions, votes, polls, etc. Prior rulings that have been pointed to are this prior ruling and this one. Could you offer any more specific information about what is and is not allowed/discouraged, for example: is it the use of mass userbox messaging that is disallowed (if it is), or is internal spamming/campaigning disallowed only if disruptive? Thanks. IronDuke 17:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article. Fred Bauder 16:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Zeq wikistalking and block count

I've been having a difficult time applying arbitration enforcement for Zeq and feel I have since been targetted by him. For example, after I blocked Kelly Martin for her B-list attack page, Zeq just happens to come along so as to caution me from blocking a user with whom you have a dispute" (what dispute? he fails to mention). Or, after removing and protecting the attack page by Sarasto777, Zeq just happens to come along, again. These are not isolated examples. Then today, Zeq questions my administrative compotence and speaks of an "edit conflict" after I delete his copyvio entry, twice. Many blocks later, how should I proceed with the tendencious edits by the user? Should I implement Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Enforcement_by_block next time — it will be the 6th block. Or will it? I am inclined to count article bans as blocks, and am seeking clarification as to this approach, and Zeq's conduct overall as illustrated above. Thanks in advance. El_C 13:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do take the time to examine this request's threaded dialogue (it was removed without an accompanying diff being cited). Thanks. El_C 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Moby Dick's article ban - projectspace?

"Moby Dick is banned from editing articles which concern Turkey or Kurdish issues." Does this include Articles for Deletion discussions related to those issues? Cool Cat believes the diff above is part of a pattern of harrassment on AfDs, according to a post of his on the admins' incidents noticeboard. The simplest way to sort this out in my view would be to confirm whether his article ban does or should cover projectspace pages. --Sam Blanning 12:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify my reasoning. While one keep vote does not constitute as stalking, Moby Dick's continuing pattern of behaviour does.

The pattern of behaviour presented in the Arbitration cases evidence page is in my view continuing for one and a half years now. Two arbitration cases have been filed over the issue. Now those arbitration hearings need to be enforced.

--Cat out 14:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the ambiguous term "article" is to cover all namespaces. Sam Korn 22:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Archives

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution