(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fred Bauder (talk | contribs) at 19:04, 18 December 2005 (→‎Pigsonthewing: done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland Motion (orig. case) 21 June 2024
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox Motion none 10 July 2024
Clarification request: Desysoppings none none 12 July 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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

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

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

How to list cases

Under the below Current requests section:

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

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests


ScienceApologist (previously Joshuaschroeder)

Involved parties

Alleged continual breach of Wikipedia policies, processes and style guides, including (a) NPOV (b) Citations (c) Personal attacks (d) Civility (e) Verifiability (f) Request for Comments (g) Association fallacy (h) Consensus

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

ScienceApologist Notified by --Iantresman 15:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Have talked to the other party involved (also under his previous account name Joshuaschroeder [2]) since Sept 2005 [3] (and earlier)
  • Several people have tried to mediate. I have informally asked Art Carson [4], and others [5]. Art has provided some useful input
  • Have discussed with numerous third parties, including (a) Two Request for Comments [6] and [7] that also ask people to vote (b) Offsite on the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum [8] (c) Experts in the field, such as Prof. Daniel F.V. James (contribs. • [9]), Prof. Emil Wolf [10] [11], and Prof. Theoretical Physics, Indian Statistical Institute, Sisir Roy [12]
  • A straw poll was included in the 2nd RfC mentioned above, but previous suggestions for a survey were met with disapproval [13]
  • Have notifyied user of my allegations of vandalism [14] and [15]

Statement by iantresman (talk · contribs)

I consider the defendant's edits to undermine the integrity of Wikipedia, using techniques that do not reach the standards expected of Wikipedian editors. For example:

  • Extreme interpretation of NPOV. For example, the defendant rightly points out that "Redshift" has a specific definition in astronomy. But then assumes this is the only definition, and claims that the term 'redshift' as used in optics, eg. in the Wolf effect is incorrect, despite my included peer-reviewed citations to help verifiability, and, getting confirmation from three experts in the field [16].
Please note that most of this criticism stems from User:Iantresman's perplexing inability to understand that the term "redshift" carries with it connotations specifically dealt with in the article. In terms of optics, scattering processes are included in the article. The Wolf Effect is promoted in a number of ways, but as it is a type of scattering (related to Raman scattering) the rationale for including it in the article is rejected by all but the most virulent non-standard cosmology POV-pushers. Since the article is on redshift and not cosmology, the Wolf Effect was agreed to by the last consensus editor to be omitted. --ScienceApologist 18:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dismisses peer-reviewed citations (over 500 of them!) provided to help verifiability [17] claiming, for example, bias, that one is "poorly written", he "cannot make heads-or-tails" of another, that it is an "unacceptable form of research", and many others. He has provide only 2 peer-reviewed citations to support his own position.
User:Iantresman's "500" citations were not evaluated by him, and even though this has been pointed out to him by multiple editors he continues to make this factually incorrect claim. His research is characterized often by willful disregard of facts such as the way textbooks define redshift. --ScienceApologist 18:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are examples of personal atttacks nor are they uncivil. More than that, some of the evidence presented is unsubstantiated hearsay. --ScienceApologist 18:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
None of these actions were contrary to Wikipedia policy and many of them are being characterized inappropriately. It is Ian who is ignoring consensus. --ScienceApologist 18:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using Association fallacy, eg. that I am a "nonscientist layman" [27] , an "avowed Velikovskian" [28]. Labelling non-mainstream articles as "pseudoscience" [29], [30]. That using the Internet to promote views is a criticism (see intro, last paragraph [31]). That sending out books for review is a criticism [32]
Iantresman does have a tendency to POV-push his opinions on scientific subjects despite not taking the time to educate himself properly in the subjects. He is an acknowledge Velikovskian and this definitely characterizes some of his edits. The claims of "criticism" are subject to the interpretation of the reader and are not violations of Wikipedia policy. --ScienceApologist 18:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Claims my contributions include errors, but has never substantiated any one of them with citations
Ian willfully ignores the points where he has been shown to be incorrect on the Redshift talk archives, for example. --ScienceApologist 18:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defendant is now claiming that this RfA is slander [33]. Another example of Association fallacy? And again, no evidence to substantiate the claim. (19:58 17 Dec 2005)
Ian started the RfArb after the FA nomination was made. This RfArb is so unsubstatiated as to represent vexatious litigation, as expressed by User:Duncharris below. --ScienceApologist 18:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made a previous RfA which was not accepted.
  • The defendant was subject to (a) a 24-hours ban on 22 Nov 2005 (b) Page protection, apparently due to the defendant's "blanking" [34] (c) Page protection for alledged POV-ing [35]
a) irrelevent. b) and c) subject to interpretation -- certainly Ian had a major hand in these and uses User:Jossifresco as a sympathetic administrator. --ScienceApologist 18:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

This RfArb is inappropriate because User:Iantresman has not tried other steps in dispute resolution including not having tried an RfC or mediation directly on the topic of my contributions to Wikipedia, both of which I would happily participate in. While many of User:Iantresman's contributions help articles (he provided a wonderful picture for the redshift article) he doesn't always recognize consensus or accept that he might have a bias in many articles. Many of his allegations are not even violations of Wikipedia policy (for example, pointing out that Halton Arp's promotion of his ideas could be seen as pathological skepticism on a talkpage is not a violation of Wikipedia policy). This is the second time User:Iantresman has resorted to an RfArb without trying other steps, and I request that he withdraw this and try one of the others.

Thanks, --ScienceApologist 15:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

outside statement by Dunc

Note the Ian Tresman is POV pushing bizarre pseudoscience which was quite rightly opposed by Josh who does a valiant job of opposing nonsense and keeping one's head in such situations is often difficult. Like many pseudoscience POV pushers Ian has resorted to vexatious litigation because he's not getting his way through normal channels (this is the second such action taken by Ian). (As an aside, Josh's recent block was performed by Ed Poor (talk · contribs) because Josh afded one of Ed's articles (which was subsequently deleted)). As such it should be recused. — Dunc|☺ 15:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Mcfly85 -- Emergency injunction requested

Involved parties

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

I've attempted to warn Mcfly85; he disregarded my warning. Given that the admins are genuinely split on this issue (User:Celestianpower believes that Mcfly85's vote should count; User:Howcheng does not and neither do I), I don't think we can get the dispute resolved before Mcfly85's behavior further taints the renewed RfA.

None of those are steps in the dispute resolution process. What kind of warning did you give? Admins don't have any authority, per se, unless the rules have changed and no-one told me. Where is there evidence of having talked to the user about his/her behaviour? What of mediation, or RfC? This is far too early to even contemplate RfAr. 86.133.53.111 22:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And pray tell me, who are you? In any case, Mcfly85 was on notice that his actions were questionable, both by the discussion on WP:AN (which he was aware of and in fact wrote a non-response to there) and by Howcheng's striking of his vote with an explanation. I then warned him once further not to reverse the striking until the admins have had chance to discuss what to do with his vote -- and he went ahead and did so anyway. You can see easily from his user talk page. Subsequently, the general consensus of the admins interested in the issue has been that Mcfly85's vote should not count and that he should have been blocked far longer than the 3-hour block that I gave him. In any case, a major reason why it went directly to RfAr is that I hoped for an injunction one way or the other before the RfA period on SWD316, so that either Mcfly85 gets his vote or not. --Nlu (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an anon. making the valid observation that this RfAr is rather misfiled and out of process. Instead of answering back; answer the questions, 'cos I'd like to hear it too. Rob Church Talk 02:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I would agree that this is out of order -- except for the timeliness of all other methods of resolution. By the time that any other process would be done (and, unfortunately, it appears unlike in the matter of the guy who was putting up nonsense articles, the ArbCom isn't going to act quickly enough either), we would still be left unresolved with the issue of whether Mcfly85's vote counts or not. I think this is the third time in this RfAr that I'm already explaining that. --Nlu (talk) 06:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was Kelly Martin who first used the phrase "ArbCom is not your mother." The issue of whether an RfA vote (and I don't know about all of them, but I despise the whole idea of voting - it's supposed to be a consensus-gathering page) is counted or not is not within the scope of cases that ArbCom handles, according to their policies. You need to discuss the issue on the appropriate talk pages, and reach some sort of consensus. There again, if a user wants to vote oppose, (s)he is entitled to; voting oppose on a previous RfA is not grounds to disqualify their opinion, and you don't have any authority to do that. Rob Church Talk 16:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Voting oppose on a previous RfA is certainly not grounds to not count a vote, but whether sock puppetry is is a different question. I don't understand why you're being obtuse about this. --Nlu (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think Mcfly85's vote matters anymore because the results for my RFA dont look good anyways. But his influence on this RFA still matters. Mcfly85 didn't cause much influence as much this time as the first though. The reason Im losing this time is because Mcfly85 caused me so much stress that it caused me to flip out and write comments on my user page I'm not proud of. Mcfly85 requested, as wierd as it may be, to be indefinantly blocked. Anyways, the point is Mcfly85's vote wont help the RFA now. -- SWD316 18:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Nlu

Mcfly85's sock puppetry in inflencing SWD316's prior RfA tainted that vote (see WP:AN#Mcfly85 for details), and so I brought the new RfA. Mcfly85 then insisted on injecting himself into this RfA despite his prior behavior. I am requesting an emergency injunction to not allow him to vote or to make any further comments on the RfA. I am not, at this point, asking for any additional sanctions, as I am otherwise unfamiliar with the history between him and SWD316. In the meantime, I blocked Mcfly85 for three hours for disregarding my instruction to backoff SWD316's RfA. Please also review if this was proper action on my part. --Nlu (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mcfly85

(Copied over from User talk:Mcfly85 by User:Nlu as Mcfly85 is himself unable to do so during the block) OK, I'm just sorry for all of this. Please remove my vote, please block me indefinetly. I'm sorry, please block me, I don't want to cause any more harm. You guys do a fine job with this site. SWD316, I'm very sorry for all of this, I think you will make a good mod. Mcfly85 04:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SWD316

Where to begin, well he vandalized my user page several times. (see:My User Page for the full listing) Also he creates several accounts strickly used for vandalism. Also signed in as IP addresses, also listed on my user page, to vandalize my user page, my talk page, my RFA, and various areas on Wikipedia.

He first got upset when I edited his user page censoring the word "fuckers". I apologize for doing so. Anyways, in the edit summary I misspelled "vulger" and typed "fulger". Months later Mcfly85, under an IP address, vandalized my user page here. I immediately knew it was him. When confronted, he simply blanked his talk page.

In all of this mess, Mcfly85 was determined to prove his innocence to Wikipedia as he contacted the Administrators' noticeboard, The Mediation Cabal and other user trying to ruin my name on Wikipedia.

I ran fro adminship on December 14 resulting in me getting frustrated and closing the RFA. I closed it because Mcfly85 voted oppose causing major controversy on my RFA. He even signed in under sockpuppet accounts as Rock09 and Sigma995 and voted once again.

Banes found more incriminating evidence today further leading to this RFAr (see: my talk page for evidence). Later that day Fred Bauder ran a CheckUser on Mcfly85 and saw where he created numerous accounts for vandalizing my user page, RFA, etc.

I was renominated today to run for adminship based on Mcfly85's edits to the previous RFA. He interjected himself into this one as well tring to influence the voters to vote oppose saying I was a bad user. Im just glad Mcfly85 has now given up. SWD316 05:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Howcheng

According to a checkuser run by User:Fred Bauder (see [36]), User:Mcfly85 is a confirmed sockpuppeteer. He voted against SWD316 multiple times with the puppets during SWD316's second RfA attempt (see [37]) in clear violation of WP:SOCK. As one possible penalty is a permanent block, I believe it should apply retroactively to the time when he wielded his puppets, thus disqualifying his vote on the resubmitted RfA. Even if a block is not applied, at the very least his vote should not count and he should be censured and an injunction prohibiting him from working on the same articles as SWD316 or those articles that SWD316 is likely to touch (i.e., those that fall under the sphere of Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling) should be issued. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 07:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Robert I + anonymous user(s)

Involved parties

(*)Several anonymous edits on the disputed pages (see below) have been made from rotating IPs beginning with 81.131 and 213.122. There are credible grounds to believe that all or most of these anonymous edits were written by the same person using two different ISPs, and equally credible grounds to believe that Robert I and the anonymous editor are acquainted and working in conjunction.

Robert I and the anonymous editor(s) have deliberately misrepresented published texts no fewer than four times at Gregory Lauder-Frost and Conservative Monday Club. On the first occasion, Robert I resorted to personal abuse after being discovered and denied that his edit was misrepresentative. These misrepresentations have continued despite repeated warnings and criticisms.

Robert I and the anonymous editors(s) have also made many biased edits to interrelated pages involving far-right British figures (eg. Harvey Ward, Western Goals Institute and Western Goals (UK), as well as the two already mentioned). They have behaved in a generally uncivil manner toward other contributors, making frequent accusations of left-wing bias and a sinister agenda against GLF and the CMC.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Given the difficulties of contacting someone with a rotating IP, is assumed that the anonymous user(s) will learn of this request through the aforementioned article talk pages.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Efforts were made to resolve the matter directly with Robert I and the anonymous editor(s), and several outside observers were brought in. The inappropriate behaviour continues, and there is no reason to believe any step short of arbitration will resolve the matter.

Statement by party 1 (complainant)

Please see Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost ("Observations") for the reasons why I believe the anonymous IPs are all the same person, and are working in association with Robert I. Gregory Lauder-Frost has himself written to Wikipedia from three of the "rotating IPs", and it appears likely he is the anon. See Talk:Conservative Monday Club ("Accurate quoting", "Winds of Change Speech" and "Observer Retraction(?)") and Talk:GLF ("Accurate quoting (again)") for the specific transgressions.

User:Homeontherange and myself have been the target of frequent and sustained abuse by Robert I and the anon at these and other pages (including legal threats), and I do not believe the situation is likely to change without intervention from ArbComm. CJCurrie 00:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Amended: 00:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2 (complainant)

I concur with CJCurrie's statement. I also suspect Robert I may, in fact, be GLF as well - it would be helpful if a developer could examine all the IPs involved, including User:Robert I's to see if there is commonality.Homey 18:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 3 (respondant)

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Statement by party 4 (respondant)

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Brief comment by El_C

I urge the Committee to accept this case. I may add some comments and/or evidence later on. El_C 12:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Haiduc

Involved parties

This is a refiling of a previous RfAr, rejected without prejudice at that time.

Since that time, User:Haiduc has revived the CfD-deleted category of Category:Historical pederastic relationships under the even-more-POV category name Category:Pederastic lovers -- which should perhaps been expected in light of his prior promise to circumvent the CfD process by renaming the category. He has also continued personal attacks against me when I nominated the new category for deletion in light of the circumvention of the CfD process. (See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 15 for more details. For whatever reason, neither the prior CfD nor the prior RfAr appears to be archived, although I'm sure the ArbCom has access to both.)

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

As previously explained, I've tried to make good faith efforts to talk over with Haiduc during the prior CfD and believed, at that time, that I got no good faith response from him. In light of his subsequent condescending remarks toward me prior to this particular dispute (see User talk:Haiduc#Request for arbitration and User talk:Nlu/archive7#Category issues), I highly doubt that any other dispute resolution technique will be of much use.

Statement by party 1

Haiduc's actions to circumvent CfD is a violation of WP:POINT. His actions in the previous and the current CfD are violations of WP:NPA. I am requesting sanctions. Last time, the ArbCom rejected the RfAr without prejudice without stating further reasons; I am assuming that is because that at that time, no circumvention of the CfD process had yet occurred. It has now occurred, and action should be taken. --Nlu (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

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

Deeceevoice

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

on deeceevoice's talk page (she has now removed this) [39]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Request for comment: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Deeceevoice

deeceevoice refused to take part in the RfC. She also deleted comments on her talk page regarding civility policies, labeling them vandalism. Given this behavior, it would likely be fruitless to pursue any other steps. -Justforasecond 16:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Justforasecond

Deeceevoice has regularly and repeatedly violated wikipedia policies. On Dec 6, 2005, a request for comment was filed, which deeceevoice refused to address, stating:

it amazes me that people have nothing better to do on this website than play Miss Manners with other adults like prissy, pedantic, insufferable, niggling, mealy-mouthed, self-righteous, tattletale brats.

Most editors in the RfC agreed that deeceevoice had broken wikipedia policy, though a significant fraction thought her actions were reasonable. Several editors also mentioned deeceevoice NPOV and NOR violations, but those were not documented extensively in the RfC.

While many of deeceevoice's uncivil comments are directed towards vandals of one sort or another, she has, on numerous occassions, attacked cordial editors. In at least one cases she has described a legitimate request as "vandalism" in an edit summary while removing it from her talk page, though she insists on leaving truly offensive vandalism such as swastikas and photographs of lynchings for all to see.

What follows is from deeceevoice's RfC and is only a portion of her incivil behavior, but I believe it is enough to show a convincing pattern. -Justforasecond 06:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

From conversation with User:Zoe:

What? U want me 2 hold your little, white hand and sing "Kumbaya"? What the hell kinda comment is that? Don't insult my intelligence... [40]
...I can only conclude you wanted to read some reassuring warm-and-fuzzy expression of brotherhood/sisterhood....I got no time, no patience to stroke your psyche. Get a teddy bear. [41]

From conversation with User:Matt Crypto:

When I need a lesson on playing nicey-nice to someone's irksome, naive bullcrap, I'll be sure to look you up. I don't do nice. In the meantime, kindly go to hell. [42]
Do you really think some little twit instructing me in "civility" is going to change me? I find that mildly amusing. Thanks for the comic relief. Okay, I'm done w/you. Now go home. (yawn) [43] [44]

From conversation with User:Matt Crypto:

Do you really think I give a flying ****? [45].

(With edit comments of "pathetic" [46] and "Deleted annoying clutter from MY talk page" [47])

To get beneath the 500-word limit, I'll leave out the other quotes that can be found on the RfC page. [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]. [59] [60]

Statement by deeceevoice

I won't dignify this apparent retread of the RfC with a response. I would, however, like to say something to those who have weighed in in support of me. First, sincerely, thank you. But more importantly, this: just ignore JFAS. He seems to have a rather unhealthful fixation with me (and perhaps may be a recycled antagonist with a new user name and ulterior motives -- perhaps not). He seems to crave attention of even the most negative sort. Whatever the case, it is extremely difficult at this point to believe his actions are well-intentioned. Not only do I believe his antics are divisive and counterproductive, I am concerned about the degree to which responding to him has diverted the time and energies of positive contributors to the project away from the business of improving Wikipedia. I truly appreciate the support, but, please, go back to your editing. It's what I intend to do -- when I have the time and the tolerance for it.

I have nothing else to say. Period. deeceevoice 10:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alabamaboy

As stated before, even though User:justforasecond is the author of this RfA, User:justforasecond is bringing this RfA against deeceevoice despite having NO interactions with deeceevoice since the failed RfC against her. This RfA appears to be part of a pattern of harrassment by User:justforasecond against deeceevoice, as evidenced by the fact that nearly 2/3 of User:justforasecond's total edits on Wikipedia (see corrected stats below) are against deeceevoice.[61]

This does not appear to be accurate. As of today User:Justforasecond has just over 200 edits, only about half of which—not two-thirds—involve Deeceevoice even peripherally. --PHenry 21:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
justforasecond has, according to Kate's tool as of this time, completed 207 edits. Of these, at least 102 relate to deeceevoice or are responding to others about her situation. You are correct that this is only 50% of edits (my apology for this mistake). However, if one looks at justforasecond's edits in the last three weeks, well over two-thirds of them (and closer to 80 or 90%) relate to this matter. Either way you cut it, this is an incredibly high percentage of one's total edits and, in my opinion, indicates a pattern of harrassment. And while I appreciate you pointing this out, I am also disturbed by users posting their comments in the statements of other users. A statement is for that user to comment in, not for others to debate an issue in.--Alabamaboy 23:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Deeceevoice can be abrupt to users who make racist and other attacking comments to her. However, many of the examples cited above are from her talk page and, by Wikipedia standards, users are given more freedom to do what they want with regards to their talk page. Deeceevoice is also an excellent editor of articles, as indicated by a long track record of edits. Finally, this RfA is not valid because the previous RfC failed to achieve consensus and was stopped early due to excessive personal attacks.--Alabamaboy 16:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deeceevoice refused to take part in the request for comment and has deleted requests for civility from her talk page, with edit summaries "vandalism". There's not any another option to pursue here. -Justforasecond 16:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As stated before, she is free to do with her talk page as she feels.--Alabamaboy 17:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a final note on how I believe that Justforasecond is harassing Deeceevoice, I refer to this instance [62] where Justforasecond removed a comment in support of Deeceevoice from Deeceevoice's personal talk page. This comment was shortly thereafter restored by another editor.--Alabamaboy 02:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is a sarcastic comment calling deeceevoice a "biotch". It appears to be vandalism. -Justforasecond 03:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jpgordon

I just feel the need to reiterate what my comment on that RfC:

It must be said that there are many places in discussions on Wikipedia where saying "Fuck off" in so many words would save an awful lot of time and energy currently consumed by coming up with long-winded euphemisms and policy discussions that mean exactly "fuck off". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It amazes me too that you have nothing better to do with this website then hassle DC; at this point it appears that well over 3/4 of your Wikipedia activity has been furthering your assault upon her. You think any of this is going to make her tell Nazi vandals on her talk page to fuck off more politely? The only outcome that will include that will include her leaving, and her contributions to Wikipedia have been extremely valuable. There's an easy solution for you, the filer of this arbitration request: don't read her talk page.

At any rate, she's already announced (prior to the posting of this RfAr) that she'll not be around much, if at all, for the remainder of the holiday season, so I propose that this RfAr be postponed until she return so that she can participate should she choose to. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat that while much of deecee's vitriol has been directed towards vandals, she does not appear to find it necessary to treat ordinary users with civility. As jpgordon knows well enough, the comments quoted above were *not* directed at nazi vandals. -Justforasecond 15:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No. Most of them were directed at people who were annoyed at her response to talk page vandals, or who were annoyed at her strong social and political viewss -- or who kept pestering her after being asked not to. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But, he-e-ey. One minor point here I feel compelled to mention. Nowhere do I actually spell out the f-word. My momma taught me better. :p deeceevoice 17:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Encyclopedist

Since this is an extended version of the same bullcrap, I will add exactly what I did here

I am a strong friend of Deeceevoice on this site, so I don't know if anyone is going to object to my views as being arbitrary. However, I do know that Deeceevoice, above all arguments, has done much to improve this site, and should be considered one of the valued colloborators here. This has not been the case, one need only look at her talk page to see hate filled vitriol and rascist comments that she has decided to post there (and I am not just talking about obvious vandalism, I am talking about some contributors) as "gratitude" for her hard work here. I am not going to condone any NPA or POV actions that Deeceevoice may have; but I do think that it is important to see firstly that as an African American and as an avid intellectual; she may and does have more to offer in terms of contributions to Afrocentrism articles, and this may seem to be POV to others, as on the talk page I have seen several preconceived, biased and rascists notions against her and her edits. No, it is not right to insult another Wikipedian, however, this argument is inherentently excluding the fault that Deeceevoice's opponents here and outside this RfA have, especially in regards to questionable civility. In Deeceevoice I see a very very strong person; who has convinced me to stay on a site where I am bombarded by hateful racism, along with arrogant and abrasive editors. As a contributor on Wikipedia, she has stayed through several cases of attacks against her and insults, but only to contribute more to this site. Her attitudes in my opinion do shed light on the fact that she is trying to give attention to several themes that are ignored and often of poor quality on Wikipedia. Black topics here are often ignored, so Deecee's efforts to try to improve such have been criticized as POV. THEY ARE NOT. They are from a different, and interestingly enough, an AFRICAN AMERICAN perspective. Does being African American give here the right to add POV in articles? No. But does being a scholarly intellectual with African descent give her the right to contribute to sites that are often ignored by the monotone community of Wikipedia? Yes. Sure, I know that people will probably not endorse or agree with what I am saying; I have been in a number of debates here (i.e. VfDs, RfAs etc.) , and frankly, every one has been like pulling teeth. I predict dissent and naysayers leaving nasty comments under this message; but I do not have time for any arguments. I could sit here and type all day about the excellent contributions Deecee has created for this site; and similarly, write about the rascists and hate filled words directed towards her. Concerning NPA, it is comprehensible that Deecee voice will get angry. The problem here is that the complainants are focusing on bad points when Deeceevoice finally did insult malactors for their insults; but never look into the times when she has brushed off such foolishness. Bottom line, I have no qualms against anyone here (at least not anymore); and I do consider Deeceevoice to be a true friend. My argument stands as it is. I know that no one will agree with it, and I will hear people complaining with little subcaps below, as if I am going to give them the time of day to respond to them. I have a life, I suggest others get the same. And concerning Deeceevoice not resppnding, I wouldn't either: nothing ever comes of it, people here are ready to crucify her since she has been here. It will just be a long argument, but the outcome is the same. Deeceevoice, stay strong. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Above all, I see just as much, if not more, fault in her opponents. There will never be an equal voice in Wikipedia as the majority of the contributors here are white; and a person decides to focus in an Afrocentric perspective. Deeceevoice has been shown little respect for her contributions, and I believe that instead of putting this RfC (which is not to the standard of what it should be, neither in format or whatever "evidence" you can find against her) we should commend her. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this, you lose the RfC, so you pull a stunt like this?? That is so sad. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please shorten your comment. -Justforasecond 01:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia gets more like True Hollywood Story everyday. I used to be in the middle of fights between User:Gabrielsimon and others until I said the hell with it. Not wanting to be rude, but I don't have time for a Sunday Night drama on A&E. Justforasecond is not the rudest person I have met - I do have to admit that. But, where did this come from? When did this guy go against Deeceevoice? I mean, he doesn't even have a user page, so I can assume he is sort of new. Does he have something better to do? There is plenty you can explore here!. I think this, and the RfC are absolutely ridiculous. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DreamGuy

deeceevoice has a long history of extremely harassing statements and extreme POV-pushing on this site. She regularly inserts highly Afrocentric opinions into articles related to Ancient Egypt and calls people racists and other major violations of WP:NPA when the edits are removed, while using racially abusive language herself in response, calling editors "Whitey" for example without knowing anything about their actual race. The RFC was not a "failed" RFC, as a large number of posters agreed that she was extremely abusive - nothing further happened solely because RFCs have no teeth, and deeceevoice was ignoring the entire process, instead having editors with questionable histories show up to try to portray her as an angel and her detractors as racist and etc. etc. I don't know [[User:Justforasecond from Adam, other than he tried to get me to make more active role in the RFC, but regardless of whether the attacks on him above by the questionable editors are accurate in their claims or not, the fact remains that deeceevoice's only goal here seems to be rather drastic POV pushing and major, major examples of not just uncivil behavior but outright abuse. Those looking whether to take on this case should ignore the back and forth of the editors above and simply browse the RFC against her and her contribution history. It won't take much time, and you can see for yourselves which (if indeed any) of the views posted above are accurate, or, more importantly, whether there is enough there to open this up to the evidence stage. Much of the content of the statements above are highly irrelevant to the question of whether arbitration is necessary and I think could all too easily act as a smokescreen to the real issues here. DreamGuy 11:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the entirety of this entry -- and I don't intend to, because it goes into areas wholly irrelevant to this matter. And I know I said I wouldn't respond to this garbage -- but hold up just one gottdamn minute. "...calling editors 'whitey'"? Embellishing a bit, aren't you? Provide the diffs, dammit. I dare ya. "Smokescreen"? How about flatout libeling/lyin' on someone? Ya betta check yourself, DreamGuy, and stop hallucinating/dreaming up some b.s. that never happened. Now I really am done with this circus. *x* deeceevoice 13:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of deeceevoice using "whitey". She uses "crakkka". [63] -Justforasecond 16:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to make yourself look foolish. Yep. I use it a lot -- to refer to a mind-set. (Note the "KKK".) Try again. :p *x* And if you're trying to say I've called editors on this website a "crackkkas," then, again, provide the diffs. Again, I dare ya. Just more b.s. And, no. I will NOT take part in arbitration with you. I've got nothing to say to you, and you have nothing to say I want to read -- something I made quite clear earlier. You're not worth my time. And since you seem particularly hard-headed in this regard, let me state it here again for the record: Do not post to my talk page again. Do not alter my talk page again. If you don't like what I have to say, then vote with your web browser. Don't visit my page, and don't read my comments.' deeceevoice 16:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading what you're responding to. (S)he did provide a link to a diff in which you use the word crakkka - click it. Rob Church Talk 04:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reading comprehension. I've already SAID I use the term -- and fairly often -- to describe a mind-set. And, incidentally, just WHERE in the provided diff do I call an editor one? Answer: NOWHERE. And I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence to back up your foray into fiction. Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath. deeceevoice 11:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jmabel (not a party to the arbitration)

I suggest that people abide by the rule that this page is not the place for conversation. People are interjecting their comments into each other's statements.

I urge the arbitrators to take into account how active and useful a contributor deeceevoice has been (and continues to be) and how little Justforasecond has participated in Wikipedia other than to complain about deeceevoice; that the two other people who have identified themselves as parties to the arbitration have come in to support deeceevoice; and to reject this request for arbitration as a distraction from the work of building an encyclopedia. If a serious participant in Wikipedia like Matt Crypto wanted an arbitration with deeceevoice, I'd urge her to consider it, and I'd urge the arbitrators to take it, but that is not what we have here. We have an almost brand new contributor taking more of his/her own time on a grievance about an established contributor than on contributing to articles, and eating up a lot of other people's time in the process.

Full disclosure: for the record, if anyone doesn't know, I am not a neutral party. While I have suggested to deeceevoice that some of her remarks to people are excessive and I think a few have even been somewhat uncivil, it seems pretty obvious to me that with her we get the whole package or we get nothing, and between the two, I'll take the package without hesitation. And I know people will chew me out for this and that I hold a minority view, but I feel that the main issue with racially charged remarks—which deeceevoice has made—is that they can create a generally hostile atmosphere for the people in the group against whom they are directed. I see no prospect of Wikipedia becoming a generally hostile environment for white people, so her remarks simply do not distress me to the point that similar remarks about (for example) Blacks, Jews, or Roma would distress me. She has been occasionally uncivil, but most of us are occasionally uncivil. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rob Church

Note: RobChurch just deleted this section, which I am herewith restoring. His edit note stated: "Edit conflict; am withdrawing - this is no longer (as I had hoped) a question of resolution - it's become a brawl from which there is no escape)"

Why am I restoring it? Because whatever damage he has done is done. Lies cannot be retracted. I believe it is useful to keep his comments here, because they are instructive of precisely the kind of, IMO, racism and antagonism that strangles this website. I also have added a response, which did not register because of an edit conflict. deeceevoice 17:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see this [expletive withheld] has also completely deleted his slanderous statement at User:Robchurch/deeceevoice, and I can't recover it. If anyone can, please do so and post it here. For those of you who are curious about it, he falsely accused me of calling editors "whities" and "crackers" and of sending a vitriolic, "screaming" retaliatory e-mail after he blocked me for violating a 3RR. Which I, of course, NEVER did. He also said, "I couldn't give a SHIT what she writes in response to this" -- or something very close to it (profanity included). Is this [(creature) expletive withheld] at all credible? I think not! deeceevoice 17:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. SURELY there must be some sort of rule against deleting material entered as evidence in an RfA -- including material on a separate page submitted as an addendum! And this is the kind of person entrusted with with administrative (or whatever) authority on this website? And how do I pursue an action against him? Despicable and utterly indefensible. deeceevoice 17:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This just from my talk page:

I've undeleted Rob Church's user subpage, as I believe it should stick around as long as the Arbitration case is filed. It certainly looks suspect to me, and I imagine to the ArbComm too. — Matt Crypto 17:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RobChurch's statement

In order to avoid clutter, and while I appreciate ArbCom prefer it on the same page, I've slapped this bit as a subpage of my userspace. All my comments pertaining to the matter will appear on User:Robchurch/deeceevoice over the next week or so.

It's a shame it's come to this. Rob Church Talk 21:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The shame is that you would stoop to such utter fabrication. Just abysmal. deeceevoice 22:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have never, ever failed to own up to my own words and actions. I stand by them. The words at the above link are complete and utter lies. I don't know who this guy is, what his beef is/issues are -- and I don't give a damn. But this outrageous lie is the last straw. I'm done here. Wikipedia can go to hell. deeceevoice 06:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My response to Robchurch's comments on the above page after he deleted it with a snide edit note saying he didn't want my comments on his page, because I delete the comments of others when they are "trying to help" or some nonsense

A response
Your post is pure fabrication.
I've never called anyone on this website "whitey" or referred to anyone as "whitey." It's not a word I've ever used -- not even in the '70s, when it was the fashion. And reject your characterization of my remarks and opinons as complete fiction.
Again, I challenge you: provide the diffs. I dare you.
Further, I sent you no such e-mail in response to your block. You're simply hallucinating -- our knowingly flatout lying. A "vicious, sadistic character who despised [me]"? WHAT? Playing the victim? Making something personal? That's hardly my style. If you're going to fabricate your comments, at least come up with something credible. The fact that you would stoop to writing such lies is sleazy, despicable and contemptible beyond words. Don't ever, ever, ever contact me again -- about anything. As far as I'm concerned, from this point on, you're lower than low. You don't exist. *x*
Further, if there is any way to trace e-mails through the system, I strongly encourage that this be done. And when the truth comes out, I urge that the author of this despicable lie be dealt with in the harshest possible terms.deeceevoice 22:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Observe, ladies and gentlemen. When anybody posts anything on one of DCV's pages, she used to (and still will, no doubt) delete it, but the moment I give her a little taste of her own, she rants, raves and downright screams. Ludicrous. Absolutely ludicrous. Rob Church Talk 16:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Observe the hyperbole, the lie. This was written (obviously) before Robchurch deleted it (duh). And my response is to the bald-faced lie perpetrated on his page -- to which he has not responded. (Am I the only one who finds that at least a little strange?) Again, if there is any way to trace e-mails through the system, please, someone do it. Now. And expose this despicable entity for what it is. deeceevoice 16:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is plastered all over the place. This page, and the history of your talk page, and the talk pages of everyone you've ever dealt with. Rob Church Talk 16:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"...the talk pages of everyone you've ever dealt with." More shrill hyperbole. Well, now. Then it shouldn't be too difficult to provide a single, solitary diff to bolster your (bogus) claims about me calling editors "whities" and "crackers" -- yes? It's a simple request. We're waiting. Put up or shut up. deeceevoice 17:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And still no reaction to being called a liar. Dang. If someone did that to someone else and it was a false accusation, I'd expect the accused to be fightin' mad -- especially someone with your, uh ... temperament. You've just outted yourself. Really sleazy. deeceevoice 17:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sam Spade

WTF? How can someone be allowed to behave in the manner DC has in a volunteer project? What the hell kind of place is this? I think this case is a pretty good barometer on if we should bother w this project at all. Sam Spade 22:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

see User:Deeceevoice. Sam Spade 16:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Statement by Sam Spade

[I thought only arbitrators were allowed to delete comments]. Original question read: WTF stands for what the fuck, right? El_C 12:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by Zora

I once made some effort to participate in the Afrocentrism article and gave up; dealing with Deeceevoice's high-handedness would have been just too wearing. She holds strong views which I would regard as both racist and unscientific. I have two anthropology degrees; I've taken physical anthropology courses; I know that categories such as "dolichocephalic" and the like are antiquated labels from the 19th century. Yet she uses them with abandon. Deeceevoice has no scientific training and no qualms about labelling anyone who disagrees with her a racist. She is not improving Wikipedia; she is filling it with pseudo-scientific nonsense. I have no objection to the Afrocentric POV being represented, but it should not be allowed to crowd out or intimidate other POVs by playing the "racist" card. Zora 23:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did I call you a racist? What contributor in the Afrocentrism discussion did I ever call a racist? Again, provide diffs -- if you can. (Good luck with that.) You couldn't hold your own in the exchange, so you come here and brand my views "racist"? Reads like sour grapes to me. Nothing more. No one has ever mounted a reasoned, thoughtful, documented challenge to the heavily documented information I presented in the article -- despite my repeated requests for specific examples of alleged POV, etc. All people did was grouse about how they disagreed. Regardless of whatever or how many degrees you may hold, dolichocephalism and alveolar and maxillary prognathisms are standard elements utilized by forensic scientists to determine race/ethnicity. Further, your degrees don't give you some corner on truth. One can be "educated" and still be misinformed. And there are all sorts of respected, racist, degreed, highly (mis)educated hacks who wrote all kinds of nonsense about blacks being subhuman and inferior and incapable of building high civilizations. "Antiquated"? Google "dolichocephalic forensics" and see what you come up with and then come back and tell me the term/concept is antiquated. Got a problem with that? Hey, not my problem. Ancient dynastic Egypt was a black African civilization -- and that's supported by scientific evidence. Like it or lump it. But your groundless complaint has absolutely no bearing here. *x* It's just more garbage. deeceevoice 23:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
QED. Zora 23:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Still utterly groundless. deeceevoice 23:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I went back yesterday and actually searched your "contributions" to the Afrocentrism article. There was none -- not a single one. If I recall correctly, you made only two entries on the talk page, essentially arguing what you argued here about your degrees and dolichocephalism -- and just as ineffectively. Sad. deeceevoice 17:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I no longer remember what I said -- nor is it important, given that I say that I was put off from participating in the article by Deeceevoice's attitudes.
What I may have said, or would have said: For academics, the study of "race" (a very iffy category -- many think it's useless) is primarily a study of population genetics, to be interpreted statistically. Statistical analysis is particularly important for Egypt. Egypt is basically an extremely long and thin valley connecting Africa and Europe. In contemporary Egypt, the population at the African end of the valley has many African characteristics, and the population at the European end has many European characteristics. The populations shade into each other. Instead of discussing the matter in crude binary categories, black/white (characteristic of USAian folk beliefs re race), professionals would talk about the percentage of such and such trait in specified locations, at specified times, and do a statistical analysis of trait clustering. It would be difficult to do that just from mummies and bones, but that's the only way to talk about race in the past. Analyzing one mummy in obsessive detail, as deeceevoice does, tells you nothing.
It's kinda nuts that one of deeceevoice's critics is said to be disqualified from commenting about her because he interacted with her too much, and I'm said to be disqualified because I interacted with her too little. Zora 18:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments here are irrelevant. They belong in Afrocentrism. Further, this is NOT -- I repeat NOT -- a venue for content disputes. Got that? You intruded here with some hackneyed complaint about article content -- one in which you participated in not at all, except for two -- count 'em -- two comments on the talk page. You say you were put off by my attitude? That's a laugh. My discussion with you was extremely civil. If you can't stand the heat of discourse and debate, then let me suggest that you just get the hell outta the kitchen. Don't show up someplace else months later (likely brought here by JFAS's endless campaining on various article and individual talk pages) in an RfA about a completely different matter, complaining like you've been so terribly wronged and I don't do my research. You're completely out of line AND off base. *x* I repeat: sad.
Finally, yes, this is not the subject of this RfA. But you made the charge, and I'll address it. I'm "analyzing one mummy in obsessive detail"? ROTFLMBAO. Hey, last I checked, I didn't dig the bwoi up not once, but several times, subject his remains to batteries of tests and endless scientific examination. It's Zahi Hawass who's obsessed -- with appropriating/Arabizing dynastic Egypt. He's the one who set up the latest round of forensic reconstructions with instructions that the skull's geographic origin and racial identity be determined. He's the one who flatout lied and said the teams concluded Tut was a "Caucasoid North African." I traded e-mails with Anton of the American team. And she strenuously denies she determined that Tut was Caucasoid. If whites and Arabs weren't so damned intent on whitewashing dynastic Egypt's past, we wouldn't have to keep asserting its fundamental black African identity. Me? "Obsessed"? People like me are only callin' Hawass on his lies. :p deeceevoice 18:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coyep

I had similar experiences with DeeCeeVoice. She frequently vandalized the dreadlocks article by removing valid informations about non-blacks, or, as she calls it: "Caucasoid wannabes" .

The very few things DeeCeeVoice added to the article were either unverifiable or plain incorrect, for instance a reference to Tuts wig, which has braids, not dreads; that dreadlocks are connected to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which is simply incorrect, the assertion that only "black" hair is able to grow into dreadlocks naturally, which is incorrect, the assertion that dreadlocks in Indian Hindu culture have Egyptian origins, which is a totally unverified and unsourced POV edit. (When I asked her to verify her edits, she refused, telling me that: "good writing is more than a regurgitation of facts.")

Instead of adding valid material, she constantly removed valid and sourced informations, for instance the Celtic/Vedic connection, the fact that Rastafari sects welcome all ethnicities, a reference to dreadlocked priests of the Aztec, the Hindu references and quotes, that dreadlocks are a cross cultural hairstyle. She even removed a cybergoth picture asking me to replace it by a cybergoth, totally ignorant to the fact that it IS a cybergoth, she removed the Shiva picture because she disliked that it was "curiously fair-skinned and weirdly blond", totally ignorant of the Hindu color symbolic.

Her biased edits reached a high when she repeatedly removed a picture (Dreadlocked Gabriele.jpg) showing an european dreadlocked man from the dreadlocks article because the picture was allegedly of "poor quality" [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] , but then insisted to include the very same picture into the Cultural appropriation article to illustrate the pejorative term "Trustafari" [69] [70] [71] [72] [73]. CoYep 10:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More lies. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? I've already noted on the dreadlocks discussion page, in response to the same groundless charge leveled here by you, that I did NOT add the information about Tut's wig.

Again, you mischaracterize my comments. I've made substantive and correct contributions to this piece. I didn't add the line about Tut's wig. I never stated that only black hair would dread, etc., etc., etc. (I haven't bothered to read the rest of your entry, because it is not germane to this debate.) Deal with the issues at hand, Coyep. deeceevoice 07:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I did, however, search and find documentation of dreadlocks in Egyptian mummies. Further, I was not the only person who objected to the quality of the amateurish photo, which had dark shadows which were terrible. I finally cropped it to reduce their appearance. I invite any parties interested in your b.s. charges to read the discussion page -- and they will see your repeated insertion of irrelevant information, slavish reversions of completely valid edits, insistence on photos that did not adequately illustrate the text (behavior that was commented upon by other editors, as well),[74],[75],[76], and your snide comments directed at me in your edit notes and (oops; that was User:Chameleon) on the discussion page -- for which, incidentally, I could very easily have filed a RfC or RfA against you.
I later defended the photo you finally substituted after other editors weighed in on my side and verified that the photo you insisted on inserting did not show dreadlocks at all. Further, my contributions to both articles have been valuable and on-point.[77],[78]
I also note that even after Appleby commented on your repeated insertion of some rather tiresome info on the Aryan invasion theory, etc., you returned and reinserted it. And you have the nerve to criticize me? Absurd! Just another mean-spirited, disgruntled -- and utterly disingenuous -- editor with an axe to grind.
The Celtic/Vedic information was not sourced when I dealt with it, and on a second edit, I left it alone, slightly changing the language to be speculative, rather than definitive. The same is true of the Mayan information, because the source material was far from definitive. And I explained all of this in my edit summaries and/or on the discussion page.
Frankly, your post here is deliberately disingenuous and, IMO, tantamount to lying.
Oh. And the terms are "Rastafari" and "Trustafarian," the latter introduced not by me, but by another contributor -- which I added to the CA piece. And, overall, I have been far more cooperative and willing to collaborate and far more civil (that word again) than you have in these matters. Check yourself. deeceevoice 11:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xed

Mostly harmless. Her contributions are largely ridiculous and over-the-top Afrocentric gibberish - ranting about "slave trading crackers" [79], the size of asians testicles [80], her distaste at pink flesh [81], and ignorant-by-default white folks [82]. Since I believe in free speech, I'm happy for racists of whatever hue to participate, whether they be Nordicists, Zionists or, as in DC's case, Afrocentrics. Some might say that allowing these types to contribute is the only way to expose their moribund arguments. To make it clear, I don't support this arbitration attempt. - Xed 12:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments. Context is everything. And "moribund arguments"? No, the way to "expose" a "moribund argument" is to refute it with facts and reasoned analysis. And with regard to my "Afrocentric gibberish," I'm still waiting. Slinging around the label "Afrocentric" and taking for granted that such a sticker, ipso facto, makes one's argument is hollow, cheap and extremely weak. deeceevoice 11:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate, I don't support this arbitration since I believe even racists should be allowed to express what they believe. Perhaps though, you could explain these edits: "slave trading crackers" [83], the size of asians testicles [84], distaste at pink flesh [85], and ignorant-by-default white folks [86]- Xed 11:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat: context is everything. I'll leave that to the fundamental intelligence of the reader. deeceevoice 12:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Crow

I'll sign in because I offered a comment on the RfC and my participation was solicited here. This has evolved into something different and broader than the RfC. The RfC was regarding lapses in civility by the editor in question. The reason I commented on the RfC is that I have noticed she does have over-the-top lapses in civility and there is no reasonable excuse for this. However, both that RfC and this RfA has turned into something of a witch hunt prosecuted mainly by the stalk handle User:Justforasecond for the purpose of talking about race-related POV issues, and others have jumped on the same bandwagon. You've taken what was originally a reasonable intervention of a reasonable scope and derailed it by turning it into a broad POV lynching, and I do not appreciate your soliciting my support to participate in it. The Crow 15:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pharlap

An encyclopedia has to be a neutral source of informations. A bias is a bias, no matter if it's a black bias or a white bias. A racist is a racist and a supremacist is a supremacist, no matter if s/he is black or white. There is no "Black" NPOV and there is no "White" NPOV, there is only a NPOV. Replacing a "white POV" with a "black POV" and white racism/supremacism with black racism/supremacism, is counterproductive, especially if it's accompanied by insults and uncivil behavior.

Deeceevoice is not very pleasant to deal with. She justifies her personal attacks against other editors as perfectly legitimate and likes to portrait herself as a mere victim. In a former case she even managed to claim that a comment, which was posted more than two years before she even joined Wikipedia, was a "personal attack" against her and therefore entitled her to insult the editors. [87] Whenever you comment on her lousy behavior she calls you a liar, asking you to provide diffs. When you provide the diffs, she calls you a racist and/or a socketpuppy and accuses you of harrassing and stalking her. Deeceevoice is known for pushing her particular viewpoints at the expense of accuracy, and, as soon as her contributions are challenged, she

refuses to provide sources or to get up evidence

  • I'm not going to spend my time searching the Internet for sources -- particularly for stuff that isn't germane to the article in question and that is perfectly obvious to just about every black person on the street. I have neither the time nor the patience. But that's just me. After a while, this kind of stuff gets really old really fast; it's just wearisome. I've already spent too much time discussing this. What some white folks stubbornly want to believe is what they want to believe. deeceevoice 10:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • you're not only ignorant, arrogant and presumptuous, you're lazy! I'm not here to be your personal tutor on African or African-American culture. Your computer has a search engine. Use it. deeceevoice 06:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Who said anything about being "conversational" or "kind"? lol You're kidding -- right? Do some research, and then maybe I'll have something to say to you. Of course, rather than take some initiative toward and responsibility for your own education -- or, you can continue to sit around and wait for someone else to enlighten you. deeceevoice 03:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • What I've written is fact. You rudely, arrogantly and ignorantly challenged it -- without asking questions first. You simply ASS-umed I had fabricated my entry. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't have a problem pullin' your coat, but given your belligerence, I'm not so disposed. I don't have time for such obnoxious bull from the intentionally obtuse. Like I said, the information is readly available on the Internet .deeceevoice 23:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

claims to be a target of racism

  • Glad that crap is gone. They were totally unnecessary from the git-go. But some white folks just have to have their freakin' say on every goddamned thing black folks do. deeceevoice 15:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • What is with you folks, anyway? If melanin were ketchup (or any other organic substance) and not associated with black folks, and if I were not black, would you have been so quick to assume "vandalism"? Very telling. Ya better take a couple of steps back and check yourselves.deeceevoice 03:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems, though, that everyone wants to put in their (usually ill-informed, but still highly opinionated -- and often bigoted) two cents when it comes to black folks. The article is fine without all that crap.deeceevoice 01:21, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I almost hate reading anything on Wikipedia that deals with black folks. The abysmal ignorance, arrogance and sometimes outright racism are ridiculous. Virtually every article I've visited on this site dealing with black folks is just terribly written, with all kinds of idiotic, erroneous notions or just mind-numbing naivete. deeceevoice 18:25, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know if it's that seemingly omnipresent sense of white entitlement, or some misplaced sense of egalitarianism or what, but I'm certainly not gonna waste any more time trying to tell them otherwise. deeceevoice 10:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I just don't trust Wiki to be able to produce something that isn't riddled with incredibly naive or outright racist bullcrap. But, then, that's just me. :-p deeceevoice 15:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the racism crap and assume you're trying to be funny. deeceevoice 01:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Wrong again. If/when I think you're being racist, I'll let you know. And since when did "giving someone the benefit of the doubt" become a threat? Get a grip. Understand that your assumption that I (or any black person, for that matter) am so hypersensitive in matters of race that I am incapable of distinguishing what is and what is not racism is in itself an insult. Quite the contrary. If, in your opinion, you're not being racist, then fine an' dandy. There's no need to tell me when you stopped beating your wife. (Damn.) We're cool. deeceevoice 11:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh. Like not being racist and actually saying you're not being racist? LOL *slappin' sides* :-D deeceevoice 00:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • There is an ugly tendency on Wikipedia in articles dealing with African-Americans for people to pick and pick and pick and pick anything and everything ad nauseam. Often ill-informed and/or ridiculously pretentious criticisms, which, IMO, are a particularly perverse/rampant form of white arrogance, anti-black antipathy -- or of just hopelessly old-line knee-grow mind-sets. The first set of objections will have to suffice. This other stuff is more of the same -pure bull (only even more extraneous) -- and it is disappeared. deeceevoice 10:49, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

attacks the editors

  • What are you doing? (Other than being an arrogant ass.) deeceevoice 03:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • You're simply mentally and spiritually crippled. But I gotta give you one thing. You're good for at least one thing: comic relief. BWA-HA-HAAA! (slappin' sides -- still) :-p deeceevoice 00:36, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Aw, man. You're so full of it, your eyes are brown! lol. deeceevoice 07:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • So, what's all this crap? A "boatload of stupidity," indeed! :-p deeceevoice 06:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Damn. Another freakin' Wikipedian with selective comprehension. *x* deeceevoice 01:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't waste your time. I don't give a shyt what you think. You're nothing but a weasel. You don't even have the guts to sign your posts. *x* deeceevoice 00:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not like we're asking for a white stamp of approval about what to call ourselves -- or that we recognize others' (especially white folks') reaction to it is of any importance or merit. It doesn't matter to us in the least. So, what's all this crap? A "boatload of stupidity," indeed! :-p deeceevoice 06:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The intellectual dishonesty, hostility and and outright ignorance with which these "contributors" have approached the subject under discussion do Wikipedia a disservice. I'll simply explain it myself employing the wording I've already used to explain the phenomenon in this "discussion." That should clear up any confusion on the part of non-Americans -- and shut up some of the obviously mentally challenged "contributors" to and commentators on this article. deeceevoice 16:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • What do I care if, in your ignorance, you disagree? Things are no different today from what they were yesterday, or what they will be tomorrow. I'm out. deeceevoice 03:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • chuckling* Like I care what it sounds like to you. :-p The statement isn't misleading at all. deeceevoice 21:34, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Now, about that "brilliant" thing (how embarrassing). Gee, I'm sure the vast preponderance of those fortunate enough know you are simply blinded by your "brilliance" -- as are we all here on Wikipedia (bowing low); we're all duly impressed by your huge "Mars Attacks"-like brain: <http://videodetective.com/search.asp?SearchForMethodId=1&searchstring=mars+attacks&search.x=6&search.y=7>) not to mention such a self-serving observation. (Crackin' up, still. Dang. And whose ego is showin' here?) But as a "brilliant" white man, when it comes to gauging how widely black folks speak AAVE -- when it is virtually universally acknowledged that we generally don't do so ("code switching") in the presence of white folks dumb as dirt or otherwise; you're outsiders in this regard -- I repeat: you got no clue. Now, writing "You got no clue" is different from calling you "clueless." (Far be it from me to do so! I certainly wouldn't want to be among the lowly, benighted "few" who don't recognize the awesomeness of your magnificent brain power!) The simple fact is you are in absolutely no position to have any kind of credible opinion on the matter -- unless, of course you have some sort of empirical evidence. Which you don't. Otherwise, you would have presented it. So, again, my "brilliant," white brutha, when it comes to the numbers of blacks who speak AAVE and the numbers who don't, you got no clue. It should be a simple concept for someone of your dazzling intellectual capacities. Your obtuseness is baffling. Perhaps you'd like to explain it to Wikipedians of lesser intellect. (I'd like to know, too. :-p) So, I gotta ask again: just what part of that don't you get? Inquiring minds want to know. :-p deeceevoice 10:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Aw, Quill, baby. Just havin' a little fun. :-p (chuckling) No, you didn't say you were brilliant -- did you? Just that everyone who knows you -- except "a few" -- does. Oh, yeah, and you also mentioned that you're "quite clued in" -- whatever the hell that means. lol Maybe it's just me, but I find the sheer smugness of that really hilarious. Ah, well, humor: diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.... :-p deeceevoice 05:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

and demands that other contributers stop editing because they are "arrogant and ill-informed"

  • You probably don't know jack about the complexities of America's internal problems, so I'll overlook your ignorance about "diminishing returns" -- but not your presumptuous arrogance. Don't speak on what you don't know. deeceevoice 14:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Please don't speak/write on matters about which you know nothing. Use your computer's search engine and investigate before making groundless charges. deeceevoice 03:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Why are you so adamant about something (to the point of belligerence) about which you apparently know so little? Do you think you know everything? What's that about? deeceevoice 20:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Being quarrelsome for the hell of it -- when you know you don't know much about a subject (and anyone who could question/challenge "cool's" origins, doesn't know squat about it) -- is simply counterproductive. deeceevoice 04:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Considering the kind of ill-informed, naive, silly or just plain racist crap one has to wade through on Wikipedia when dealing with issues pertaining to black people and the aparently relatively few contributors with real knowledge and sensitivity on the subject, I think you'd better leave well enough alone. deeceevoice 18:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Do what you will. For someone from Japan to try to tell me who and what my people are is presumptuous at best. And that African Americans aren't an ethnic group within the U.S.? ROFLMBAO. Ignorant presumptuousness -- and with an attitude. So, hey, I reciprocated. (Always more than happy to return a gesture. :-p) deeceevoice 22:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Now, there's a statement redolent with white arrogance and condescension! Your statements throughout this discussion show YOU to be the one who is abysmally ignorant of African American heritage and culture. You should just shut the hell up, because you obviously haven't a clue and clearly aren't qualified to make pronouncements on who knows what on this subject.deeceevoice 18:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I see the correct decision was reached in this matter, but to me it's amazing that it even needed to be discussed. Talk about clueless and insensitive. deeceevoice 06:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, and Pgd, keep in mind you didn't "stomped on" for honestly trying to address a subject. You were "stomped on" for a completely useless and extraneous rant about black youth, immigrants and education in an article on African Americans. Leave it be. deeceevoice 12:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The detailed diffs and the timeline in context of some more particular incidents are to find here [88]

PS: Some of you wondered why she left the Swastika on her talk page. She explained it:

Just returned to this after leaving a thank-you note for the Wikipedian who performed the revert. Hm-m-m. I was looking at this image in isolation and thinking about how some of my Native American cousins and others used the symbol. Among the more evolved of the human species, it's a beautiful, spiritual thing.[89] I accept this image in that empowering sense. (So, thank you to the half-wit a**hole who left it in hatred, intolerance and stupidity.) Makes you kinda wonder why the swastikia is BLACK -- not white -- doncha? Because BLACK IS STRONG AND BOLD AND BEAUTIFUL. That's why. (Yeah. Like dat. :D) deeceevoice 21:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[90] Pharlap 22:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, it's actually funny -- and kind of pathetic. This is the same, old recycled, disingenuously and artfully Bowdlerized garbage Pharlap presented in defense of the racist User:Wareware -- which was roundly criticized and discredited by several others involved in the Wareware RfC, brought against Wareware for his racist, vitriolic stalking of me around the website.[91] Missing in action (as Pharlap, anyway) for six months, he now returns with the same old garbage with the rest of the jackals. deeceevoice 05:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that most editors (myself included [92]) thought that WW's comments were inacceptable -- as inacceptable as your own behavior. This statement posted by El_C pretty much summed up the prevailing consensus: "From my own experience, deeceevoice is –notorious– for personal attacks, and in general, personal and uncolegial comments. The content of his/her edits do exhibit a –pronounced– (and by extension, very often unencyclopedic) Afrocentric bias. While I do –not– believe Wareware is a racist (at least, I did not think this prior to reading these outragious comments), I am very dissapointed that he lost his temper in the manner depicted above, which does reflect very poorly on him. El_C 23:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) [93] "You can see the position I'm in, though. If Wareware directs racist insults about Africans towards you, while you direct racist insults about Asians towards him, I want both of you to suffer the consequences, not whomever files the first RFC. El_C 01:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) [94] Pharlap 17:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to rewrite history. The prevailing consensus was that I did not direct racist insults at Wareware. And in no way can my conduct in that matter be equated with his constant racist, vitriolic stalking. Old history. And you lost. Period. deeceevoice 17:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

RJII / Firebug

Involved parties

  • Firebug
  • RJII
  • Juicifer I wouldn't exactly call myself an involved party here. But I do strongly oppose the recent behaviour of Firebug.
  • Jkelly

[First part, from Firebug]

RJII repeatedly engages in personal attacks against various users, even after being warned to stop. He also refuses to follow WP:NPOV and WP:CITE.

[Second part, from RJII]

Firebug is being very disruptive and disregarding Wikipedia policy. He's been redirecting and moving the economic fascism article knowing that there is no consenus to do so. There was just a vote on deleting this article that failed. The result was no consensus. He seems to think he can redirect and/or move the article anyway. He has no even attempted to collect a consensus for what he's doing. Moreover, he explicitly acknowledges that there is no consensus: "Note that 12 people wanted the article gone completely, 11 wanted to keep, and 5 to merge/redirect." He flatly says he's "not going to capitulate to a POV-pushing bully." Adminstrator Jkelly has locked the page now because of the back and forth redirecting and reverting back. You can look here for a discussion on this that pretty much says it all: [95] Making edits without consensus is one thing, but deleting a whole article (redirecting) without a consensus, when you know that others want it to stay is abominable (full knowing that a vote had just revealed no consensus a few days ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic fascism 2). I'd like to note that another editor besides myself (Jucifer) has put the article back after he redirected it with the comment to him: (Your edit caused significant loss of info. This page recently had an AfD with no consensus therefore KEEP. you must Put it up for AfD again if you want to REDIRECT.) So, it's not just me. He knows both from the vote and from actions that there is not a consensus to get rid of the article. RJII 19:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since the two disputes have been merged, I'd like to say that that's probably the right thing to do as they're closely related. I think it's pretty clear that firebug's arbitration case was launched in retaliation for me stopping him from redirecting the article without consensus. RJII 21:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that firebug recently tried to become an admin. Thank God the vote failed: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Firebug This is one guy you don't want as an administrator. RJII 22:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I alerted RJII on December 13. [96]

--

Notified Firebug and Jkelly

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

When an RFC was opened against him, he refused to take the process seriously (despite certification and three additional endorsements) and defaced the page with this clown photo. It had the following caption: "Hey kids! Here's your chance to vent against big bad RJII because he didn't let you get your way! Someone this competitive should not be allowed on Wikipedia! Don't miss your chance to vent out all your frustration! Scour Wikpedia for "personal attacks" and anything that may vaguely by construed as a "policy" violation and report them here! Let's cut RJII down to size. His extraordinary intelligence, impeccable logic, artful argmentation, and indefatigable competitive drive and spirit is just too much for us to contend with. It's JUST NOT FAIR! Come on kids!. We know you're out there. Come on out of the woodwork and sign your name and let everyone know your frustration about not getting your way!  :) :) :)" At this point, it is clear that no other form of dispute resolution except for arbitration will have any effect on RJII's misbehavior.

--

Jkelly, adminstrator, tried to meditate but to know avail.

Statement by party 1

[To first part]

RJII appears incapable of refraining from personal attacks. He made a number of personal attacks against User:Slrubenstein; in one, he accused him of lying and concluded: "So, blow it out your ***." [97]. I politely asked him to refrain [98]; he responded "He had it coming" [99]. He has also ignored and disregarded other warnings of WP:NPA by various other users. He repeatedly pushes his POV onto pages, refusing to provide cites when asked [100]. He incorporates gross incivility into edit summaries [101] [102] [103].

[To second part]


Statement by party 2

[To first part]

I have a right to put a clown on very own RFC page! RJII 20:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And, don't let bug fool you. The RFC was not intented to settle any dispute. Read the RFC there for more details. RJII 18:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[To second part]

Firebug is being very disruptive and disregarding Wikipedia policy. He's been redirecting and moving the economic fascism article knowing that there is no consenus to do so. There was just a vote on deleting this article that failed. The result was no consensus. He seems to think he can redirect and/or move the article anyway. He has no even attempted to collect a consensus for what he's doing. Moreover, he explicitly acknowledges that there is no consensus: "Note that 12 people wanted the article gone completely, 11 wanted to keep, and 5 to merge/redirect." He flatly says he's "not going to capitulate to a POV-pushing bully." Adminstrator Jkelly has locked the page now because of the back and forth redirecting and reverting back. You can look here for a discussion on this that pretty much says it all: [104]

Statement by User:Jkelly

I am concerned that User:RJII's first response to content disagreements or concerns about behaviour seems to reliably be to assume bad faith. I am concerned that User:Firebug seems to have a tendency to escalate any dispute that editor is involved in, rather than work diligently towards resolution. My knee-jerk judgement is that neither editor is purely disruptive. I am pessimistic that mediation would be effective, given the current environment of anatagonism and provocation. That said, it is not clear to me that there is enough urgency here that the typical process shouldn't be followed. Jkelly 20:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Marshill, Tznkai, Ec5618, KillerChihuahua

 (Title for case - use names of defendants)

Involved parties


I simply want to dispute the neutrality of the article for Intelligent Design. I believe, even in the first paragraph, it is POV. Without changing any text whatsoever (no vandalism occured), I added a POV tag. Immediately, these individuals removed it three times then sent me a threat for banning under the 3 rv rule. I simply want to POV the article, but they constantly edit out my tag. I believe, in the spirit of Wikipedia that I am well within my rights to dispute the neutrality of an article. By inserting a strong rebuttal simply in the first three sentences of the "Intelligent Design" page, the definition is front-loaded for web-searches like Google to define it as "junk science". Rather than put criticisms in a criticism section, they are inserted even in the definition, and that violates the NPOV spirit of this site. All I want is be allowed to place a POV tag on that page.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

In the discussion page, I notified the parties that I was requesting arbitration.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Because I am not even able to dispute the article, and already received threats of an IP ban simply for adding a POV tag, my hands are completely tied.

Statement by party 1

(Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Statement by party 2

(Please limit your statement to 500 words)


Comment from Guettarda

(Please limit your statement to 500 words)

User:Marshill, a new user, whose first contributions date to yesterday, December 13, placed a {{POV}} tag on the intelligent design article. This appears to have been his first edit to the article. Since a tag like this is a last resort, rather than a first resort, it was removed. After he re-inserted it several times he was informed that if he reverted again he would violate the 3RR (the "IP ban" to which he refers). Only at that point did he take his objections to the talk page. Despite being new here, Marshill is not new to talk pages, pov templates and editing disputes (see Talk:The_Chronicles_of_Narnia/Archive01#POV_Dispute) and was asked to take his objections to the talk page quite early one. While Talk:Intelligent design isn't always the nicest of places (as I learned on Monday, when I was called a liar and "a shit" there), I believe that (i) there are no user conduct issues with regard's to the people Marshill seeks arbitration against, (ii) the proper channels have not been followed. (Apologies if this post is out of order; I am not one of the parties named by Marshill, but believe that I am as involved as the people he named).

Comment from FeloniousMonk

This is another case of Premature Arbitration from a recent arrival. I pointed out to Marshill at Talk:Intelligent design prior to his filing this request that arbitration is not the first step in dispute resolution, and that discussion, and failing there, an RFC would are the proper next steps, and pointed him to WP:DR. He responded that he was unwilling to discuss the matter and rejected off-handedly my explanation of how the article aligns with the NPOV policy. I've suggested to Marshill that he withdraw this RFAr and seek the proper forms of dispute resolution first. FeloniousMonk 20:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Endomion

Article cited by Marshill is written from a relentlessly one-sided POV. Any edits from the other side are immediately reverted, even if they cite sources. Most pre-existing statements from the other side in the article are answered in the same paragraph rather than gathering all objections in a consolidated section at the end of the article. The article's information about intelligent design is almost lost in a blizzard of information about the intelligent design controversy. The article should retain a POV banner until it has implemented the recommendations of a previously-conducted peer-review. Endomion 06:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment from Marshill

my apologies. I am sorry for not following the wiki guidelines correctly. I am now doing things the right way. I withdraw this, although I know its too late. I ask the arbitration committee forgive my hastiness. thank you. Marshill

Ponytailsnipper, DeepakShenoy, Ravikiran R, PeaSea, BloggerBrigade

Involved parties

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


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

Statement by party 1

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

Statement by party 2

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

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

Chadbryant and Dick Witham

Involved parties

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

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

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

Statement by Dick Witham

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

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

Which brings me to a very interesting issue. When Chadbryant changes, or reverts, Wikipedia entries or user entries, his sole claim for having done so has been "vandalism." Please check his Special Contributions page for numerous examples of this. Yet, going by the official Wikipedia entry on vandalism, a large percentage of Chad's reverts with excuses of justifciation for "vandalism" would indeed not even exist. It seems that he is abusing the definition of vandalism on Wikipedia, and taking advantage of the Wikipedia administration in the process. A quick glance through his Special Contributions page ([105]) will confirm this to any neutral party.

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Chadbryant

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

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

Note from uninvolved party User:Jtkiefer

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

The content removed is a link that goes to an external site to a false FAQ written by Mr. Bryant himself. How would you like it if I put up a webpage with misleading and false information about your person, then came on Wikipedia to call you a child molestor or whatever, using that site to verify my claims? The information is removed because similar behavior is occurring on the part of Chadbryant. Ghostly Presence 01:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Good Grief's response to being blocked for modifying another user's RFAr statement
No problem -- I was thinking of creating yet another sockpuppet anyway. I edit those comments in question because they contain a link to a hate site wherein the subject is my person. Since none of YOU boobs will do anything about it (despite being informed repeatedly), I had to take manners into my own hands. Sue me if you don't like it, Dorothy. Oh Good Grief 23:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC) diff:[106]. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also have had to block User:Ghostly Presence and User:Beth Reimer since they are sockpuppets of Oh Good grief and have been used by him to continue this behavior. I have lengthened Oh Good Grief's block to 1 week as well for continuing to modify other user's comments and for sockpuppetry while doing that. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have indefinitely blocked User:Oh Good Grief for this major personal attack which is in addition to his vandalism and sockpuppetry. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 18:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just another informational note, I have suggested to this user (who keeps jumping around to different IP's) to file an RFC if he/she has issues with the way such things work. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have also put back the remainder of the 1 week block on Oh Good Grief because there is doubt as to whether the personal attack was done by him and I'd rather be safe than sorry in terms of not having someone blocked who shouldn't be blocked. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good, that is a start towards some redress. Regards. --84.68.78.212 19:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the welcome BTW, and I am categorically NOT whichever users and socks you may have blocked. The RfC may be forthcoming in time, but don't hold your breath. It is nothing against you personally, just my extensive observations on the way this project functions on a systemic level. --84.68.78.212 19:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redress not towards a troll and a vandal I assure you, he will be reverted every time he tries to modify another user's comments and his sockpuppets will be blocked as per policy however you of cource entitled to file an RFC if you wish however if you do it would be be best to file it against the policy and the system itself not against individual editors. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from TruthCrusader User:TruthCrusader

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

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

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

Statement from Kelly Martin

I've recused myself from this case because I've had prior experience with this troll that renders me basically unable to be objective. DickWitham, aka hundreds if not thousands of other user names, originally DickNWitham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), started out his posting career on Wikipedia by calling Chad Bryant "disturbing" [107]. At the time, Chadbryant was not even editing Wikipedia, at least not under that name. Ever since, he has engaged in sporadic intense bouts of sockpuppetry, creating dozens if not hundreds of socks in each episode, totally possibly thousands of sockpuppets overall, all for the purpose of malinging Chad Bryant. Chad "draws it in" by maintaining the FAQ he does (in his own webspace), but I've seen no indication that Chad's contributions to Wikipedia are anything other than good faith, and in general his actions improve the encyclopedia. The difficulty in dealing with this individual is that he uses BellSouth with their floating IPs. He knows that, and relishes in it. Sanctioning Chad in this case serves no purpose; sanctioning DickWitham (or Alex Cain, or whatever his real name is) is technically impossible. There's no good solution here. At most, ban the sockpuppeter for life, and admonish Chad to let others deal with the idiot and not react to him. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been tracking these socks too and concur on the pattern of IPs and behaviour. The pattern is that if it's targeting Chadbryant (edits or user pages) in a certain way and is from certain IP ranges, it's the troll in question. Chad has blown his top on occasion, but he's got a seriously persistent troll who just won't stop stalking him, so it's unsurprising. I'm not sure this is an arbitration matter so much as a clear shoot-on-sight troll, though clear identification needs someone with checkuser doing the spotting and shooting - David Gerard 01:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

User: DrBat -- continuing breaches of previous ArbCom ruling

Involved parties

Sockpuppets previously confirmed by ArbCom members:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Yes [108]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Yes - see statement below.

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

Statement by FT2

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

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

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

  • Ciz has engaged in controversial edits of Zoophilia against consensus. (8-0)
  • Ciz has engaged in personal attacks on editors of Zoophilia. (8-0)
  • Ciz has made no civil attempt to discuss changes with Zoophilia with editors there. (6-0)
  • Ciz edits under another account, DrBat, that he does not wish associated with zoophilia topics. This does not in itself constitute creating a sock puppet for an abusive purpose. (8-0)
  • DrBat is an upstanding member of the community, and has made numerous legitimate contributions. (6-0)
  • Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) is prevented indefinitely from editing Zoophilia and its closely related articles, including their talk pages.
  • "He has made many good edits with his other account. Thus we are not throwing the book at him this time" [Emphasis in original, ArbCom talk] [109]

Ciz ceased editing Zoophilia at that point.

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

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

I asked user:Kelly Martin to check whether ShadowH was a sockpuppet of DrBat, which seemed likely. She confirmed that "DrBat and ShadowH are the same person, with a very high degree of certainty" [110]

DrBat's first actions under the "ShadowH" name were 1/ edit an article referencing zoophilia to replace it by "bestiality" [111], 2/ to post a Requested Move to "bestiality" [112] [113], 3/ repost his old allegations that the term "zoophile" is POV and that zoophiles "rape" animals and are like pedophiles [114] [115] [116] (all similar to previous approaches)

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

  • An attempt to abuse process (previously he had abused VfD and other processes, this time requested moves)
  • Unsourced statements ("More people associate..." [117], "Many view..." [118])
  • Weasels ("Some could argue..." [119])
  • Personal view as basis for editing ("I find it offensive..." [120], "To associate a group of people enslaved and persecuted for hundreds of years, to a group of people who are unpopular for raping animals, is deeply offensive to me" [121])
  • Straw men (A comment that many groups, such as Black Americans, find certain terms POV, was replied by DrBat: "As an African American, I find it offensive to be compared to bestiality" (there was no comparison of people or groups, but only of their views on perceived POV terminology) [122]. A careful re-explanation of this [123] was completely ignored (as in 2004) and replied to with: "So you're comparing the persecution of African Americans to people who believe having sex with animals is abuse" [124])
  • "Zoophilia is equivalent to pedophilia" ("And I am sure pedophiles find the term pedophlia insulting and would prefer something more npov such as boylove instead?" [125]. In fact the article uses the term zoophilia for the same reason as pedophilia; both are the appropriate clinical terms)

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

I was satisfied that a situation had been defuzed the simplest way. Explanation to Kelly Martin why I was not approaching AER or RFArb *this time* [126], Post to "ShadowH" on article talk page [127], posts archived in Talk:Zoophilia/Archive15.

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

Just two weeks after the above, on Dec 5, DrBat began POV warring on zoophilia yet again, this time in other articles. He edited without consensus the South Park article "recurring themes" section, to delete the fully sourced and cited section discussing zoophilia as a recurrent theme. [128]. This is in addition to his edit of Savage Love on Nov 9 [129] as ShadowH changing "zoophilia" to "bestiality" (c.f. text of his Requested Move).

(4) UPDATE

...And deletes again the cited South Park section, after reading and responding to this RFArb, again without consensus. [130]

(5) Fairness and neutrality:

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

SUMMARY:

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

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

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

Statement by DrBat

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

UPDATE
...And deletes again the cited South Park section, after reading and responding to this RFArb, again without consensus. [131]
The above "2)" still applies. --DrBat 13:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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


Sortan

Involved parties

Sortan (talk · contribs)

User:jguk

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Sortan informed of case against him

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

Statement by jguk

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

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

Statement by Sortan

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

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

Jguk is apparently claiming that my reverting him here [[132]] (where he changes start of the Common Era to 1 BC, and which is against his arbitration case and for which he received a block (see WP:ANI#Jon_Garrett_removing_references_to_Common_Era)), constitutes "harassment" and "stalking".

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

Addendum:

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

Addendum 2:

Perhaps David Gerard could enlighten me how my "trolling" jguk caused him to make these edits: [133], [134]?

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

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

Requests for Clarification

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

Netoholic

I would like to discuss my status with respect to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2.

The mentorship agreement specified that users Raul654, Kim Bruning and Grunt would act as my mentors. It said also "If the mentors think it is working, they can lessen or end their supervision of Netoholic's editing. If they consider it has failed — at the six month review or at any earlier time — the namespace and revert restriction in remedy 2 will take effect."

Over time, all three of my mentors ended their supervision for various reasons. On June 28th, Kim Bruning stepped aside as my mentor. Grunt became inactive as of July 5. On July 19th, Raul654 resigned recommending an alternate "probation" approach.

What I'd like confirmation is whether these resignations fulfilled the "end their supervision" clause. In the above linked resignations, neither Kim or Raul654 indicated that the mentorship failed, but mentioned leaving for personal reasons or because of the way the mentorship arrangement was designed. That arrangement was flawed because the community was asked to bring up concerns with the mentors directly. This meant that even minor disagreements were propogated to three different talk pages, which lead to a lot of stress.

In short, I'd like to ask to be relieved of any Arbitration edit restrictions presently in place. -- Netoholic @ 18:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree strongly that Netoholic should not be, at this point, under as draconian a set of restrictions as he currently is - particularly the template restrictions, where I think he's a needed force for pointing out that consensus does not get to override the developers saying "Please don't do this," I would caution on the other hand that edits such as [140] do make me worry that some of the incivility problems have not corrected themselves. On the other hand, that Netoholic's behavior has in general improved while under parole seems clear, and it may be that the remaining issues can only be fixed through experience. So I, at least, offer my tepid support of this. Which, considering my history with this conflict, probably actually still counts for a lot. :) Phil Sandifer 18:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bogdanov Affair question

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

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

Motion to extend ban to talk page

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Regarding_The_Bogdanov_Affair#Ban_on_editing_Bogdanov_Affair is extended to include the talk page of the article.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Archives
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=31872081"