(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 20:34, 23 December 2005 (→‎[[User:Robert I]] + anonymous user(s): Accepted). 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

Freestylefrappe

Involved parties

Freestylefrappe has misused his administrator powers, threatened to use his administrator powers in efforts to intimidate other users, and behaved in violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:BITE. He treats with contempt the attempts of others to explain Wikipedia policy, the role of Wikipedia administrators, or the problems of his own actions.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Users identified as part of the case by SCZenz: [1], [2], [3]
  • Users identified as part of the case by Freestylefrappe:
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Attempts to discuss these issues: [4], [5], [6]

See also: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Freestylefrappe, where he continued to make inappropriate comments

Statement by SCZenz

This case is necessary because I, and several other administrators, believe that Freestylefrappe has exhibited a pattern of actions inappropriate for a Wikipedia administrator. There is currently an RfC on the subject, but it is quite muddled at this point, and has been treated with contempt by Freestylefrappe. I finally became convinced that continuing the RfC process was useless when, after I made a suggestion that he take the RfC as constructive criticism rather than Wikilawyering [7], he responded with an inappropriate (not to mention rude) use of a vandalism template [8].

Problems I see with Freestylefrappe's conduct include:

  • Biting the newbies by blocking new user without warning [9], even though that user had been trying to make constructive edits - see Special:Contributions/Stephenj
  • Misrepresentation of policy and disinterest in following it [10], [11] (note incomplete quote), [12]
  • Assumptions of bad faith [13]
  • Removing comments from talk page with rude remark [14], and putting up a generally hostile notice afterwards [15]
  • Threatening to refactor his own RfC [16] and block other users involved in it [17]
  • Actually removing a Wikipedia policy from his own RfC [18]
  • Other threats with his admin powers, and assertion of the right to use them in conflicts he's involved in [19]

Since Freestylefrappe is unwilling to consider the comments made on his RfC [20], it's either ArbCom or dropping the matter completely. I think Wikipedia administrators should be held to a high standard, and Freestylefrappe's recent behavior falls far short of that. If he has no interest in listening to the comments of others, some other action has to be taken.

Comment on Freestylefrappe's modification of the case

I would like to object to Freestylefrappe's efforts to make this case about the edit conflict in Kumanovo. I have no beef with his actions as an editor; this complaint is with his behavior as an administrator (and his inability to separate it from his actions as an editor). Leaving off his 3RR violation was deliberate; I think the problems started afterward.

Statement by Freestylefrappe

I'll add more to this later, but right off the bat, I'm really getting tired of the harassment by users like SCZenz, BunchofGrapes, Karmafist, Redwolf, etc. I freely admit I dont take my RFC seriously at all. My RFA voting style is listed as an "outside view" on a meaningless dispute I had with a sockpuppet wielding vandal. All that the RFC is, is a bunch of users I annoyed 'cause I voted against their/their friends RFAs. I was blocked and accused of violating 3RR by Karmafist - which curiously is not listed as one of the policies I broke here - after I reverted what was clearly vandalism. This entire "dispute" is utter nonsense. freestylefrappe 17:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All parties are not aware of this...or maybe they are..I'm not sure...they have a tendency to talk behind my back on obsure pages. freestylefrappe 18:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Time to disect the above mischaracterization.
  • If you click on [9] you'll see why I blocked StephenJ-which was a short block-and if he really was being constructive-which I seriously doubt, he could have contacted me through email and I would have unblocked him.
  • Number [10] is my opinion and since I rarely block anyone (maybe 20 or so anonymous users usually with short blocks since I've become an admin) you really need to get off my back about it
  • Number [11] is a quote from Wikipedia policy that I have discussed at length with Flcelloguy so I hardly see your point
  • Number [12] is once again my opinion whether you like it or not
  • Number [13] is number [12] again...perhaps you posted the wrong diff?
  • Number [14]....hahahah..SCZenz...please review Wikipedia policy...its not me who's embarassed by this diff and accusation
  • Number [15] was quite humorous and technically doesn't violate any Wikipedia policy
  • Figuring out the accusation associated with number [16] is a conundrum for me...perhaps he once again posted the wrong diff..?..:)
  • Number [17] pointed out that SCZenz violated WP:CIVIL. Then I explained how RFCs worked...I assumed good faith here though now I realize he was just violating policy. I believe later on he called that policy something along the lines of "laughable."
  • Number [18] was reverting a personal attack against me.
  • As for number 19...You all seem to still be in this fantasy land in which reverting is the only tactic I could have used to get the page version I wanted. Has it occured to any of you that I could have just protected the page after the first edit by Bitola? Why dont you just concede the block was wrong? By the way, Glenn, as noble a statement as that may be, its not a user's responsibility to go back and see if another user modified an RFC. So I really should revert all edits on the RFC to my last version. Ill refrain though. Its a testament to your misunderstanding of how an RFC and an Request for Arbitration works. freestylefrappe 18:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Response to subsection recently added by SCZenz

The problems did not start after the Kumanovo incident. This whole dispute was going on long before the Kumanovo reversions. What SCZenz doesnt seem to understand is that its not that I'm not open to constructive criticism and other administrators helpful suggestions. I just dont want to listen to him... or Karmafist...or BunchofGrapes....freestylefrappe 18:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response to "modification", Karmafist, and Locke Cole

My modification came after yours. Yet another example of trying to misportray events.

"I stopped updating FSF's rfc awhile ago in the hope that he'd realize that he's his own worst enemy in this. Apparently he hasn't."

Actually SCZenz hasnt. I'm still trying to combat the erroneous statements on various talkpages.

"At this point, I don't think any of the admins care about his content in regards to Kumanovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which have been fine"

In other words popular opinion is against your block and you want to dismiss the whole affair?

"He did violate 3RR awhile back"

No I did not. This lie was previously dissected on the administrator's noticeboard so why are you still chanting it?

"FSF is fine when he's isolated from everybody else"

I'm quite active on both the Islam and Judaism guilds so you're somewhat mistaken in that regard. I'm one of the few editors (probably the only one who's involved in both guilds) who hasnt been involved in some sort of content dispute in regards to Islam and Judaism in the modern world.

"I think the best solution for FSF is no WP:RFA (his votes are Boothy-esque to say the least)"

Okay...even suggesting this is grounds to have Karmafist lose all blocking privileges indefinitely.

"no Kumanovo (he has serious Ownership issues there)"

Fine! I dont care about Kumanovo. I'm not Macedonian. For the last time-this dispute had nothing to do with the content.

"and no talk pages other than his own for a certain period of time."

???

In regards to Locke Cole...if it truly bugs you then feel free to remove your name, but refrain from removing anyone else's. freestylefrappe 19:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Karmafist

I stopped updating FSF's rfc awhile ago in the hope that he'd realize that he's his own worst enemy in this. Apparently he hasn't.
At this point, I don't think any of the admins care about his content in regards to Kumanovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which have been fine, but rather the way he has acted towards others in regards to that article and the following Rfc regarding him. He did violate 3RR awhile back, but as SCSenz said, that was piddling compared to what came afterwards, and ultimately it's a tragic case because unlike many of the cases you see where the defenders are just habitual trolls contributing nothing to the project, FSF is fine when he's isolated from everybody else. I think the best solution for FSF is no WP:RFA (his votes are Boothy-esque to say the least), no Kumanovo (he has serious Ownership issues there) and no talk pages other than his own for a certain period of time. karmafist 18:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Locke Cole

Other than endorsing views on his RfC, my involvement with this has been minimal. I do not believe it's appropriate for FSF to bring in everyone that was even remotely involved with his RfC, and I believe it is an attempt to divert the ArbCom from the real issues presented here. —Locke Cole 19:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bunchofgrapes

Freestylefrappe

  • Calls many things "vandalism" which were not inarguably bad faith. (Example from this very RfA: [21])
  • Apparently stands by his opinion that blocking people who commit what he calls vandalism is appropriate without warning or discussion. ("Number [12]" in this diff, referring to this comment.)
  • Behaves petulantly and aggressively when attempts are made to discuss how administrators should best act. See almost any diff above.

I have also been accused of harassment in this matter, and I think SCZenz and karmafist have been accused of similar; I believe this is completely unfounded, and ask for evidence demonstrating this. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Phroziac and karmafist

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

All above named parties have been notified. I guarantee it. r b-j 05:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phroziac[23], Karmafist[24], NicholasTurnbull[25], Rchamberlain[26]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
 (If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)

I do not know what else to do when I let Phroziac "win" and elected not to take her up on her challenge to "WP:RFAr --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 23:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)" yet 3 hours later i get this: "==Harrassing Phroziac== Phroziac said you've been harrassing her. Stop it. You can disagree with her if you like, but you will be civil to other users. karmafist 02:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)" from karmafist.[reply]

What do these people want? For me to commit Hari-Kari for the sin of questioning their judgement? For not capitulating to their judgement? For telling Phroziac (repectfully but uncompromisingly) that she was wrong? For walking away from this?

Statement by User:Rbj

This began a couple of days ago when I began to notice some bad edits made in very high quantity by Rchamberlain (notably regarding references to the Roman Catholic Church) On December 19 I left a friendly worded note ( "please be more careful with your editing") in which Rchamberlain's response was to blank it and ignore it (I think the meaning of that is clear). So I reverted the blanking (to make sure he understood that there is a complaint he should at least pay some attention to), and he again blanked it. This was repeated a couple more times until I finally got his attention and he left at my talk page the note [27] in which he said: what the hell is your problem? got a hardon for me or something? once there's something worth leaving on my talk page i'll do it... until then stop vandalising my fucking talk page. Rchamberlain 03:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was not vandalizing his page. One could argue he was vandalizing his own talk page and was certainly insulting anyone leaving a comment by his blanking. On Talk_page#Etiquette, it says that "Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings." Nonetheless, I reverted the critique and added another asking him to choose between being a jerk or dealing with this "i was trying to be polite" because it was pretty obvious asking nice was not getting through to him.

On December 22, I reverted his page blanking a total of 4 times and, evidently Rchamberlain went crying to some admin (I could not find a record of this on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or any other page, so I do not know precisely how this was done) and just before I was going to get an admin to talk to this obviously closed-minded and POV editor, Phroziac blocked me, for no defined time, for no reason communicated to me (as the history of my talk page will tell). She did not come to me (via any form of communication) in advance to inquire what was going on. She did not come to me with a complaint about what I had done. No warning. No nothing. Suddenly I was blocked from Wikipedia with no explanation. When I figured out who did it (it's not real clear) I asked why and when I was getting unblocked and there was no response.

Eventually after several attempts to communicate with someone, Phroziac emailed me a note ending with "I just didn't think about leaving a notice. Sorry." yet I was still blocked with no prospect of being unblocked. So, for the first time since September 2004, when I created account User:Rbj, I reset my DSL modem (to get a different IP) and I went to NicholasTurnbull (whom I've known and respected from the infamous Bogdanov Affair) page as an anonymous IP (I know I'm not supposed to do that when I'm blocked, but I still maintain that this block was a bad rap), and asked for help. Reasonably soon, I was unblocked and I confronted Phroziac regarding her reasons and justification for:

  • Blocking me without first contacting me about the problem.
  • Blocking me without first warning me about such a block impending.
  • Not bothering to look into the root of the issue (did Rchamberlain have a legit case? was I continuing to "edit war" with him, if I was at all?)
  • Examining uncivil behavior of Rchamberlain. Examining his edit history and his deleted talk page history. What have people been saying to him and how has he reacted?
  • Showing a clear endorsement of Rchamberlain (she denies it) by summarily blocking me and doing nothing about Rchamberlain.
  • Expecting me to reduce her wikistress level, yet showing no concern for mine. Blocking a user is a very uncivil action and should be done only for the most necessary and justified reasons.

Her response was to flippantly say " Let's agree to disagree and turn our attention to improving Wikipedia in other ways. Cheers!"

I did not buy it and made it clear to her that I believed that she acted wrongly and she was just blowing me off. Her response was a simple curt taunt: "WP:RFAr --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 23:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

The meaning of that is clear and smug ("take it up with the ArbCom") and I had made no communication with her at all about it since. I did not respond to the taunt, I just walked away from it. But that was not good enough for Phroziac. Three hours later I get this message from karmafist: "==Harrassing Phroziac== Phroziac said you've been harrassing her. Stop it. You can disagree with her if you like, but you will be civil to other users. karmafist 02:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

Now who is being uncivil?? Can you guys leave it alone??? Can you admins try not to let your authority go to your heads? Must you demand that I capitulate to Phroziac, even though it's pretty clear she was too lazy to try to pick the correct target before shooting?

Karmafist, did you bother to look into this at all before you left your note telling me that I was harrassing her? Name one sentence, or word, where I was harrassing Phroziac. I hope you're not as lazy as her example before you start throwing your authority around. r b-j 05:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An addendum

Since being notified of this request for arbitration, karmafist has made a thinly veiled threat to block me (this, of course, is not "harrassment"):

You Should Continue Walking Away Then
Your most recent message shows that you don't understand how things work around here. I don't care whether you think whether you think someone is wrong or right, you will be nice to them. Period. I see you're a frequent USENET contributor, which apparently explains your rudeness. That's not the way things work around here. How it works is that users like you are nice to other users, or admins like me block you, repeatedly if necessary until you learn. I suggest you continue walking away from the prior situation and don't get into any future situations because now I and several other admins will be watching your contribs. karmafist 05:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

evidently, being frank is not being "nice", and admins like Karmafist are above reproach. r b-j 06:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another addendum

This is my last one. This and all others go unanswered. r b-j 06:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Fun
You're absolutely right, I am a bully, only a special kind of bully -- a bully to bullies like Dubya and yourself. You cannot intimidate me with claims of Nobel Prize Winners liking you or that you're the king of trolltown or you'll go cry to the Arbcom (since you don't seem to understand -- the arbcom is a group of good people shackled to the point of near uselessness by a broken system.) I find the arbcom one especially humorous since you couldn't hide behind their apronstrings even if they wanted you to, which is unlikely since they deal with rude trolls such as yourself all the time and they've become jaded to whining such as yours. Oh yeah, you really should check those arbcom motions before you use them as proof, the one your speaking of has about a whole slew of people both on the arbcom and respected elsewhere on here either understanding the reasoning behind my methodology or appluading me for having the guts to take on people such as yourself who try to intimidate others.
Oh, and speaking of the "smelling clean" in regards to the Bogdanov Affair, you're incorrect. For one, anyone who gets involved in an argument (an incivil debate, IME) has debased themselves to the lowest form of communication and must deal with that shame. I'm fortunate here since you seem to be arguing while I continue to be warning. Secondly, being a lesser troll than some of the biggest trolls in Wikipedia history isn't something to be particularly proud of. That article has been hit with the Wikipedia equivalent of a nuclear bomb in terms of credibility, and since you were involved in it extensively, you share the residue radiation just because you were associated with the dispute.
I don't care about your content dispute with Phroziac, I don't care about any content dispute that you might have. You'll be civil to others. That is not negotiable. I also suggest heading over to Esperanza, they may be able to cure you of your troll affliction. karmafist 06:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now comes the patronizing
Helping You Out
Now I see that your behavior might be more from inexperience rather than anything else, so here's some advice.
  1. The arbcom is too overloaded to listen to anything unless it's gone through the proper channels first or it's an emergency. Your thing is neither. I assumed last night that you were talking about the POTW case.
  2. The comment to Jimbo Wales is funny since I guess you've never heard of JamesMLane's Law. That probably helped me more than anything since whining to authorities rarely helps you, often it hurts you. However, since the arbcom selection procedure is still up in the air, your words there might have meant nothing at all.
Seriously, head over to Esperanza. I still think we can still cure you of your personality affliction rehabilitate you into the general community before it's too late. karmafist 17:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Phroziac

This started when Rchamberlain came to me on IRC and told me about the situation. I looked into it, and Rbj had an excessive amount of reverts on Rchamberlain's user talk page (4 in one day). Rchamberlain had been blanking his talk page of *all* comments, including a welcome message. I don't agree with that, but I really do not agree with edit warring over it either. I told Rchamberlain he shouldn't do this. I blocked Rbj for twenty-four hours, without notifying him on his talk page, or talking to him first.

Rbj emailed me, asking me to explain the block, and why I didn't tell him or talk to him first. I told him that it was not cool to revert war on another user's talk page. It's generally considered bad taste for the user to blank his talk page, but that doesn't give Rbj a right to start a nuclear war over it. I told him I did not think about giving him a message, and I was sorry.

My next email from him told me I was way outa line here and should remove the block. I told him I was not out of line, but that I would unblock if he agreed not to edit war on that page again. His next email tells me he's going to take me to arbcom as soon as he gets back on Wikipedia. This is the reason behind my talk page message; I would much rather he do something other than constantly complaining to me about it.

Blocking Rchamberlain would not have done anything. Blocking a user still allows them to edit their own talk page. Protection would be neccessary, and protecting a talk page in most cases is rediculous.

--Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC) (last edited 15:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by karmafist

Yawn. I figured Rbj meant the POTW reopening case, but I guess I gave him too much credit considering that the arbcom doesn't accept cases without going through the proper procedure. You shouldn't bother listening to rbj's whining, much like Pigsonthewing, he has a USENET mentality, basically just looking for conflict wherever he can find it. Phroziac told me he was harrassing her, I told him to stop, he tries to weasel his way out of that warning, ala Zen-master or Kmweber, and we have an fun little discussion.(Well, for him it was more of an arguement while for me it was more of a warning.)
If anymore Harrassment of Phroziac or anyone else occurs from Rbj, i'll open up an rfc in the next week or so, I'll keep you all informed. karmafist 17:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Threats to report anonymous user to his (government) employer by AustinKnight

 AustinKnight
Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time which may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery. Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales of what they have done and why. [28]Cognos 18:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

anonymous user at 208.27.111.121 (talk · contribs) and AustinKnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were involved in a small-scale edit war on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_surveillance_without_warrants_controversy. User AustinKnight traced anonymous user's IP address to a physical location and made veiled threat on the article's talk page [29] to report anonymous user to his employer (the U.S. government) for abuse of government resources:

Also, if you are a U.S. gov't employee (as indicated by your IP address as being at a U.S. court in Washington, D.C.), I take great umbrage over that fact that you are editing Wikipedia on the taxpayer's nickel. Whom should such abuse be reported to...? Never mind...I'll sort that out handily. --AustinKnight 17:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Anonymous user told AustinKnight that he was reporting the matter to arbitration on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AustinKnight

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I raised this issue on the user's talk page, his response was to reiterate the threat, indirectly:

Your threats were totally out of line, and you know it. That was pure thuggery. How do you know what my job responsibilities are, or if my wikipedia work isn't consistent with my employer's internet policies? It doesn't, BTW. (anonymous entry by 208.27.111.121)
LOL. Only a lawyer would refer to my comments regarding the exposure of fraud, waste & abuse as a "threat." Grow up. --AustinKnight 17:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
What waste of resources? Is the government running short of bandwidth? Is there something on my desk for me to do right now - or perhaps not? Only a wannabee lawyer would call that "fraud". Get a copy of Black's legal dictionary and learn the elements first, player. (anon entry by 208.27.111.121)
The U.S. government has a categorization called "fraud, waste and abuse." It's a collective term...perhaps one you'll grow familiar with. Cheers, --AustinKnight 17:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


I do not think that mediation would be an appropriate response to such an extreme personal attack, and I think this is totally inconsistent with the spirit of wikipedia, and thus deserving of a ban or probation as a direct result of a RfA. 208.27.111.121 21:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I would like to personally chime in here endorsing this summary from the anon. Please view AustinKnight's current talk page. He has been approached by two editors (coincidently, both are from Australia). Here is the response we have both received:
Perhaps I have not been flippant enough. You apparently don't get it, so let me make it more clear albeit with less humor: I don't care what you, random person from Australia, thinks on this topic. At all. Nor should I. Moreover, I think that it is repugnant that a taxpayer-insulting employee of the U.S. federal government is able to turn what amounts to a "whistle-blowing" event (against her abuses) into some kind of Wiki-martyrdom, at least amongst the anti-U.S. wiki-forces that she is a subset of. That's idiotic, and ludicrous...but expected from the anti-government ilk. No one has threatened her employment except herself, and every honest person knows that. --AustinKnight 13:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
P.S. One can only be "flippant" toward a superior, and you have no such relationship to me. I simply don't buy into your self-aggrandizing fabrications re. the Wiki-social structure...nor should I. --AustinKnight 13:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I feel that the ArbCom should at least accept this case to investigate further. It's very rare that I see such intimidation on this website. Totally out of control, IMO. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly see why the arbcom needs to get involved here beyond nodding their heads and saying that, yes, this does qualify as a personal attack that puts users in danger, which is good for an insta-ban. Phil Sandifer 06:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, he wasn't putting him in personal danger... he was just threatening to make life difficult for the anon. I didn't think that admins could block on this fact alone... maybe things have chagned without me noticing. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on how you interpret danger I suppose. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 208.27.111.121 17:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I will decline to make a statement, the facts speak for themselves. 208.27.111.121 17:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ta bu shi da yu 15:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I am extremely concerned with this development. Since when did we "report" people to the government? I have not heard anything back from AustinKnight. I would at the very least like to see an apology and an undertaking that he won't be doing this. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Willmcw 16:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I am also concerned about this behavior. The initial threat appears to have seriously violated WP:NPA and Wikipedia:Harassment. The editors has made rude and dismissive responses to those who've tried to resolve the situation. -Willmcw 16:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Andjam 09:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I added to AustinKnight's talk page another piece of wikipedia policy (WP:NPA) that I considered relevant to the dispute (as AustinKnight disputed the relevancy of "No legal threats"), after seeing the dispute listed on this page. The fact that Ta bu shi da yu and I are Aussies is coincidental: I took an interest in this page after a complaint was lodged against SlimVirgin. Andjam 09:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cool Cat 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of any details legal threats are completely unnaceptable. We are a community that focus on encyclopedia writing, threatening each other and possibly causing legal penalties will only achieve to distract us from our encyclopedia writing effort. --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AustinKnight

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/5/0/0)

  1. Reject - you don't need us for this. Threats are not allowed. Warn first then block if it ever happens again. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Reject - Admins can deal with this, doesn't need our time. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Reject - As per Theresa Knott. Jayjg (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Accept, a warning is ridiculously lame Fred Bauder 15:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Then admins can just block. What do we need to get involved for? It looks pretty cut and dry to me. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Reject per Theresa. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Reject per Theresa. Raul654 20:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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]

Addendum: I see User:Fred Bauder's comment that he would like to see Mcfly85 and his sock puppets blocked indefinitely. Obviously, the ArbCom has the power to do what it believes is right, but I (as I explained to Mcfly85 on my talk page) do not want to see this. I think he can become a productive editor, and he has made productive edits before. --Nlu (talk) 02:10, 19 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 [30]), User:Mcfly85 is a confirmed sockpuppeteer. He voted against SWD316 multiple times with the puppets during SWD316's second RfA attempt (see [31]) 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 (3/4/0/0)


Deeceevoice

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

on deeceevoice's talk page (she has now removed this) [33]

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... [34]
...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. [35]

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. [36]
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) [37] [38]

From conversation with User:Matt Crypto:

Do you really think I give a flying ****? [39].

(With edit comments of "pathetic" [40] and "Deleted annoying clutter from MY talk page" [41])

To get beneath the 500-word limit, I'll leave out the other quotes that can be found on the RfC page. [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]. [53] [54]

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.[55]

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]


As a final note on how I believe that Justforasecond is harassing Deeceevoice, I refer to this instance [56] 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]

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]


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]

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]

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]

About RobChurch's statement

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]

NOTE: RobChurch has removed it again after an admin restored it. Someone should restore it -- regardless of what he's written since. It was submitted as part of the RfA, and as such, it should be preserved as an important part of the record. People have a right to know and to understand what is being discussed here. deeceevoice 21:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Because this time, rather than deleting the document, RobChurch merely edited it the relevant passages, I -- a lowly peon with no admin or sysop capabilities :p -- was able to retrieve it. Because Church likely simply will delete it again if I restore it, I've decided to reproduce it below.deeceevoice 10:03, 19 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]

What follows below, bounded by the two horizontal lines, is Church's initial statement which he repeatedly has deleted, as explained above.

Deeceevoice is from apparently African-American descent. I'll state that now, because you'd better not ever forget it; she doesn't ever let it drop. I'm afraid what I have a problem with is her unrelentingly inappropriate style of putting people down. If I started guessing at people's ethnicities, then making rather snide remarks based on them, I think I'd be disposed of quite quickly. She seems to believe that demeaning people as "whities" is acceptable, and will make her comments seem more casual and less irritating. Wrong.

I'm without doubt that some put-down or brush-off to this particular view is coming; I'd stake a hefty sum on it. I'd stake a similarly hefty sum on that it will be offensive, and that it will attempt to nullify my opinions and views as "unsuitable" or "ill-informed."

I blocked User:Deeceevoice about a month ago for violating the three-revert rule. Now, people know I'm quite lenient on that one; I'll block pretty heavily for it, but if people email and explain themselves, I'm quite often inclined to unblock; provided they're trying to improve the quality of the encyclopedia, I don't mind too much.

User:Deeceevoice sent me an email which "screeched" that I was obviously blocking her with pure bias in mind; that I was a vicious sadistic character who despised her, etc. etc. - I'd not even heard of her prior to that event.

I'm afraid it is not acceptable

  • For Deeceevoice to make clearly derogatory remarks about people all over the place
  • To remove people's polite comments from her talk page while leaving appallingly bad-faith edit summaries
  • To brush off all complaints by us "whities" as being of no merit, as we can't possibly understand what "her kind" have been through, and can't possibly be anything but biased and racist

I really couldn't give a shit about what she's going to write under this. I simply urge ArbCom to accept this case, to consider that we have always disposed ourselves of people who have hindered more than helped us, and I hope they will give her the dressing down she actually deserves. She can't go on thinking that she's helping us - even if she is - while leaving a trail of social destruction in her wake. That is not how wikis work, and if ArbCom begin imposing one rule for one, one for another, then I for one will consider all hope at recovering Wikipedia to its core goals lost.

Another apparently biased whitey, Rob Church

Note: Since these things always end up being about evidence, here's mine. Visit [57]. View the edit history.

(end of initial statement by RobChurch)

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

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

and User_talk:Deeceevoice#YOU_LIKE_COCK_8.3D.3D.3D.3D.3D.3D.3D.3D.3D.3DD_---_-_-_-_-

Sam Spade 02:46, 20 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]

SS has just now (following two deletions of my comment above) has deleted his earlier comment. In the interests of coherence, I am reproducing it here: 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) El_C 02:13, 21 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]

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" [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] , but then insisted to include the very same picture into the Cultural appropriation article to illustrate the pejorative term "Trustafari" [63] [64] [65] [66] [67]. CoYep 10:55, 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" [68], the size of asians testicles [69], her distaste at pink flesh [70], and ignorant-by-default white folks [71]. 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]

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. [72] 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 [73]

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.[74] 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)[75] Pharlap 22:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rob Church

I am withdrawing what I will freely admit to being absolutely disgusting and unacceptable comments from this RfAr. Please read the full reasoning at User:Robchurch/deeceevoice.

I'm guilty of everything I blamed Deeceevoice of, and I recognise that, community-wise, I'm not much use here. Wikipedia has no place for my like, and so I'm retiring to develop.

Apologies, profuse and unceasing, to all...Rob Church Talk 19:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zoe

My one and only dealing with deeceevoice was not pleasant, as documented above. I will not be working with her in the future unless I have to. I have never been involved with her in any edits, so I cannot comment on her editing behavior. However, I am offended that an article in my Talk space and my discussions with her were added as evidence without anyone letting me know they were here that I might discuss them myself. Zoe (216.234.130.130 19:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]


Statement by Zaphnthpaaneah

It's amazing that when people make condescending remarks to DeeCeeVoice and then she responds bluntly to it, we find ourselves here, having perhaps the LONGEST RFA page in the entire history of Wikipedia RFA. How much vandalism has she endured and how much of her responses have been to nip in the bud sneaky attempts to maintain or establish a anti-black POV. For example, she mentions how "Kike" is not given the same lengthy detail and association to Jews as Nigger is given to black people. Therefore those that argue for maintaining a literary or social/cultural link between a racial slur and an ethnic group should not be surprised if a memeber of that group becomes irate. Can you imagine DeeCeeVoice going to a Jewish page and trying to push the same "logic" and meeting resistance from Jewish contributors? Can you then imagine her insisting on her ignorant position that "Kike" should have the same treatment as "nigger" has done? No, I do not think the angry protests from Jewish contributors would be seriously taken as RFCs. These experiences she endurs are obvious. I am starting to get some of the same foolishness. Don't tell me that "nigger" is a real legitimate racial description of a black person. Don't tell me that an IQ test should be put into the black people article. Otherwise you will get some of the same responses that DeeCeeVoice has given some of the "victims" here. So hopefully these examples illustrate the obvious bias. There is a credibility and quality problem in Wikipedia in dealing with articles related to black people. It is something that is extremely frustrating for her I imagine. Who knows how many times she overreacted. She hasn't posted unilaterally and she certainly doesn't seem to be the type that uses circular reasoning as justification for her posts. --Zaphnathpaaneah 23:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that has my attention is the seemingly objective point that DeeCeeVoice is unnecessarily offensive in her responses. Ok. Why is then there is also this issue with people deleting part of her comments, and then presenting an abridged and edited version of events, where she then has to come in here and correct. In otherwords she has to restore omissions that would otherwise vindicate her??? --Zaphnathpaaneah 00:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

Motion for Holiday Hiatus

I'm going away for the holidays, as I expect many others are. I'd like to put this into suspended animation until mid-to-late January.

-Justforasecond 17:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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
  • Comment: I am not an involved party, but I would like to note that Firebug relisted the Gay Nigger Association of America article for the 8th time. This was speedy kept. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not sure of the relevance of this. My nomination was made in good faith, and indeed a significant number of individuals agreed with me on the issue (the consensus was leaning towards delete at the time of closure). Furthermore, I have subsequently attempted to discuss and propose policies (see WP:GNAA) that would formulate specific rules on whether and how often repeat AFD nominations can take place. Firebug 04:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[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: [76] 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. [77]

--

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 ***." [78]. I politely asked him to refrain [79]; he responded "He had it coming" [80]. 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 [81]. He incorporates gross incivility into edit summaries [82] [83] [84].

[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: [85]

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 (4/0/0/0)

Requests for Clarification

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

Clarification of Everyking 3

Everyking is currently arguing that his parole banning him from making comments on non-editorial actions does not actually contain any provision for enforcement, and thus there is no way to block him for doing so.

Since Everyking has also developed a strange habit of showing up on many pages I edit and to weigh in on whether situations are abusive in a wide variety of contexts, and has taken to badgering me every time he does not feel like he gets a response to one of his trolling questions in what he considers a timely manner, I request that the remedy be rethought somewhat - an explicit mechanism for blocks to be spelled out, certainly, and possibly an extension of the parole to include all cases of badgering or, as JImbo so eloquently put it, carping? Phil Sandifer 06:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All Arbitration paroles are de facto enforceable via blocks imposed as necessary by non-involved administrators. Neutralitytalk 06:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Raul654 18:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of apparent ArbCom decision to indefinitely ban User:Poetlister as suspected sock puppet of User:RachelBrown

This is a message to the ArbCom team.

I have been advised that User:Poetlister was indefinitely banned because of being a suspected sock puppet of User:RachelBrown, which apparently was done because of a ruling by the Arbitration Committee. I asked to be directed to where this has happened, and no answer was given (in 6 hours). I have searched your archives and cannot find the existence of an arbitration against Poetlister, nor can I find any administrative notes regarding the lead up to this ban. Please can you direct me towards where this has happened.

The claim is that Poetlister and RachelBrown both voted in the same manner on up to 5 AFDs, and that this may have influenced closing admins. However, AFD is not a vote, so I do not see how this can be a bannable offence, even if they were the same person. If they were, they would be guilty of sock puppetry, which is bad, but surely not something which can be punished by an indefinite ban.

Secondly, RachelBrown last used Wikipedia on 10 December 2005, the last major contribution being 3 December 2005, yet Poetlister was banned on 22 December 2005, fully 2 weeks after RachelBrown last edited. As such, a claim of sock puppetry seems to be theoretically impossible, unless it is a historical case, as RachelBrown has not even edited anything for 2 weeks (3 weeks since any major edits). Thus, if there were any evidence of sock puppetry, it could only have happened prior to this.

Thirdly, RachelBrown, Poetlister and a 3rd user had lodged complaints with regards to the actions of Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, with support from SlimVirgin with regards to their editing of List of Jewish jurists, specifically that Lulu had violated 3RR, had spuriously added tags, had wiped useful content, had wrongly ignored evidence of claims and claimed WP:V violations on cited sources, and removed lists. At one point, Lulu deleted names from the list of people who were "Judge of the Supreme Court of Israel" claiming that there was no evidence that they were Jewish. Lulu also deleted names of people who were listed in the "Jewish Year Book", stating that if its not on the internet its not evidence, in spite of quotes and ISBN numbers given. Generally, Lulu failed to adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE and may have engaged in WP:No personal attacks against these users.

This case was at the stage of mediation, and Lulu refused mediation, meaning that it would then go forward to a Request for Comment, and may have ended up in the Arbitration Committee. In effect, it was already at the RfC stage, although this had not been formalised.

The blocking could be seen as a deliberate disruption of due process, and it needs to be explained in full, especially because of the nature of the behaviour of Lulu et al in relation to this. I note an existing ArbCom surrounding User:SlimVirgin, and this could potentially be added to that in some way. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who Zordrac is, but I'm almost certain that s/he has a closer connection to RachelBrown/Poetlister than s/he is stating. Zordrac has taken in the last day to writing all over user talk pages scurrilous things about me, even though I've never interacted with this user (under this name) before. Just for the record:
Basically, every single thing claimed by Zordrac is false. By his own description, he's acting as a meatpuppet for Poetlister, at this point, so I guess that probably speaks to motives.
  • I most certainly did not, at any point, violate 3RR on List of Jewish jurists. FWIW, I don't think RachelBrown/Poetlister did either (though I suppose if they are really sockpuppets, that might do it).
  • I did not remove any listed name because Jewish Year Book is not a reliable source (even though it is probably not a reliable source). I removed some names, however, because no source whatsoever was provided (within the article namespace), including Jewish Year Book. Thankfully, Jayjg eventually fixed this lacuna by adding footnotes to JYB next to some of the names; I never removed any name so cited.
  • Obviously, I never claimed that a Supreme Court Justice of Israel was not Jewish. I questioned whether a figure who did not apparently merit a WP article was notable (and asked why that particular justice, but not the dozens/hundreds of others who have served on that court).
  • Clearly, RachelBrown/Poetlister were not new users when they started the "add names to Jewish lists" crusade. So biting newcomers is irrelevant.
  • I also did not add the "disputed" tags to the page in question, that was RachelBrown/Poetlister. If anything, I argued that the more limited "accuracy" tag should be used rather than the "totallydisputed" tag.
  • Elsewhere, Zordrac claims that Poetlister would have written an RfC one hour later if she had not been blocked. It's certainly a peculiarly detailed insight for an uninvolved editor to have about Poetlister's alleged plans.
  • Zordrac/Poetlister/RachelBrown seem to subscribe to a silly idea that I am in some cabal to orchestrate a block. I had no idea a block was discussed or placed prior to being informed of such on my user talk page.
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this was a request for clarification directed to Arbitration Committee members, not to Lulu, who is not an arbitration member and hence is not someone whose input is welcome.

I have never met Poetlister or had any contact with any of the persons involved, and, as has been stated and proven elsewhere, my involvement was that I received an e-mail from Poetlister asking for me to help her, as I had helped out many other newbies in distress over similar incidents.

Lulu has gone to many places making false claims about me, which I believe has contributed to this problem. I ask that her comments here be disregarded as this is purely a request for clarification towards ArbCom members, rather than being an invitation to personal attacks from Lulu. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zen-master again

Zen-master is on probation regarding all articles. Does that include pages in the Wikipedia namespace? The reason I'm asking is that he's recently been active in some (rather spurious) policy proposals. Radiant_>|< 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in hearing any evidence or argument Radiant can come up with that explains and justifies his labeling Peter's WP:0RR guideline or any other "policy" proposal I've "recently been active in" as being "spurious". I will also note the coincidence that Peter is unable to defend his guideline against charges of being "spurious" as he was just blocked for 24 hours for accusing Carbonite of being a "troll" because Carbonite initially moved the WP:0RR guideline to Peter's user namespace because of a header dispute (among other actions that are seemingly unbecomming of an admin and don't appear to have been done with an assumption of good faith in mind). Feel free to disagree with any guideline but please don't thwart its acceptance by others. zen master T 23:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master#Zen-master_placed_on_probation includes any page other than his own user and talk pages. Whether he is being disruptive is up to the determination of the banning administrator. Any ban should be logged and documented. Fred Bauder 23:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But some actual reasonable argument has to be attempted that explains specifically how I have, if ever, been "disruptive". Instead of repeating labels over and over again why don't you or someone get down to specifics? Please note WP:Probation policy: "A [probation] ban may be imposed only for good cause which shall be documented in a section set aside for that purpose in the arbitration case. Banning without good cause or in bad faith shall be grounds for censure, restriction, or removal of administrative access". At this point I interpret everytime I've been labeled as "disruptive" was and is some sort of misdirection ploy so people don't focus on numerous highly biased and biasing articles, with the most notable and nefarious example being race and intelligence. zen master T 01:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 [86] 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]
Netoholic and Snowspinner are actually working together. Holy goodness me! Net still needs to grasp the finer points of dealing with f*ckw diplomacy, but has come to both of us for help in these matters, with good productive effect. A strong caution about dealing gently with policy should remain - but he seems to be getting this point, which is excellent. We each have our strengths and weaknesses, after all ... - David Gerard 20:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please get some comments here? Netoholic has been tremendously helpful of late in dealing with the requirements of WP:AUM, but has had to do so flouting his parole and editing templates... which is unfortunate, and a situation that ought to be brought to an end. Phil Sandifer 06:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on Wiki-break for a while but one of the first things I checked when I got back was what Neto has been up to and I am pleased to see things have really turned around. I agree with David's proposal on this 100% and if I can assist in any way I would be happy to. --Wgfinley 20:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Motions to extend ban on Ciz editing

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz#Prevention_from_editing_Zoophilia is modified to:

Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) is prevented indefinitely from editing Zoophilia or any article or page which concerns zoophilia, including their talk pages. Whether an article or page concerns zoophilia shall be determined by the enforcing administrator.


Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz#Attempts_to_edit_Zoophilia is modified to:

If Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) edits Zoophilia, any page which relates to Zoophobia, or their talk pages, such changes made may be reverted by any editor and any administrator may, at his/her discretion, briefly block Ciz (up to a week in the case of repeat violations). After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz#User:_DrBat_--_continuing_breaches_of_previous_ArbCom_ruling

Motion to desysop Karmafist

Move to reopen Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing and desysop Karmafist (talk · contribs) based on inappropriate blocks of kmweber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) , see [87], Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Kurt and User_talk:Kmweber#Block_Notice.

[Support options split & comments copied/moved as appropriate. James F. (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)][reply]

Support reopening:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Concur. While we're there we should broaden the restrictions on POTW as well, possibly even ban him altogether. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree to reopen the case; do not agree to any foregone conclusions ➥the Epopt 19:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support reopening to consider all parties, but not necessarily this specific action. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I am willing to reopen Pigsonthewing, I am not willing at this stage to desysop Karmafist. He has twice indefinately blocked someone when a finite block was required? If he repeatedly redoes the indefinite block after other admins shoerten it then I will support a desysop. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:59, 21 Dec
Support desysoping:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Concur. While we're there we should broaden the restrictions on POTW as well, possibly even ban him altogether. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Reject. Karmafist said some things in the heat of the moment that shouldn't be held against him. He needs to ignore Kwebber and POTW and do something more productive and less frustrating, and leave someone else to handle those two. Arbitration, in this case, is not likely to produce a good result and would only exacerbate the situation. Raul654 20:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Reject for now - let's see if Karmafist calms down and Kmweber and POTW knock it off. If the behaviour continues for another day, then I'd support re-opening. Jayjg (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Emphatically reject. I strongly oppose desysopping Karmafist. ➥the Epopt 22:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I'm note sure; on the matter of reopening, I'm not opposed to it but am not entirely sure that it is needed. Certainly, I am with Epopt/Kat/Theresa in that I am not sure that karmafist needs desysoping (but I will, as always, keep an open mind). James F. (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

I'm not currently AC-active, but I want to say that this move to desysop Karmafist is premature. Kmweber has a history of driving otherwise calm people into an incandescent rage. Combine that with Pigsonthewing, who does the same thing deliberately, and I think very few of us would manage to keep our cool. Punishing Karmafist is not helpful IMO. Certainly please wait 24 hours for everyone to calm down a bit.

I've asked him to pretend Kurt doesn't exist from now on, and I think he will try to do so. See also the "Kurt" section on WP:ANI - I've unblocked Kmweber and asked other admins to keep blocks to loving and educational 24-hour zaps, but have noted that I'm not going to undo further blocks. See also User talk:Kmweber, down the bottom. - David Gerard 20:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I previously asked Karmafist to pretend that Pigsonthewing didn't exist, and he repeatedly promised to do so -- but didn't. His track record in this regard is absymal, and on my scorecard he is out of chances. Kurt may be the sort of person to drive people into incandescant rage, but Karmafist is the sort of person who gets driven into such rages very easily. If this is the "heat of the moment", it's a moment that has lasted at least a month now. All the evidence I see is that he is simply not fit to be an admin. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: Karmafist has said on my talk page he'll cool it and washes his hands of the problem, but reserves the right to point and laugh at me if it all blows up again, which is entirely fair enough - David Gerard 12:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others:

Do we really want the sysop bit to be held by people who can be driven into an incandescent rage? Come on, we should expect some degree of maturity and reliability from our admins, otherwise what's the point? - -Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kurt is pretty special that way. Phil Sandifer 05:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If losing your cool at any one time from some people continually annoying you, over and over, is a grounds for desysop, then I believe we'll only have 3 admins left, if we're lucky. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with Redwolf24 on this one. It's like Chinese water torture... when you're being constantly harassed by someone you're bound to act at least somewhat irrationally. I'm not saying that what he did was in the right, because it wasn't... but I am saying that if you're going to desysop Karmafist for an easily revertable action that stemed from being driven over the edge, then hold every single admin to the same standards, including yourselves. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kurt certainly is special that way. He achieved it with me, after all, and I don't think he was even particularly trying to - David Gerard 12:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to thank all those who offered kind words here, and offer forgiveness for the misunderstandings for those here who do not understand my zeal against those who wish to hurt Wikipedia or those who are caught in our broken system of internal governance. If any of you would like to further understand my viewpoints on situations such as those being discussed here, please feel free to contact me on my talk page, and before you come over, I'd like to remind you of the situations i've diffused at places like Ward Churchill, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Democrat userbox, on Kumanovo to an extent, in addition to being the current vote leader in the Esperanza Advisory Council Race, welcoming 550 users as of this edit, winning my rfa in October 53-2, and adding nearly 8,000 edits now to our project.
For a lack of a better analogy, I'd see a de-sysopping as a failure to fufill "Wiki-Bushido" in the eyes of my peers, thus requiring a "Wiki-Seppuku" more or less, which nearly happened 3 weeks ago.
I will do anything to protect Wikipedia, but I will not be shamed in the attempt to do so. I just wanted to inform you of this in case any of you hadn't heard before. karmafist 20:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We need more people like Karmafist who are willing to apply WP:IAR when it comes to trolls, and much less WP:AGF for people who have abused our trust over and over again. Zoe (216.234.130.130 22:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I am absolutely horrified by this comment, and even more horrified that there appears to be an increasingly large culture of admins who have such little regard for assumptions of good faith, particularly in those they disagree with. Kurt is a master of getting on people's nerves, but there is absolutely no way that Karmafist's actions can be read as in line with any precedent or rules. Phil Sandifer 06:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Zoe! You remind me of something that's often overlooked in AGF, the "A". There's no point in assuming when you've experienced something first hand, and even though it's currently not widely seen as part of WP:V, Verification should be made with users just as much as it is with content. karmafist 05:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Amen! I'm just a humble ordinary editor who brought the problem at Ward Churchill to him, with trepidation that the best I could expect was some months-long painful process to deal with a POV-troll at that page User:Keetoowah. Though I would not have thought to ask, Karmafist pro-actively protected the page for a short time to fend off edit warring, launched a well written RfC, and then after giving plenty of opportunity for cooperation, blocked Keetoowah under an admittedly somewhat broad interpretation of a prior RfAr against Keetoowah. The end result of bold adminship is a usable, relatively high-quality page with one fewer POV-trolls. A little bit of WP:IAR combined with good judgement is exactly what we need to fend off the growing vandalism, belligerence, and POV-mongering that takes far too much effort to work around or against. We need 50 more admins like Karmafist! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No. We really don't. Phil Sandifer 06:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If has quit block warring with other administrators that will be sufficient Fred Bauder 23:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I never started, Fred. I figured that I was at the situation I described above, thus basically beginning what I figured would be the end of my time at Wikipedia. Then about 10 editors came out of nowhere, including the one who blocked me, said that it was nothing personal and they still respected me, and the situation ended. If you respect me Fred, you will not have a problem. karmafist 05:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It takes two to revert war. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has been critical of Karmafist's actions as an admin in the past, and who has also had run-ins with both Kmweber and Pigsonthewing, I can't say I blame Karmafist for blowing his top with either of those two editors. I would be comfortable with Karmafist retaining his adminship as long as he pretends they don't exist, as David put it. Karmafist acts perhaps a bit too rashly when someone pegs his trollmeter; he just needs to learn to let cooler heads prevail (and get community input) when these situations arise. android79 00:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archives
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=32519029"