Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

The Arbitration Committee is seeking feedback - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RFC

The last step of dispute resolution is a request for 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.

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Wikipediocracy-related conduct		21 October 2024	4/3/2
Marine 69-71	Motions	26 October 2024	0/0/0
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area		6 November 2024	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

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 Arb Com member votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

This is not a page for discussion, and arbitrators may summarily remove discussion without comment.

• Arbitration policy
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template
• Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents

Template

Involved parties

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

User:OldRight/User:Old Right

Involved parties

• OldRight (talk · contribs)/OldRight (talk · contribs)
• Several dozen others

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

See User talk:OldRight.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

See User talk:Old Right.

Statement by User:Neutrality

I have been fortunate enough not to have significant dealings with Old Right/OldRight. However, I have noticed some stunningly disruptive behavior from this user. Evidence and a full request for relief may be read at User:Neutrality/workshop II. Neutrality^talk 01:10, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Conradrock

I have dealt with User:OldRight, on one occasion, after the RFC started for the Joe Scarborough article. We have asked for his input on why he constantly wants to revert this article, and has yet to make a statement. Given his history in the past, especially with his instigation of an edit war on this article, and violation of the 3RR policy, I feel that User:OldRight needs to be instructed that this isn't a soapbox, this is an encyclopedia. Conradrock 06:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:SimonP

Any hearing should also look into User:Crevaner, an account that seem to exist only to backup OldRight in VfD debates. - SimonP 16:30, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

• No it doesn't. Crevaner is a friend of mine and actually is the person who told me about Wikipedia. We used to collaborate on VfD, but stopped doing that a long time ago after some people wrote about having a problem with that. -- OldRight 19:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The double voting did mostly cease some months ago, and if Old Right admits that it wasn't appropriate then I don't think any further action is necessary on this issue. - SimonP 21:34, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

• Recuse. Neutrality^talk 01:10, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Ambi 03:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 13:04, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept; could this be a sockpuppet? I'm thinking mostly of Libertas/Ollieplatt of whom OldRight's userpage seems strikingly similar. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:47, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 00:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OldRight's response

I don't know what the big deal is. First of all I'm not a sockpuppet. As I wrote on Neutrality's talk page, all I try to do is add usefull editions to articles to make them more specific. Nor am I using wikipedia as a soapbox, I'm simply trying to make articles more encyclopedic by making them more specific. Believe me when I tell you there is no political agenda on my part when editing articles. And as for the Joe Scarborough article, I believe Conradrock is referring information about the death of one of Scarborough's aides in 2001. I simply don't think that info is relevant and needed in the article. From now on I'll try and leave a lot more edit summaries, OK. This entire situation seems to be a big misunderstanding. -- OldRight 15:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:JuliusThyssen

Involved parties

• JuliusThyssen (talk · contribs) aka 195.64.95.116 (talk · contribs) and jult (talk · contribs)
• Rhobite (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Message on User talk: JuliusThyssen: [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I have asked this user several times to refrain from using personal attacks. He responded by calling me an asshole. I don't feel that any other dispute resolution would matter to such a rude person. Rhobite 20:10, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Rhobite

JuliusThyssen, who previously edited from 195.64.95.116, has long been an argumentative and uncivil user on Talk:MP3 and Talk:MPC (audio compression format). He has also gotten into arguments after he advanced POV political theories on September 11, 2001 attacks [2]. People who disagree with his opinions are quickly called "stupid" [3], "Idiot" [4], "you people suck" [5], "smartass" [6], "edgy stubborn nazi type" [7]. Edit summaries include "deleted sheer nonsense of incapable people" [8], "ok, that's what you idiots asked for" [9], "you are a fool" [10], and "Rhobite is an ASSHOLE, how's that for a personal attack?" [11]

Also userpage vandalism: [12] [13]

Julius removed my comment asking him to refrain from personal attacks: [14]

I think a personal attack parole would be an adequate response to this user's incivility. Rhobite 20:10, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I note in the 'edgy stubborn nazi type' diff [15], he also states that "If you'd rather have it this way, then I will make it my life's task to change that line from each and every library and internet-café I can find."-Ashley Pomeroy 10:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

User:JuliusThyssen has been disfiguring the List of disco artists with non-disco additions (which don't fit standard scientific definitions of disco as a form of music), plus deletions of well-known valid disco hit songs like "Take Me Home" by Cher (1979).

This is just plain bullshit. First of all, there IS no scientific definition of disco as a form of music. This nameless idiot just couldn't handle the fact that I was right and he/she was wrong about many of the tracks he/she decided to put in that list. This goes for all cases mentioned here; Pathetic assholes assuming they are right, when they KNOW they're not. I'm not prepared to behave 'politely' towards such idiotic display of stubbornness, and I refuse to take part in this wanna-be court-like nonsense you call arbitration or rulings on wikipedia. It's obvious you want this to be a medium full of incorrect data, so be it, not my funeral. It ends up being just another silly forum of numbed down stupid and robotic crapologists with big mouths and ego's that are way beyond where they should be. That is the reason I have stopped believing this wikipedia will ever be worth something, it's being ruled by idiots and non-experts. It's even worse in the Dutch version, where tolerance levels are further down the line of toes sticking out miles in front of their delusions of grandeur, where they behave like terrorists (they threaten to send abuses to your internet provider just because some nobody who thinks he is an important part of human history since he 'contributes to wikipedia' was corrected by me). I hereby acknowledge to love to further annoy the likes of you by using proxy-servers and terminals in libraries and gas-stations etc. And no, I'm not the one in need of psychological help here, and you all know it. You people have no lives. In fact, if some rightfully placed insult on some stupid wikipedia website (it's terribly slow, by the way) is enough for you to spend so much time on it, you must be completely insane. Good luck trying to fight the forces of chaos, you know you don't stand a chance against them. JuliusThyssen 09:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He further has insulted me with ageist remarks like "you weren't there when it hit the clubs" and claims to know more than I do about music.

Well it's been quite obvious that I do!

He did not make rational responses to my points to him. He also removes users' criticisms of him from User_talk:JuliusThyssen - when he deleted my comment to him he wrote "deleted sheer nonsense of incapable people". One of my pieces of advice to him was: "Please learn how to technically analyze music. This is not an exercise in nostalgic remembrances of what played in your club but in creating a reference work." On May 22, 2005 he actually removed something that was supposed to be removed ('Nightshift' by the Commodores) but when he did so he wrote "you fool" directed to the person who had added that song.

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

• Accept Fred Bauder 12:30, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept, though I wonder if we really need to go through arbitration - this seems too obvious. Ambi 12:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 00:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Emico

Involved parties

Onlytofind,Raygirvan,LBMixPro,DJ_Clayworth vs. Emico

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[16] I, Onlytofind have personally contacted each user in the dispute and have left a notice on Emico's RfC page.

Notice should be on User talk:Emico Fred Bauder 20:09, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

It's already been noted, informally though. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 20:37, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Please consult Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Emico for full listings. Emico has consistently insulted and baited Wikipedians who contribute information contrary to his own personal viewpoint. When other users try to intervene, Emico accuses them of taking the sides of other people and goes on to insult and bait them even further. A RfC was started, in hopes of him stopping this behavior, and after repeated warnings, the other three users and I felt that he must be reported to the arbitrators to decide in this matter.

Statement by Onlytofind

Emico's contributions are personally biased opinions, extremely favorable towards the Iglesia ni Cristo and anyone associated with it, while he forces unfavorable edits to any organization opposed to the Iglesia ni Cristo, such as The bereans (sic). He also becomes vocal and abusive when an INC-related article is not completely favorable to either the Church, or one of the Manalo family members who administer it, and insists that all information about the INC must come from sources disseminated by the Iglesia ni Cristo and if not, that "The writer of this article is not authorized by the subject, and the intention for this article is suspicious. Be wary of misinformation." which shows blatant disregard for Wikipedia rules and the NPOV. I am a former member of the Iglesia ni Cristo religious sect, who has been contributing information about that organization, and about its administrators, Erano Manalo, Felix Manalo and Eduardo Manalo.I have contributed information favorable and non-favorable about the organization and Emico has consistently made personal attacks against me, calling me "gollum," "satan" and "loser" as well as accusing me of having a vendetta against the Iglesia ni Cristo, which I do not. He has insulted and baited me as well as the three other users on numerous occasions for the past month, and tries to fabricate accusations about me, claiming that I am involved in a religion opposed to the Iglesia ni Cristo, which I am not, and have consistently stated so. He has also claimed that Raygirvan,LBMixPro,DJ_Clayworth and I are the exact same person, a member of the Philippine Bereans who wants to get revenge on him (paraphrasing his words) which makes no sense. I exchanged personal insults with him on a few occasions due to his incessant baiting, but in good faith and in an attempt to solve this dispute, I apologized and pledged to stop exchanging insults on my part, in hopes that he would stop his baiting and insults, but he has taken to consistently bold one of my previous comments on the Talk:Erano G. Manalo page in hopes of trying to bait me once again. When I left the arbitration notice on his userpage, he has once again tried to bait me by saying "Please make this your last post on my talk page." I believe that the other three users and I have tried in good faith to work with Emico, but unfortunately, Emico still insists on playing by "his rules" and wants everyone else to play by them too. He has also been accused of impersonating[17] a blogger who writes articles critical of the INC and has tried to attain the identities [18] of the administrators of INC-related forums elsewhere on the Internet, which leads me to believe that he is not interested in constructively contributing to the Wikipedia, but wants to spread his own personal opinions and by seeking the identities of known INC critics, I'm afraid he might, and I place emphasis on might, do something to them.

Emico tried baiting me after this on the Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo page. I think I can rest my case that Emico wants to push his theocratic, pro-Iglesia ni Cristo, and anti-Trinitarian agenda on the Wikipedia and, I restate my suggestion that Emico and all associated IP addresses be permanently banned. (Edited for brevity)

He has started it again, with a post dated 10 June 2005 on the Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo#GEM page where he accused me of being a Berean once again. Now, he has started again, on 13 June 2005 with a racist statement "All foreign missionaries are bigots" and that I'm trying to manipulate the system, when I tried to reason with Glenn Cessor, another INC apologist. I would also like to point out that I did not write the claim of Eduardo Manalo taking part in EDSA, I only reverted the article to its previous state after Emico edited it, because I have never seen him edit in a way consistent with NPOV.

Statement by Lbmixpro

My invlovement originates from a reversion of the Bereans article. While looking through the edit history of the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) article, I noticed an edit summary by Emico which relates to an edit he made to the Bereans. Out of curiosity, I looked into his edit and reverted it, in order to repair what I percieved as damage to the article's structure. He deleted the majority of External links, references and the complete category listings. This edit was also nearing 3RR status. Soon after, Emico sends me a message on my talk page confronting/baiting me to prove my NPOV status about the article. I gave him my reason, but he took it as reverting per request of Onlytofind to get around the 3RR. Soon after, based on his conduct with other wikipedians as well as myself, I planned on issuing an RfC. Throughout this dispute, I've been met with many personal attacks (preferrably "loser"), as well as all people involved. One which caught my attention is an attack at User:DJ_Clayworth. Emico accused him of being a Berean himself. User:Raygirvan tried to intervine and failed. Recently, in an attempt to resolve this issue, I assumed failure to comply to WP:AGF, apologized to Emico if he considered my edit as "reckless" and considered the WP:NPA issue resolved as far as I'm involved. His response was "The arrogance of these people! You don't tell me what to do. You won't tell me that face to face, so why do it here?" At this point, I do not recommend a ban, as his behavior has improved at an unstable rate. But he's stated that he may continue his previous actions. In the event his conduct worsens in both edit wars or personal attacks, I'll suggest him be banned to the fullest extent of ArbCon. He needs to know and respect the importance of the 3RR, NPOV, and NPA rules.

References: talk:Bereans, talk:Iglesia ni Cristo, User talk:Emico, User talk:Lbmixpro Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Emico#Evidence of disputed behavior.

I support the statements from DJ_Clayworth, Onlytofind and Raygirvan. To clarify one of Emico's statements here, I did not revert his edit of the Eduardo Manalo article. See the diff between Emico's edit of Onlytofind's and my edit of Emico's thereafter. Onlytofind presented an allegation to the article as fact, Emico deleted it. I presented the information as an allegation. Emico once again deleted it stating the linked reference cannot be verified, since the link is only a summary of the book. I agreed. Onlytofind and Emico have engaged in an edit war since.

Statement by DJ_Clayworth

I encountered Emico first at the Bereans page, to which he had added his own personal assessment of the Phillipine organisation (then the only one mentioned). Since then he insisted on adding his own personal (and derogatory) opinion, and some theological statements which were demonstrably false. At other times he insisted that his own refutation of the Berean's theology be included, on a matter which 98% of other Christians agree. I have found him to be invariably insulting when he is disagreed with, though perfectly polite when agred with. I was personally accused of being a "member of the Berean cult". When an outside viewpoint was requested he accused those who nobly offered their views of 'teaming up' on him. Having been repeatedly challenged to cite sources for his views, he responded by insisting that sources be cited by every single editor for every single word they added to the article. He made anonymous edits to try to get round the Three Revert Rule. He seems to be still insisting that only information approved by that church should be included in the article Iglesia ni Cristo, despite his own attempts to add disparaging information to Bereans.

Some of his problems may be due to unfamiliarity with English. He has very fixed theological ideas, and little idea of which other organisations share them. He has not, to my knowledge, engaged in vandalism for the sake of vandalism. He has also been substantially less disruptive (to my areas of interest) in the last few days. However he needs to understand the value of cooperation and the difference between a fact and an opinion. DJ Clayworth 23:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, I did tell Emico that his interaction with me "did not make [Iglesia ni Cristo] seem attractive". Since by then he had already called me a liar and accused me of "propagating lies", "covering up for liars", being "a member of the berean cult" and suggested that I might have sent him a virus, I'm not going to retract that. DJ Clayworth 20:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Raygirvan

I support the asessement of the situation as described by Onlytofind and Lbmixpro.

I entered this dispute via Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts for 24 May, "for a dispute over factual accuracy in the page. Outside view requested" on the article Bereans, and pursued it as a consequence of Emico's behaviour in relation to this article (see also Talk:Bereans and the Bereans edit history).

The Bereans article is about a Scottish historical religous sect and a group of modern evangelical churches of the same name. It's now mostly stable. But this was achieved by giving in to Emico's repeated edits to expunge reference to a significant (in my view) Phillipines branch that campaigns against other religions in the Phillippines, including the Iglesia ni Cristo.

Emico has continued to promote, belligerently, edits that appear to come from a religious agenda rather than a NPOV assessment of the available material (for instance, removal of reference to one modern Berean group's stated anti-Catholic stance; to insert superfluous detail about the Trinity, and to remove reference to the historical Bereans' founder's disaffection from the Church of Scotland).

I'm not directly involved with the Iglesia ni Cristo disputes, but a study of the Talk pages suggests Emico's continuing failure to abide by the guidelines for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Religion or Wikipedia:Cite sources. He doesn't accept the validity of secondary sources such as newspaper accounts, and in the Talk pages of three articles about prominent INC members (see Talk:Felix_Manalo, Talk:Erano_G._Manalo and Talk:Eduardo V. Manalo) has shown a bias toward INC sources by stating that "the absolute authority ... is the subject of the article".

I do support a ban. Emico's bias is unlikely to have changed. The strength of his view is evidenced by his setting up a blog repeating his preferred edit of Bereans, footnoted This was the entry I made at wikipedia.org until it was vandalized by members of the Bereans. RayGirvan 23:34, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Addendum 14 Jun 2005 This is probably not a matter for this arbitration, but further acquaintance with this issue suggests the whole territory of Iglesia ni Cristo-related articles needs serious attention. In my view, the editing process is being sabotaged by a cabal of editors who are INC church members. They flout all NPOV guidelines, reject non-INC sources, and treat all edits by non-INC editors as motivated by bias against the INC. I've no idea what, if any, mechanism can be invoked to stop this abuse of the system. RayGirvan 01:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Emico

In my statement, I'll let their post do the talking:

Onlytofind: When asked to cite sources, he responded with:

In short, you're some deranged INC fanboy who's depressed because he's unable to cover his bias with a cloak of legitimacy. Have a nice day. --Onlytofind 22:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I did not rspond to this, but his insults, threats of banning and arbitration continued.

Emico, I wish that I could reply to your comment, except that I can't understand your atrocious grammar.--Onlytofind 02:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Which prompted one poster to say:

Emico, I think Onlytofind's "strongly implying" that you are illiterate!--gcessor71.32.86.239 13:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I did not respond to his insult.

LBmixpro: When asked why he reverted my edits without explanations, he replied:

I don't know what you are talking about. Nor do I care. I made the revert so that Onlytofind won't get the Bereans article locked

I believed this was getting around wikipedia rules, the same way raygirvan and dj clayworth were doing. After a few post, I believe we settled the dispute. Although I resented their post because I felt they were presenting themselves as Wikipedia authority, when they are not.

Raygirvan and dj clayworth: I questioned why they used the word 'disaffected' when it could not be found in the sources. I pointed out that since this was not in the sources, of even an indication of it, that it is a personal opinion and should be taken out. I believe they were inserting words which cannot be found in the sources provided, and is detrimental to the character of the subject. See exchanges in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bereans#Disaffected]

Dj clayworth's objectivity is suspect. He seems so biased, that if a personal opinion suits him, then to him it is a fact. To cite one example: In one of the talk pages, he asked for the meaning of an acronym. I'm not really sure if he was baiting, or genuinely interested to know. When both I and Onlytofind responded, he copied Onlytofind's post verbatim and added it to the article without verifying facts. We had some post exchanges on the talk pages, and at one point he addressed me and posted this: "... my experience interacting with you does not make this organisation seem attractive.". Please see exchanges in the talk page [here]

If possible, I would also like to know if any of the involved belong to networks 203.176.2.* and 202.176.2.*. During the exchanges, I was sent a virus via email. --Emico 16:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add here that we are again in a revert war. Onlytofind and lbmixpro are taking turns reverting my edits. I questioned the lack of verifiable source. Onlytofind and lbmixpro are making allegations that the subject of the article was engaged in rebellion, a very serious accusation. --Emico 20:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

• Accept Fred Bauder 21:00, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Ambi 22:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Although I can't really make sense of what's going on, I can tell there's something horribly wrong going on here, so accept. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:06, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 00:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guy Montag vs. Yuber

Involved parties Guy Montag Yuber

Confirmation of notice for arbitration

[19] Confirmation is here.

(I put it under the wrong title.) Guy Montag 09:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Montag

Yuber is a vicious POV pusher. He has been constantly warned by administrators and other editors that he is showing bad faith by not cooperating with others. Articles have been locked numerous times because of his tendency to ignore the 3RR rule and start revert wars. [20] [21]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&action=history] [22] Every chance has been given to Yuber to stop his militant pov pushing. POV pushing was not as much a concern for me and other editors, as for the fact that he fails to cooperate with other editors[23][24]. Evidence of his intrasingence has been recorded on his [page]. Jayjg, SlimVirgin and Humus sapiens can testify to his inability to cooperate.

More evidence.

The discussion entitled "minor changes" [25]. Yuber inserted "sources" which had nothing to do with the subject. He insterted his POV, than tried to cover it up by source spamming. It took us 4 days of close policing of the article before it stood up to NPOV standards.

• Sea of Galilee locked because of Yuber.[26]

See discussion. [27]

• Citations for numerous violations of 3rr breaches and warnings to lock articles because of his editing.[page] Evidence is found in "3RR" discussion on Yuber's Talk Page.
• [28] Jizya page paged locked because of Yuber's non cooperation and edit warring.

Dhimmi page locked because of Yuber's editing [29]

• [30] Another paged locked previously because of his editing.

Comprehensive List of Evidence against Yuber

Yuber's approach to editing articles is extremely confrontational. Often his very first edit of a controversial article will be a complete or substantial reverts to previous versions of articles, without any prior discussion in Talk:. Here are some examples of that behavior (note, none of these reverts involved simple cases of vandalism):

• Golan Heights (his very first edit on Wikipedia): [31]
• Names of the Levant: [32]
• Operation Litani: [33]
• Jizya: [34]
• Fatah: [35]
• Dhimmi: [36]
• Israeli-Palestinian conflict:[37]
• Muhammad: [38]
• Phoenicia: [39]
• Jewish Defense League: [40]
• Saudi Arabia: [41]
• User talk:KaintheScion: [42]
• Israeli terrorism: [43]
• Mordechai Vanunu: [44]
• Suicide bombing: [45]
• User:Enviroknot: [46]
• State of Palestine: [47]
• Cyprus dispute: [48]
• Six-Day War: [49]
• Gaza Strip: [50]
• Palestinian: [51]
• Slavery: [52]
• Cave of the Patriarchs: [53]
• Jihad[54]
• 1982 Invasion of Lebanon: [55]
• 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories: [56]
• Terrorism:[57]

Yuber edits a narrow range of articles, and he has been involved in a series of revert and edit wars with other editors on many of them, to the point that recently at least 4 articles have had to be protected soon after he began editing them. In fact, it is hard to find a controversial article that he has edited and not been involved in a revert war on. Sometimes the reverting seems particularly pointless; for example, when User:Jayjg made a description more NPOV, by changing the phrase "criticized as an Islamophobe" to "accused of being an Islamophobe" [58], he immediately reverted him without comment or even an indication he was reverting: [59] His subsequent Talk: comment is to just assert that "criticized" is a "more accurate term".[60] He is reverted by another editor, and does not respond to further discussion on the subject in Talk:, but returns two weeks later to revert to his version.[61] A number of editors have expressed extreme frustration with Yuber's propensity to revert.

• An edit war with Yuber leads to Ariel Sharon article being protected [62]
• Yuber inserted pov quotes on top and instigated an edit war in David Ben Gurion article with User:Jayjg[63] .

• Al Qunaytirah There is an edit war going on in this article. Yuber believes his biased sentence structure with regard's to Israel legal control of the territories is NPOV, when told that they are not, he claimed that "you are being ridiculous"[64] and initiated a revert war, without even as much as going to :Talk to find compromise. He later inserted a page long quote from a biased source prove a point, much like he did when he copied one article into another.

[65] Yuber inserted quotes from a speech David Ben Gurion made in 1937 to "present balance" for why Israel attacked Lebanon; proceeded to engage in revert war after being told it was irrelevent. Inserted POV terms and irrelevent sources to justify insertation of his opinion. Resulted in an edit war.

• In article Qana Incident Yuber has engaged in the worst kind of vandalism, reverting a page I have developed with well cited sources back to a stub without explaining his actions. THe blatant disregard for the rules, common curtesy, and going to talk can be found here

More to come later. I urge the committee to take on this case.

Guy Montag 00:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

===*Comment from Yuber=== - That's just a list of various reverts that I have done over my past 3 months here, it doesn't prove or show anything. It's not a "narrow" range of articles either. It seems that pro-Israeli editors such as Guy Montag don't want anyone to edit articles. Perhaps it is they who edit a "narrow range of articles".Yuber^(talk) 23:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • No, it appears to be a list of articles in which your very first edit was a revert, which is quite another thing, and you just did it to me minutes ago here:[66] on another article. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • The irony is so rich it could buy France! Grace Note 04:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 1 Many members have tried to cooperate with him, but the leniency editors have been giving to him is over. He has not changed his militant pov pushing, he does not cooperate, he initiates revert wars constantly instead of the talk page, even over single words and after repeated warnings of its POV content. He has shown deliberate disregard to wikipedia rules. It seems that his sole purpose is to turn specific articles relating to his agenda into a giant soapbox for his viewpoint. He should be banned from editing in Middle Eastern related articles, either permanently or for a limited amount of time as a warning. Blocking him for his numerous 3RR violations has had no effect and I am afraid unless he is disciplined for his violations, no amount of reasoning will help in the future.

Guy Montag 07:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are, as could be expected, flare-ups of edit wars and POV accusations within this topic, but there are those who appear to often confuse their opinion with the objective truth, and Yuber is one of them. His insistence on including a prejudicial photograph of Quneitra, along with his refusal to explain what non-biased purpose this photograph would have; his unwillingness to forge neutral language on contentious issues (e.g., who started the Six-Day War; whether the Golan Heights can be said to be occupied), are destructive and distracting to more worthwhile efforts. --Leifern 11:45, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Yuber

This rant by the "pinnacle of NPOV" himself, Guy Montag, does little to demonstrate my so-called refusal to cooperate. His edits show him to be a militant POV-pusher with no regard for important Wikipedia policies. His arrogance is evident when he calls me a "useless editor" and says he wants to "get rid of me"[67]. That doesn't really show him to be someone who wants to cooperate. In actuality, an agreement at the Golan Heights page was finally reached a while ago. Leifern's comment is irrelevant since this edit war over the specific picture was solved by me.Yuber^(talk) 14:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Enviroknot

I urge the ArbCom to take up the case of Yuber. He has been vandalizing my user page repeatedly despite being repeatedly told to stop. He is responsible for the locking of the Dhimmi article on Wikipedia. Numerous editors have run into his POV-pushing and revert-warring; indeed he seems to feel that any article related to Islam is his to "defend" no matter what factual information is brought forth.

From Wikipedia Talk:Kharaj: What, yet another article in which he can continually delete well-sourced information that doesn't agree with his POV, while simultaneously making claims of his own which simply don't match the sources provided? That's an appealing thought. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC) - Jayjg in reference to Yuber.

Yuber is in the middle of starting another revert war right now over at Saudi Arabia.

This cannot be allowed to continue. Though I fear it goes beyond Yuber himself, there are a few other editors (Mustafaa and Mel Etitis come to mind) who regularly act in concert with Yuber, including sending messages to each other to coordinate in revert wars on these articles.Enviroknot 20:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personal Attack by Islamist IrishPunkTom Removed

Statement by Humus sapiens

User:Yuber often engages in bad-faith editing, excessive edit warring, removing sourced material he dislikes (sometimes without even mentioning it in edit summaries or Talk: pages), misquoting his own sources, quoting known hoaxes (even after this being pointed out), claiming false consensus. If opposed, he attempted to poison the well, disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, or make unsourced claims. Here's a sample:

• Yuber claims consensus when there is none: [68]

• Yuber inserts an entire article into another to prove a point: [69]
  • Comment: A paragraph of obvious relevance to the article, which is frankly too short to serve as a separate article. I see no problem. - Mustafaa 22:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: That is patently incorrect. It is 14 paragraphs, not "a paragraph". Please review the actual edit rather than jerking your knee. Tomer ^TALK 10:15, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: A series of sourced bullet points with obvious relevence to the subject on hand is far far far from what I understood "Point" rule to be about. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:13, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment IrishPunkTom needs to clean his act up, read the rules, get a clue, and stop being a flaming POV-pushing Islamist.

• Yuber's edit squarely blames Israel in an article describing Muhammad_al-Durrah's murder controversy. His comment: "I try to NPOV articles": [70]

• Yuber attempts to justify suicide bombings, removes well-sourced statements that contradict his POV: [71].
  • Comment Thats not a justification, it's an Alternate POV. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:20, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Yuber deletes a sourced quote: [72] without mentioning this deletion in the summary. When it is restored, he deletes it again, this time commenting "took out strange quote": [73]. He removes it two more times [74], [75], then poisons the well with the following text: The following letter is only found in the history of Palestine by Moshe Gil, a Jewish historian. It exists in no other history of Islam or the spread of Islam, either Muslim or Secular... [76]. When this POV wording is NPOVified [77], he insists on poisoning the well again [78] and inserts an unsourced claim: [79], and again claiming: His religion is very relevant, as the rest of the commentators in here's religions are relevant [80]. When he is pointed out that religious/ethnic identities for other historians are not mentioned [81], Yuber comments: "I think we both know this guy is a Jew, a proud one at that": [82].

• In Talk:Jizya#Removed_quote_about_letter_attributed_to_Muhammad, Yuber insists the quote is unreliable because he hasn't seen it before, then he doubts Gil is unbiased, then he insists the site the quote is from is anti-Islamic, then claims that book reviews praising Gil's work are "pro-Israel", then threatens to retaliate by inserting anti-Sharon quotes in Ariel Sharon: [83].

• Yuber inserts quotes from a propaganda webpage filled with purported quotes (including known hoaxes) by Israeli leaders: [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93]. When his attention is called to the fact some of these quotes are well-known internet hoaxes [94], [95], he still keeps reinserting them insisting that leaving them out would be a "double-standard": [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104]

• Even after the source for those quotes is evidenced to be unreliable, Yuber insists the "source is credible": [105], [106], [107]. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:14, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Noitall

Others have provided details on the edit wars caused by Yuber and I agree with all of them. Until a couple days ago, I had no knowledge of Yuber's viciousness and harmful behavior. And I also had no contact or knowledge of these other editors and their complaints against Yuber. But Yuber's behavior goes far beyond that to the extent that it is seriously harmful to Wiki. Here are additional Yuber practices:

1. Retaliation: If Yuber disagrees with a POV, Yuber goes into all pages edited by an editor and reverts them solely to retaliate.

2. Stalking: Yuber stalks other editors, sometimes ending up in several edit wars at once, solely because Yuber will retaliate to insert a POV.

3. Multiple Edit Wars: Even during the short time of this arbitration, Yuber has launched multiple edit wars. Only today, Yuber has launched at least 3 known edit wars.

4. Recent Sock Puppets: In all of Wiki, only a few editors have supported Yuber, and mostly only for Yuber's POV. Yet, recently, a couple similar anonymous editors have appeared acting exactly like Yuber (the only edit is the revert and solely to insert a POV or assist Yuber). Now well known, Yuber is shedding its skin.

Yuber should be banned.

--Noitall 23:12, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comment Noitall conflicted with Yuber when Noitall decided that it served NPOV better if Islamist terrorism was replaced with Islamic Terrorism[108]. Yuber was reverting to a version he did not create.--Irishpunktom\^talk 10:57, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Irishpunktom is correct about when I first crashed into Yuber, but in the short time since, Yuber has wrecked versions far and wide with his reversions, including ones that I worked on. I am always amazed at Yuber. Follow what has happened just in the last couple hours.

1. While this very page is being compiled about Yuber, today June 13, SlimVirgin notes "you've been reported again for 3RR violations.

2. Today, June 13, SlimVirgin at [User talk:Yuber] very very nicely gives Yuber sound advice: "Can I suggest you stop editing controversial articles for a period?"

3. Immediately after getting such sound advice, Yuber gets on more controversial pages and gets in revert wars with friendly and sympathetic people, see Talk:Islam.

• I would like to note what I just found on SlimVirgin's page. Yuber has apparently made an incredible THIRTEEN edits and it may be more now, on [Talk:Jihad].Enviroknot 01:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--Noitall 01:09, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Zero

Yuber is often but not always correct regarding the facts, but is always strongly opinionated and combative, and frequently violates WP behavior norms. Part of the problem is that s/he is almost alone in counteracting dedicated POV warriors like Guy Montag, who even states right on his use page that he is here for political purposes. We'd be better off with neither of them. --Zero 16:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I second that. He works to counter the POV pushing of some very dedicated types. Guy Montag is one of the worst of them, but he does have the advantage of being frank about his purpose in adding his bias to the articles in question. This is yet another pointless show trial. Yuber will be banned and return under another name. Other POV pushers, who are cleverer, subtler and work within the bounds of policy, will continue to flourish. It remains true that the best way to deal with these kinds of people is to revert them where you need to and to ignore their provocations. Grace Note 04:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You shouldn't even waste your time answering Grace Note. Ever since she returned from her retirement, the only thing she has been doing is whining about the pov of other editors. She hasn't actually contributed anything other than her morose ramblings and reverts to Pro Islamist sources. Zero on the other hand, although he was misguided as labeling me (I have been happilly cooperating with him on improving the Kafr Qasim massacre stub) is a serious editor and the only thing that prompted a response from me is to clear my name. Responding to her would be pointless as her edits have shown.

Guy Montag 23:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Precisely how do you expect us to deal with the "clever, subtler" POV pushers if you don't bring them to our attention? Ambi 04:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't have the least interest in your "dealing" with them, Ambi. Grace Note 04:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zero: If you are going to make prejudicial comments about Guy Montag, why don't you do it by citing the exact comments you don't like (probably, I dare say, because of your own POV) rather than making sweeping comments for the mere sake of stonewalling on behalf of Yuber. And do remember, the issue being debated here, is NOT Guy Montag's behavior, but rather, what to do about Yuber's shenanigans on Wikipedia. IZAK 21:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are misrepresentating my opinions. I said I work with anyone to make an article NPOV, and I do. I have no problem working with you, even though you for inexplicable reasons are hostile, I work with Mustafaa, and I cooperated with Yuber, until his blatant violations of wikipedia policy got to the point where it was impossible to cooperate peacefully. It is one thing cooperating with people of different povs, it's another to have to constantly watch them initiate edit wars on different pages. What's fascinating is that you have everything mixed up. I am dedicating to counteracting the bad edit pov warring of Yuber, it has never been the other way around because I have rarely edited in bad faith; about a dozen editors will testify to my point. Finally, libeling my position by stating that I am a "POV Warrior" is blatantly wrong. I have a position that I represent, there are dozens if not hundreds of editors that specialize in one area. I happen to specialize in the Middle East and nationalist Jewish narrative. I make sure that people have an accurate picture of the argument when it comes to my side of the POV So what? I, unlike Yuber, am not a bad faith editor, and the information I insert is factually correct, and if it is not, I remove it. I follow wikipedia policy. I cooperate, I go to talk, I remove POV from both sides. There is no rule against editors having political views, and no rule against editors having political views different from one's own. There is a rule against bad-faith edits, and I have almost none under my belt. But Yuber has many many such under his, and that is what we are fundamentally discussing, not the political views of Yuber. Finally, I cannot believe that you would use my honesty and good faith I presented in my user page about my views to poison the well against me. That's about it.

Guy Montag 23:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Kindly show us even ONE time Yuber's been correct?
  • Comment - is that a serious Question, because he does have a large number of correct edits, for example his talk page highlights that one of his facts was a [[:Template:Did you know|Did you know]] on the main page on May 29th. Or is it just another of the personal attacks he has had to endure? --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:27, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

Most of my interaction with Yuber has been as an admin, not as an editor, so I don't know much about the accuracy of his edits. But there's no question that he's a serial reverter and seems blind to any point of view but his own. I've had to protect several articles because of edit wars he seems to have triggered; he's been blocked three times since May 16 [109], twice by me within three days; I've warned him several times on his talk page; I've given him the chance to revert himself to avoid being blocked; and I've corresponded with him by e-mail to try to persuade him to adopt a different editing style, but nothing seems to make any difference.

On May 17, I unblocked him early after a 3RR violation as a gesture of good faith, because we'd exchanged a few e-mails and I thought I'd managed to get through to him, but he went straight back to reverting, and I had to block him again 24 hours later.

His editing style consists of continuing to add or delete the same disputed passage over a period of days and weeks, even when the edit he's deleting is properly sourced. Example — since May 28, he has deleted the following referenced sentence from Suicide bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) five times, without leaving a single post on Talk:Suicide bombing (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Suicide bombing|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):"Palestinian television has aired a number of music videos and announcements that promote eternal reward for children who seek 'martyrdom.' [110]"

• 05:50, May 28
• 03:10, May 29
• 04:33, May 29
• I protected the page on May 29 and unprotected it on Jun 8
• 14:05 Jun 10 Yuber's first edit after unprotection was to delete it again, with an incomplete edit summary: "added facts about palestinians being militarily incapable to fight israel, totallydisputed tag"
• 00:02 June 12 And again.

The KaintheScion/ElKabong/Enviroknot sockpuppets haven't helped the situation, as they targeted Yuber, which made his attitude more entrenched and made him look like the victim — which he was, to some extent: being called a "lying Islamist f**k" [111] by ElKabong probably didn't open his heart to the joys of collaborative editing. However, even without the provocation of the sockpuppets, Yuber's willingness to edit-by-revert would still be problematic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:17, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

• I have nothing to do with KaintheScion and/or ElKabong, and I'll thank you to take that back right now SlimVirgin. Your harassment of me has been systemic and wrong. As for Yuber, yes, I have reverted things that he has posted, but only because he serially engages in vandalism (deliberately inserting factual inaccuracies into Wikipedia). While I do believe Yuber is fundamentally an Islamist, I have nothing to do with ElKabong's comment.Enviroknot 22:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yuber's stalking of other users

Yuber maintains a page [here] which has only one purpose: a repository to aid him in stalking other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.218.64.68 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Another likely KaintheScion/Enviroknot/Elkabong sockpuppet; see his contributions and the language in the comments. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The paranoia is palpable. The evidence of Yuber's using a Sandbox page as a repository for a hit-list is irrefutable.

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

• Reject. There's lots of rhetoric, but not a lot of evidence or examples - if more is forthcoming, it may be a different story. Ambi 09:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Accept, however, having read most recent edits to Al Qunaytirah I am more concerned with Guy Montag's POV pushing than Yuber's Fred Bauder 17:25, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept to investigate allegations of POV pushing directed at both parties. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:22, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 00:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Everyking request for review

It's been two months since my last ArbCom conviction, and I'd like to ask that the sanctions be lifted (the right to make that request after two months was included in the last decision). I don't have any new argument to make, so I'll just repeat what I said on March 31, since I think it does a very good job of expressing the situation as it concerns me, and my opinions about it:

"I don't know what the fundamental argument against me is. I suppose, as best I can gather, that it's that I try to "own" these articles, or that I am a revert warrior. Well, I ask anyone considering the case to actually look at what I have said and how I have acted. My position has always been strongly in favor of discussion, consensus and compromise, and recognition of the basic reality that, when a wide range of points are being considered, one person is unlikely to have a correct idea about each and every one of them. This is what discussion is so useful for—sort out differences, get to the root of the questions, and recognize errors on one's own part. So I've always tried to direct the dispute towards the talk page: I think agreeable compromises can be reached on all issues, and in fact I'm almost certain of it, because I am so flexible that I would make almost any concessions. As I have seen it, though, my opponents have generally preferred the logic of revert warring, and when that has failed them—and I have been tenacious in retaliatory reverting, I don't deny it, too aggressive at points, to be sure, but with the correct aim of concentrating the controversy on discussion rather than reverting—they have sought punitive measures against me to win the content dispute. I have made various proposals, such as to discuss everything in the article point by point, and to concentrate contentious editing on a "temp" version of the article to avoid the kind of heated revert warring we've seen in the past. Consensus is not really a difficult thing, if all parties are willing to accept it: there is honest discussion, and if by the end of it all parties haven't reached a mutually-satisfactory agreement, then whoever is in a small minority will have to concede and accept what may not be satisfactory to him or her.

Now, that's my position—concentrate on reaching a concensus, and let a loser be graceful in accepting a result when it goes against him or her. To say that I seek article ownership is so patently absurd to me that I have generally avoided even responding to the charge—where is the evidence for it? All I know is my statements which in no uncertain terms condemn the idea of article ownership—indeed, it is no great leap to see the effort by Snowspinner and a few others as an attempt to assert article ownership by eliminating me from the discussion and from the process of consensus-building. Anyone who accuses me of revert warring should see the pattern of behavior by a few of my opponents—repeated reverts, unconditionally, ignoring all my attempts at compromise edits. They have continued to do this despite the January ruling which prohibits me from reverting—I make an edit, they revert it; I try a compromise edit, they revert that too. And so on. Eventually, someone will block me for trying to compromise (partial reverting, they call it—you might as well say handing an object to someone is partially throwing it at them). Well, what's the point of condemning reverts if you won't accept attempts at compromise either?

I defend my theoretical position fully—compromise, consensus-building, civility, and development of a comprehensive and quality article that is satisfactory to everyone. I don't think my behavior in practice has always fully adhered to the theoretical position, but I recognize my errors and try not to repeat them. I have been in error at points in being too aggressive, certainly—I don't uphold such things, I recognize my errors, but it continues to be held against me. How many times has "i'll revert you till doomsday" been cited? Yet that was said at the very beginning of the dispute, and it has never for a minute been in line with my theoretical position—I've always recognized it as an error—and if occasional errors in judgment, even when recognized as such, were worth a punishment such as the one that's being proposed, we wouldn't have any editors left, because we all make mistakes now and then. That's just being human—I get angry, I revert too aggressively, OK, criticize me for it, and I'll criticize myself. That's not grounds for punishment—let's think outside of the box of punitive logic; it's a harmful and negative way of thinking, contrary to the spirit of the project. Overall, I've been conciliatory and have concentrated on discussion rather than revert warring. The article at present is filled from top to bottom with compromises, and I'll keep making compromises as long as there are disputes to resolve."

I don't know if the arbitrators read that last time around, but I hope they will this time. Everyking 00:03, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I strongly reccomend against lifting these restrictions. To date, Everyking has yet to admit that he did anything wrong in the first place, and has been known to engage in rather vicious crusades against the people he thinks wronged him with this decision. He still denies reverting Ashlee Simpson articles after the first parole. In light of this total failure to accept culpability, and the fact that he's waited three minutes past the deadline, I have to say, I think it's all too likely that we're going to see more vicious edit warring on Everyking's part - particularly in light of his total failure to accept consensus on administrator actions on AN/I - why should we think he would accept it on the articles where his slide into this behavior began? Snowspinner 01:12, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Quite incorrect. If you'll read above you'll see several admissions of errors. In fact I have never hesitated to admit mistakes. Everyking 06:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have you actually admitted to the error that led to your sanction - reverting Ashlee Simpson articles while under a restriction against doing so? Snowspinner 14:20, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, that issue is a bit unclear. You definitely won't find any cases of plain and simple reverts. I would agree, however, that I was getting too close to the boundaries and maybe overstepping them at points. I wouldn't say they were clear reverts, although in a vague sense of the word I might agree that some of them could be rationally interpreted as partial reverts (some were simply not—they were complete rewordings and restructuring things in altogether new ways), although I think they could have been rationally interpreted as not being reverts as well. I agree that I shouldn't have done it, though. Everyking 14:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I'm recused, I've got a few comments here - generally, I agree with Snowspinner. While I'd be happy to see some easing of the Ashlee Simpson restrictions (I was never quite in favour of a full ban), his version of events is so strongly opposed to what actually happened to be of concern, and the fact that he's just cut and pasted his request from last time suggests to me that he still doesn't get it. Secondly, if this issue is to be revisited, his increasingly vicious crusades against those he blames for those restrictions really need to be dealt with as well. It mightn't be a bad idea to reopen it, though, and end this once and for all - I still think the mentor idea might well work. Ambi 02:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In fact I agreed with Snowspinner to restrict any criticism to his actions alone, and to avoid criticizing his general attitude. I don't see how that's "increasingly vicious". As usual I get no credit. Everyking 06:23, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If Fred would please explain his reasoning for rejecting the case... Everyking 17:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any change and our docket is full, I don't think there is enough energy for another round. Fred Bauder 18:30, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

A change is beside the point, I'm just asking the ArbCom to reevaluate whether the sanctions are a good idea. Whether it is really a good idea to harshly punish someone who is as agreeable and conciliatory as anyone could rationally be. I'm not even asking that the ArbCom recognize that the last ruling was in error and that the past sanctions were unjust, I'm just asking that you make it so the sanctions don't apply to the present time. That doesn't take much energy. Everyking 18:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If your behavior over the last few months is "as agreeable and conciliatory as anyone could rationally be," I have to say, apparently agreeableness is dead. Snowspinner 19:49, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't always been so agreeable, that's true, but as a broad consensus has developed against me since early January or so I've been increasingly conciliatory, eventually to the point at which I've become pretty much accepting of anything. So what I meant was that my position now, and as it has been since January or so, has been about as agreeable as is possible. I don't think it's logically possible to be more agreeable. What can you offer after you've already offered everything? Everyking 22:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, come on, there was an RfC filed on you less than a month ago for your repeated whining about how every administrator's action is wrong and every arbcomm decision is wrong. Why could you possibly think that anybody would believe you're somehow reformed? RickK 23:48, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

What? An RfC? Nobody notified me, apparently. And no I don't claim to be "reformed". I think we differ on who needs to reform. Everyking 23:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RickK misspoke. He meant your 3rd Request for Arbitration. That it's an RfAr and not an RfC doesn't really help your case, does it? --Calton | Talk 00:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed not - especially since I can't say I'm impressed by Everyking's adherence to the agreement reached in mediation, which I think he's misinterpreting badly. Snowspinner 00:31, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

What is your interpretation? The deal was that I cease criticizing your attitude or general behavior and concentrate any criticism on individual actions. And that's exactly what I've done. I even omitted a part of the copy&paste quote above because it could have been seen as violating our agreement, even though it was written beforehand. Nothing is ever good enough. Everyking 00:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My reduction involved a reduction in the amount of monday morning quarterbacking you engaged in, and that you would stop second guessing every administrator action. Snowspinner 02:40, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I don't second guess every admin action. I don't second guess 1% of admin actions. But even if I second guessed 100%, I still believe in the importance of open dialogue and so I don't think there would be anything inherently wrong with that. There is no sense in silly endless bickering, but at the same time you know I don't agree with your belief that admins should present a united front and not question each other; I would hope you could respect that. Everyking 04:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll put it to you plainly - what are your intentions (regarding ashley simpson and related articles) should we lift the sanction? Do you plan to go right back to the actions that got you banned from them in the first place? If not, then what do you plan to do differently? →Raul654 03:38, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I don't intend to restore anything deleted by another person unless there is a clear consensus against the removal on talk. I have no interest in fighting hopeless battles. Since my actions have clearly aroused some anger among some editors, I will bow to that feeling even if I think it is misguided and avoid making controversial edits. I would simply like to write on the subject and if someone else thinks I've written too much then they can delete it and I'll discuss it on talk without any reverting, full or partial. Everyking 04:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/1/1/1)

• Recuse. Ambi 09:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Reject Fred Bauder 17:32, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain - I'm convinced that any point of action that could possibly result from taking (or not taking) this case is only going to anger people further than the levels they're already at in a manner which is likely to further damage the level of effort people are putting towards actual article editing. As such, I see any possible vote of mine here as a bad outcome and will not vote. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:26, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
• Accept. I suppose we should at least look at an appeal - David Gerard 23:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Neutrality^talk 03:21, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 00:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Requests for Clarification

If you need to clarify the precise meaning of a previous decision of the Arbitration Committee, your request should go here.

Archive

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (unofficial)