Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:06, 26 August 2007

ArbitrationCommittee

Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

hAl related edit warring on OOXML

Statement by 202.160.118.227

Please see the talk page on OOXML and HAls misrepresentations of EU Open Standards (which in turn affects articles office software). He/she is not following the disputes process, and after an initial warning and page lock HAl has begun edit warring again. This user refuses to engage the disputes process.

If this is not the right forum for this I apologise -- any advice would be appreciated.

Clerk notes

To the filing party: a request for arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. If you are really sure that nothing else can resolve this problem, you will need to fill out the requests for arbitration template and provide the additional information required, including notification to the other involved parties.

More likely, I think what you are looking for here is not (yet) arbitration but further review by an administrator, or earlier steps in the dispute resolution process. I have limited Internet access for a few days so can't look into this further at the moment, but if another clerk or admin would look into this further, that would be great.

By the way, do we have any policy or precedent regarding anons filing a case? In any event, it would probably be helpful to the process if the filing party were to register an account for purposes of notices, etc. Newyorkbrad 15:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dalmatia

Initiated by Isotope23 ^talk ^talk at 16:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Giovanni Giove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
~~No.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)~~
- sockpuppet of banned user Afrika paprika (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Kubura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Brunodam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Isotope23

There is an ongoing dispute between numerous editors pushing several POV's at Dalmatia related articles. The problem is that the core content disputes are not being resolved because a number of these editors have resorted to disruptive edit warring and gaming the system, sometimes in tandem with fellow editors, in an attempt to get their POV represented in the articles. I can point to a few recent examples:

Edit warring over the Republic of Ragusa RFC:[1],

[2], [3], [4], [5]

Edit warring at Albania Veneta: [6],

[7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]

Reports on my User talkpage: User talk:Isotope23#User:DIREKTOR, User talk:Isotope23#Giove's tactics (sorry to bother you again), User talk:Isotope23#I did some deletions, User talk:Isotope23/Archive 10#Zadar

User talk:Isotope23/Archive 10#Direktor and Albania Veneta

These are just from the last few days and only from a few articles... there has been more of this sort of behavior at other related articles and it may not be simply restricted to the editors I've named here; there may be related editors who's contributions to this edit warring need to be considered. The reason I'm bringing this before the committee is that it would seem from the recent article RFC diffs I've show, that a User conduct RFC on these editors will likely just devolve into a messy squabble that won't resolve anything. It appears to me that the only way this will get resolved is if someone else steps in.

Statement by DIREKTOR

First of all, I must say I am truly sorry things devolved into this. However, the problem really appears to be unsolveable by other means. Here's my side of the story.
The matter involves Dalmatia - related articles that have become veritable battlegrounds between the Croatian (Slavic) faction and the Venetian (Italian) faction (mostly consisting of one user, Giovanni Giove).

Now here we have a user, Giovanni Giove, that attempts to make the history of Dalmatia and its cities (Zadar, Dubrovnik or Ragusa) sound as Italian as possible. Without regard to the following facts: 1) Dalmatia is part of Croatia, 2) Dalmatia was Italian for a period of 377 (1420 - 1797) years (and a few cuturally almost insignificant, much shorter periods before the largest one, in total amounting to circa 400 years of Venetian rule), 3) the latin culture (mixed with the Slavic) before that period was not Italian, but Dalmatian (unless of course Roman Empire = Italy, as was frequently stated by this user's classic Mussolini rhetoric). 4) Inernational names that happened to be used for Dalmatian cities in (mostly the first three quarters) of the 19th century have no significance when writing about things and events not of that period (like the Republic of Ragusa, for example).

I would also like to make this clear: the user employs unorthodox methods in pursuing his view. Giove's standard "modus operandi" includes slandering other people to Administrators he thinks he can sway or that he thinks might have sympathies for his "plight". Besides this his tactics include starting RfCs immediately after editing articles in hopes that he might be able to convince others (preferrably Admins) that anyone who touches his version afterwards is an agressor or vandal and he an advocate of "peace". That's the way he tries to make things stick. He then uses painfully obvious and childishly plain sockpuppets, like the one that stated the "FASCIST ITALY was great" on my talkpage, or the one that filed a complaint against me, an apparently independant bystander that simply could not stand my tyrannical ways any longer, imagine. Just have a look at the new victim he thinks might be biased in advance: Steel359. I of course will not stand by and let him slander me, so I have to respond. And so it goes on... Recently this user started 2 RfCs, according to his tactics and (besides editing the text and calling others who do the same vandals due to the RfC) then actually began editing other people's comments therein (against the rules, I believe), according to some invented "rules" of his own about what info someone may or may not add to the RfC. He seems to persist in the belief (despite being numerous times advised to the contrary) that if he posted the RfC, he now has the right to change what is written there to his liking. He has a very liberal view on pesonal attacks: he called it a personal attack, for example, when a user complained about his removing and/or editing of other people's comments. He deleted the complaint promptly off the RfC, of course. Thanks. P.S. Welcome to the Balkans! DIREKTOR 17:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zenanarh

I'm not on the parties list, anyway since I've been involved in this matter I'll write a few words here. Nobody's happy about this, on the other hand something should be done to stop such unacceptable situation concerning a several articles about Dalmatia and Dalmatian cities. A group of us (Croatian users) are having continual problems with Giovanni Giove on these articles. We are not some organized group with purpose to push our POV. In the contrary, Giove's behaviour created a group of us with same problems.
Zadar article as example: I really don't like to get personal but in this case I should be a little bit, fact is that Giovani was using extreme POV source [15] - Italian Irredentismo page for editing this article. If you are not familiarized with Italian irredentism... well it's quite enough to say that it would be the same as if Neo-Nazis edit Jews article by using Mein Kampf as source. Maybe not the same but pretty close... Every my attempt to edit objective data was stopped and reverted by mr. Giovanni. All my edits were followed by relevant sources (scientific researches published by "University of Science and Arts" in Zadar). He simply ignored any of my comments and sources acussing me for being a "Croatian nationalist". Why? Just because I disputed his edit? When I warned him a few times not to use POV sources he accused me for personal attacks. It's absolutely the same pattern which he uses with other users too.
One of my first experiences with him was this: [16],[17], precisely he inserted template:suspected sockpuppet on my user page and accused me of being a sockpuppet of some other banned user with no any reason and without any explenation where his suspicions came from! It was a few days after I was logged for the first time on Wiki and day after I have come with rich sources [18], [19] which were disputing some of his edits about the population of the city, Zadar article. As you can see he didn't contributed to the discussion on the Talk:Zadar. He simply tried to solve his problem of my "existance" by marking me as somebody else's sock puppet. According to WP:HARASSMENT (section: "User space harassment"): "Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page..., placing 'suspected sockpuppet'...on the user page of active contributors...and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment.".
Another example of his behaviour: first RFC was started at the Zadar talk page [20] where he wrote this comment: You have not intoduced the sources!!! After all my hard work with presenting sources (and work of other users too). It's transparent at the talk page. This user simply doesn't want to see other people's work and he's absolutely blind for other users sources. He acts like it doesn't exist. Here you can see just a little part of his argues with other users: [21], see section "Why such words?". Actually all that page is a kind of dossier.
Now the best of all comes: his "conduction" of 2 Requests for Comment on the articles Republic of Ragusa and Zadar that he started. In both cases the same thing. Example - Zadar RFC: he firstly changed the article into his version [22], [23], immidiately after that he put the tags [24] and started RFC [25]. When other users wrote their first comments he interfered by changing it.
Any of our attempts to find some solution was stopped in the beggining, this person simply doesn't collaborate neither on the talk pages, neither in the articles.
After all I really don't know what to say, so a part of my comment here is copy of my comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thanks. Zenanarh 18:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I have informed all mentioned parties of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

SirFozzie offers unblock conditions

Statement by User:SqueakBox

I am not directly involved in the dispute but as nobody has so far brought this case to arbcom I am going to be bold. VK was recently indefinitely blocked in a case that has brought up many strong feelings from editors who believe this block is both wrong and partial given that this case involves various parties editing two subject areas, Irish republicanism and the British nobility. There have been many arguments and blocks and nastiness on both sides and IMO the arbcom needs to pass judgement on the case and take whatever remedies it feels necessary, SqueakBox 21:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Vintagekits

Statement by retired User:Gold_heart

Before I begin, I would like to draw attention to the sterling work carried out by the Editors, Admins, and the Arbitrators of Wikipedia. It has been a pleasure to work with the many who have given their time, dedication and knowledge to this great world endeavour, and I am certain that all good people here will bid them success. Duty has now called on the Arbitration Committee to decide on matters of such crucial importance, so important indeed that the solution could fundamentally change some of the workings of Wikipedia into the future. Again we sit here at this moment in time, and ask the Arbitrators to perform that task, on our behalf.

Vintagekits (Vk), a bright intelligent editor with over 12,000 edits to his credit was last month, thrown a “buoy made of lead” , and was told to swim, i.e. the “SirFlozzie parameters”,. He had on many occasion been the recipient of the infamous ”argumentum ad hominem” tactic, that regressive style of personal attack that causes so much anger, and anguish on Wikipedia. No doubt, Vk became quite discomposed on at least one occasion as a consequence of these ongoing attacks, however I must also give him empyreal recognition and credit for the many many times he showed exemplary calm, dignity and restraint under the barrage of extreme provocation. Though the arguement of ”post hoc ergo propter hoc” (it happened after, so it was caused by), can quite correctly be reasoned for here, nevertheless it cannot be positively sustained as part of an overall solution in this particular instance, yet it can quite naturally assist for mitigation purposes. As has been noted, Vk had been goaded as a direct consequence of the stringent conditions recently imposed by the “SirFlozzie parameters”. The relevant articles are usually Northern Ireland related, and doubtless, the long struggle there for civil rights and the resultant armed conflict is well known to many of us here at Wikipedia. This conflict goes way back to the Plantation of Ulster in the seventeenth century. With a political agreement now in place, and not everyone contented, there is the distinct possibility that some political agendas within Northern Ireland are entering a new phase here in cyberspace, via www.en.wikipedia.org. Consequently, differences of opinion have played a factor in the manner in which some of these articles are presented. There are a couple of handfuls of editors involved, chiefly from United Kingdom and to a much lesser extent from Ireland, who have clashed on occasion. But really this is very far from an edit-war, and relationships are overwhelmingly cordial most of the time. Nevertheless, with the “SirFlozzie parameters” applied, Vk found himself with a Sword of Damocles dangling over his head, and this “sword” could only terminate with an inevitable fall, and accordingly it did. Can we afford to lose VK? In my opinion no. With over 12,000 edits, and rarely in big trouble, I argue for Vk to stay.

There is a solution in my mind, and may I offer it here. This would involve the nomination of a panel of ”3 wise Admins” to look after unforeseen events. I propose the nomination of the now familiar admins, SirFlozzie and Alison, and one other admin, (but not Rockpocket as he is seeking a permanent block). Vk would be allowed his opinion on the establishment of the three, but not have the final say. Then in the event of a major transgression, and with the approval of at least 2 of the ”3 wise Admins”, Vk could be the subject of a punitive block for some hours, or at max a week. Any longer than a week’s block, an outside admin would be required to deliberate on the matter at hand. Ideally, these penalties would never need to be invoked. These measures would hopefully assist with the “conflict resolution”, and create a desirable outcome leading to the following. (1) Would remove the psychological pressure, and the feeling of victimhood away from Vk, thereby acting as a cushion, and leading to calmer editing. (2) Would also lead to greater respect, and caring among the Wikipedian community. (3) Would build confidence between the involved British and Irish editors. (4) Would send out the message that "mob rule" does not work on Wikipedia. (5) Would ensure a fairer system of jurisprudence, and not a continual “block threat” – This whole issue is so vitally important, because if Wikipedia loses editors like Vk, there will be another culprit, and another culprit, year after year, after year, thereby irreparably damaging the Wikipedia project. Can Wikipedia continually sustain this? I believe that it cannot.

By way of illustration, this running saga reminds me of Victor Hugo’s great novel, ”Les Misérables ”. An editor makes a faux pas, and is never to be left at peace, now pursued by Javert type characters, forever watching his every move, and ready to pounce for the least of infringements. Even Jean Valjean, Hugo’s hero, would have resigned to despair with the chivvy that Vk had to endure, I suspect.

To conclude, my suggestions could go some way to help repair this contravention. Following the passing of some time, things will settle down and all will be forgotten about. New editors will come on stream, and some will be looking for guidance, and who better to help them, but the old hands? I believe that this is the time to grasp the opportunities, not to forestall, and not to leave them unsung. .- User:Gold_heart 17:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Comment. Some weeks ago I retired from Wikipedia, and scrambled my password. I believe that this issue is important, and thus my reason for this one final interjection. I feel that rudeness is quite prevalent, and there are many many editors who sometimes and unnecessarily resort to thus, including some of the Admins. In most cases it can add to the cut and thrust of discourse, and is quite easily forgiven, and at other times it can get out of hand. .- User:Gold_heart 17:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Rockpocket

As far as I recall my first major involvement in an administrative capacity was when another editor approached me for assistance with some convincing evidence that Vintagekuts was recruiting meatpuppets off-wiki. The clearly stated purpose of this was to votestack on Afds. This editor expressed to me that he would rather remain anonymous for fear of threats of retribution from Vk (with time this precaution came sharply unto focus). I offered to present the evidence on his behalf. The evidence can be viewed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Vintagekits and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits. The latter report was closed by Will Beback (talk · contribs) with the conclusion "it is clear to me that these accounts are either sock puppets of VK or are meat puppets controlled by him. I will block these accounts indefinitely. VK has been blocked seven times since January, and also has a proven history of using sockpuppet accounts." [26] An ANI discussion on what action to take (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive262#Vintagekits, redux) generated consensus on a one week block followed by civility parole by SirFozzie (talk · contribs). This had limited success; SirFozzie blocked Vk for further "WP:CIVIL violations" within a month [27] and I issued several warnings, including one [28] for a typical attack [29] (Note: Vk appears to think that the swapping of, or addition of letters disguises his regular use of the word "cunt" in reference to other editors [30].) Just over a month after being placed on civility parole I blocked Vk for 31 hours for a number of attacks, culminating in this edit (which is typical of his combative attitude towards Wikipedia). This resulted in further attacks, threats, paramilitary rhetoric and so, on. So I indef blocked and immediately asked for an independent review at AN (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive97#Block Review - Vintagekits). The consensus, including Vk's mentors, was to maintain the indef block. In the meantime, the abuse continued by email, along the same lines, but with the added threat of personal violence against me and some hints that he indended to get revenge off wiki.I can forward them to ArbCom on request.

After an apology from Vk (the tirade was alcohol induced, apparently) and a campaign by a number of supporters to unblock him, Vk was unblocked by myself on his explicit agreement [31] to a self imposed ban on certain articles, to avoid conflict and uphold the "utmost level of civility" meaning he was "going to have to be on your best behavior no matter what" [32] [33]. Although Vk's ban was in the area of Irish Republicanism, it was made clear to him that the point was to avoid conflict, and wiki-lawyering around this would not be acceptable. Indeed, in this spirit he agreed to consult an admin before editing "articles tangential the subject-specific ban (like contentious British issues such as the Falkland and Gibralter)." [34] Despite this, and fully aware that the prior conflict on Republicanism articles had spilled over onto articles about baronetcies, Vk waited less than 24hrs before editing an article on Sir George Dick-Lauder, 12th Baronet [35] Inevitably, Vk found himself in conflict on this subject before long, leading to a block by BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs). In the immediate aftermath of this, it was reported that Vk sent abusive emails to both his mentor Alison (talk · contribs) for not supporting him, apparently, and to BrownHairedGirl. This was just eight days after Vk had been unblocked, having been indef blocked for the exact same behaviour. At this point Alison then indef block Vk again for "making clear threats regarding another editor's home address" [36], but for obvious reasons did not elaborate. I reviewed Vk's recent edits, identified two edits that appeared suspect and contacted Alison privately to confirm those were the reason for the indef block. She confirmed to me they were. With this information to hand, and considering Vk was already on parole from an indef block, had sent abusive emails yet again and has a long history of seriously disruptive editing, incivility, sock- and meat puppetry, I believe Vk's negative impact on the project grossly out-weighs any benefit he may offer. I propose he remain blocked indefinitely and placed among the Wikipedia:List of banned users. I am aware of a history of disruptive editing from a number of other editors named in this request, and support an ArbCom inquiry into those editors also. I do not believe I, personally, have used sysop tools in anything other than a neutral manner, in an effort to protect the project from disruptive editing. Rockpocket 22:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Kittybrewster

I am one of many Users who has interacted at some stage with User:Vintagekits. I have found him to have been persistently provocative in attacking articles created or edited by me and others, some of which were articles about baronets. It seems he is deeply opposed to anything connected to the British establishment, titled people, etc. He has threatened to and has tagged numerous articles nn or fact or afd. Other users have waded in to back him up in this, including numerous editors some of whom are members of the Irish Republican project (notably User:One Night In Hackney, User:Domer48, User:Derry Boi) and editors who are not (e.g. User:Padraig, User:Giano II and User:SqueakBox) Other SPAs and possible meat/sock puppets have emerged from time to time, some of whom (eg User:Thepiper User:Stramash) are still around. Some of those were invited by Vintagekits specifically to assist in vote-stacking at afds. At no stage has VK accepted any responsibility for his own actions and for drumming up support off-wiki.

Wikipedia is not a battleground. Nor is it a soapbox.

After this had been going on for several months a few administrators were drawn in, all of whom are listed above (I think). They have done a superb job in trying to stop this dissolving into total chaos but they have been accused by VK and others of having been partisan. I don’t believe those accusations.

My analysis is that VK is a very angry person who should have been restricted to writing articles about boxers – where I am told he contributed constructively and uncontroversially (I have no view on that). He was allowed past his first indefinite block on condition that he behave impeccably in future. He has failed to do this and administrators blocked him indefinitely as a result. Other editors (User:Giano II and User:Squeakbox) claim VK may have been provoked or goaded into resuming his poor behaviour. They claim they want to achieve a full inquest to ensure things have been fair. From what I have seen the admins concerned have been fair and patient to a degree.

The more I think about this, the more I think the answer is 42 – but what is the question? Somebody summed it up a long time ago but I have forgotten where that analysis is. Broadly I think there are four questions

1. Is VK’s block appropriate? 2. Was he pushed into his behaviour? 3. Are SqueakBox, Giano_II and Vk himself seeking to become famous for a moment by expanding this mess (under the guise of fairness for all)? 4. If so is an expanded enquiry appropriate?

This link seems relevant: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lapsed_Pacifist#User:Lapsed_Pacifist

Statement by User:SirFozzie

I am not really much surprised that this case has made its way to ArbCom. I have recently returned from an attempted vacation (and still on a semi-sabbatical from WP due to health issues). My two cents.. as I said on the Great Irish Famine ArbCom.. this is one of the biggest long-term edit warring groups I have ever seen on Wikipedia, both in terms of numbers and in terms of people. We have the whole smorgasboard of ill done deeds.. threats, edit wars, sockpuppets, POV Pushing.. you name it.. it's happened in this group. I strongly urge the ArbCom to take the issue, and take whatever means necessary to end this war, once and for all, even if it means blocking everybody (and I do mean EVERYBODY.) Half-measures will mean that we have to do this again, eventually. SirFozzie 21:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Alison

I'm in the process of writing this up. In the meantime, to answer Paul August; all my evidence has been forwarded to Fred Bauder, as that is the extent of my permission here. As Fred is on the ArbCom, can you please check in with him regarding what I've sent? Note: the two edits in question (the rationale to my blocking) have been oversighted since this afternoon - Alison ☺ 03:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Giano

I found this problem when I was involved in the investigation into the validity of Kittybrewster's own family pages, many of which have been deleted. He has never forgiven me. As I have no great political interest in either Ireland or England I have been able to view this problem quite dispassionately. Similar problems are occurring on other Wikis. The problem is complex, two groups - one symbolised by Vintagekits and one by Kittybrewster are at war. Neither are the leader of their group but both are among the most vocal.

Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is Irish and proud of it. Some in his group undoubtedly have republican sympathies. All quite legal and acceptable, if not greatly liked in the old British establishment. Today, Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness men who Margaret Thatcher would probably have cheerfully shot are both now entertained at 10 Downing Street where their views are seriously debated. Times change and Wikipedia has to reflect that.

Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his friends are British and proud of it. Some of his group undoubtedly have establishment sympathies. Indeed they have deliberately identified themselves with the old type establishment, and more importantly the Anglo-Irish aristocracy. The traditional "enemy" of the "downtrodden" Irish.

The problem is that they both want to edit each others pages, both scream POV - was a baronet, or a freedom fighter, murdered or was he killed can result in months of bitter acrimony. Was the "freedom fighter" a "terrorist" or a glorious hero and so it goes on. Anyone caught up in this is labelled a Republican by Kittybrewster's gang. They even made a template to put by "suspect editors" names. The name calling from both sides is appalling. Some admins have tried to put a stop to this, but as they were largely Irish themselves their neutrality was questioned. Ireland is a very divided country. Adding to the confusion both sides use multiple sockpuppets. Kittybrewster's group were found guilty of vote stacking etc. on one of their baronets deletion pages. I don't have the diffs but I fully expect the Irish group have been equally guilty.

Vintagekits is his own worst enemy, quick to anger, he engages his mouth before his brain. This has been seized upon and he has become the chief target for goading. Kittybrewster has indeed been blocked and warned repeatedly to stop goading him - However he and his friends do not. Kittybrewster and his friends advertise a lot of personal information on Wikipedia, real names, schools, backgrounds and locations. They seem more real than some other and more reticent Wikipedians, and it seems that in the heat of the moment blinded by rage Vintagekits lashed out and blurred reality with the anonymity of Wikipedia. In the course of this he made, I am told, some very serious threats indeed. (I have not seen them)

The question is what to do with Vintagekits - is he a bad lad, an evil man or a hot tempered Irishman? I think he is a combination of the first and last and he needs a very severe warning and/or a short ban. Permanently banning him and Kittybrewster will solve nothing as others just like them will arrive. These editors and their friends have to be forced to keep away from each other and certain pages. That is the only long term solution.

I'm aware much of this case is in camera and sub-judice, but I think it is breaking no secrets to say Kittybrewster was not the one to whom the threats were made, but that person at times in his behaviour too has been suspect. The above can be verifiable by diffs found here [37]. Giano 09:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look into this case, the more strange the undercurrents seem to be. The Arbcom either has to accept this case and make a thorough investigation into exactly what has been going on, or leave it alone - unblock Vintagekits and let the whole bunch fight it out between themselves. The secretiveness of this case is alarming, there can be no harm in making it being public knowledge exactly what VK said, to who he said it and where he said it. The precise details which would identify the RL identity recipient can be with withheld. The fact that Vintagekits is not even allowed to defend himself here is also worrying. My own dealings in the last 12 hours have greatly increased my own suspicions. Giano 08:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Kittybrester's post above "Are SqueakBox, Giano II and Vk himself seeking to become famous for a moment" I think even the Arbcom will unanimously agree I am quite "famous" enough already. So no Kittybrester, you are quite wrong there. Giano 10:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Newyorkbrad

Disputes involving Vintagekits have been brewing for several months. Vintagekits, an Irish editor, appears to have a strong aversion to articles about British nobility and titled commoners, such as baronets. This has brought Vintagekits into conflict with editors on WikiProject:Baronetcies such as Kittybrewster, who I believe self-identifies as a baronet in real life and who has written articles about numerous members of his extended family, some of which have been proposed for deletion on notability and/or sourcing grounds. Some editors had the initial reaction that these articles were being sought out and proposed for deletion on ideological grounds; however, further investigation led by previously uninvolved editors such as Giano and Mackensen, revealed that serious reason did exist for concern about these articles, justifying at least to some degree Vintagekits' position. Harsh language and other user conduct during that dispute was regrettable but that dispute, in and of itself, is probably too stale to be arbitrated.

The particular dispute quieted for awhile but I gather from Vintagekits' talkpage that he has been involved in some other controversies, also generally related to disputes between Irish and British editors. There were some prior blocks and, after discussion, unblocks and several admins including but not limited to Alison and SirFozzie have made strong good-faith attempts to salvage the situation, which regrettably seem to have been unsuccessful.

Most recently, Vintagekits clearly crossed the line of acceptable discourse very seriously in his edits cited above by Rockpocket. It is clear that some administrator action was warranted based on those edits, particularly in view of the conditions of his prior unblocking. There remains the issue of whether an indefinite block, as imposed by Alison, was the appropriate response. Alison has asserted on Vintagekits' talkpage that, in addition to improper comments such as those quoted above, Vintagekits has made very serious threats (in two edits now oversighted) involving another editor's real-life identity and address, mandating a definitive and permanent block. There have also been references to a series of abusive e-mails; it is not clear to me whether Vintagekits has admitted or denied having written these. Other editors on the talkpage have acknowledged that Vintagekits made at least some highly inappropriate edits but have urged that he was, to an extent, provoked into doing so.

On Vintagekits' talkpage, Alison has also stated that she believes that based on his conduct, it would be inappropriate for Vintagekits to be unblocked even for the limited purpose of participating in an arbitration case. My understanding is that Alison has communicated privately with one or more arbitrators concerning the content of the threats. Beyond that, neither I nor probably any other user can intelligently comment here because I have not seen the evidence and it does not seem appropriate to post it here.

The questions with which the arbitrators are presented, then, are (1) should the evidence against Vintagekits be considered privately or on-wiki and how should all interested parties be heard; (2) does the evidence against Vintagekits support an indefinite block or a formal ban; and (3) does this case present an appropriate vehicle to discuss any other issues beyond the narrow one of whether Vintagekits should remain blocked. Newyorkbrad 22:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by One Night In Hackney

This case goes far deeper than the conduct of one editor, the currently indefinitely blocked Vintagekits. While his conduct has at times been deplorable, the many, many breaches of policy by his opponents are plain for all to see. For well over six months there has been a campaign of disruption and POV pushing by a group of British (and assorted other) editors on articles related to The Troubles. Some of the Irish editors are equally to blame, very few people have clean hands in this case. In effect since the end of outright conflict in Northern Ireland, Wikipedia has become the new battleground between those believing the views of the British public are what should be presented as NPOV and Irish republicans wanting their side of the story to be told equally and fairly, or in some cases a biased Irish republican viewpoint.

For my part, my editing has been misinterpreted by many editors. Many consider me a POV pusher biased in favour of the Provisional IRA, when the truth is I'm as English as they come. I have probably contributed as much in terms of sourced content to articles relating to Irish republicanism as any active editor. There are currently two articles under the Irish Republicanism WikiProject that are good articles, and I wrote, re-wrote or sourced 90% of both of them. If my editing was as biased as certain editors claim, they would never have passed GA. One administrator who holds a strong anti-Provisional IRA viewpoint has said privately to me that my editing was totally neutral, and anyone seeking to find much evidence to the contrary will have difficulty in doing so.

I am no longer an active Wikipedia editor, so if anyone wishes to spend their time hunting down evidence to blacken my name it will be an exercise in fulility, and there is ample evidence to refute any claims. However the conflict across articles has intensified since I stopped editing Wikipedia, and something needs to be done to get many editors back on the straight and narrow and improving the encylopedia in constructive ways. For this reason I implore the Arbitration Committee to accept this case to examine the conduct of all involved.. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Sam Blacketer

Earlier this year I was involved in trying to (unofficially) mediate between Vintagekits and some other users over Norman Stronge, Hugh Fraser, 1st Baron Fraser of Allander and divers Baronets. I can't comment on the more recent issues brought up but I did form the view that Vintagekits' tendency to view edits through the prism of the Anglo-Irish conflict was very damaging and made it very difficult for him to function effectively in a neutral encyclopaedia. I also felt he unduly personalised his dispute with Kittybrewster. However, he was able with some guidance to see others' points of view and move on. This case has many of the aspects of an 'appeal against community ban' which the committee takes up if there's a reason for believing the ban may be excessive. Pace Squeakbox, it may be that a wider finding would be of assistance. Sam Blacketer 22:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scolaire

I have had relatively few dealings with Vintagekits. What communication we had, I found him to be a genial character, but very sensitive and quick to take offence. Reading through many of the debates he was involved in (although in general I did not get involved myself) I have the distinct impression that certain editors knew exactly where his breaking point was, and steered him relentlessly towards it. Maybe the ugliest example was the editor who contributed anonymously as 84.13.156.208 and who tried to provoke Vk even as he was attempting to get himself unblocked. I find the whole section "Champagne" on User talk:Kittybrewster, culminating in this diff very disturbing. At best it is a show of very undignified gloating by four or five editors (and not btw what talk pages are intended for); at worst it looks like a conspiracy. To come down hard on somebody who doesn't know where to draw the line, while those who know how to "play the game" get off scot-free (pun not intended!) would be very unfair. Scolaire 15:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Counter-revolutionary

I have been away for the past few days and have returned to find myself listed as an "interested party". My experience of Vintagekits has left me with the impression that he is a most discourteous and deliberately provocative editor. He has made many comments which, if the parties involved were still alive (such as in the case of Sir Norman Stronge, would have been libelous; such as accusing him of funding terrorism (a wholly false claim). He has also made provocative statements such as this [38]. I know there are many more, which I cannot locate at the moment, the above are just an example of the sort of editor he is. None of us are without fault but VKs seems to go out of his way to cause trouble. That is all I have to say on the matter.--Counter-revolutionary 17:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Recuse. Picaroon (t) 22:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse from any clerk activity in this case. Newyorkbrad 22:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reject, no basis is presented which would justify unblocking Vintagekits Fred Bauder 23:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I request that Alison please send all private information regarding this matter to the ArbCom mailing list. Paul August ☎ 03:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:DreamGuy

Initiated by Dicklyon at 16:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (bringing the case)
DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (person whose conduct and attitude are being complained about)
Cool Blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (mediator of failed/closed case, receiving end of many messages from DreamGuy)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

General notification on the open RFC about DreamGuy to alert all active participants there.
(updated) Notification of DreamGuy on his talk page.
Cool Blue contributes to the draft RFAr, Official confirmation
[39] In the event that User:DreamGuy believes that I'm an "involved party", I, Arthur Rubin have no objection.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Well documented in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2#Evidence_of_trying_and_failing_to_resolve_the_dispute
More recent attempt via Mediation Cabal: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-17 Photo editing (closed due to DreamGuy's objection)

Statement by User:Dicklyon

The currently open conduct RFC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2) is the best description of the conduct problem. Through continual incivility, DreamGuy manages to alienate every editor that he comes into the slightest conflict with. He has convinced himself that his position is always right, and therefore the others are just "problem editors", justifying his conduct. His statements indicate that he is in denial that any part of his problem with "problem editors" is due to his conduct.

At the end of the talk page there, he firmly rejects our last attempt at content mediation as well, involving a long-running dispute about the use of the term "photoshopping" for photo editing, which he started on March 9, 2007 by blanking the photoshopping article and redirecting it to Adobe Photoshop. All other editors of those articles have converged on a redirect to a small section in photo editing, but there he insists on removing the referenced content and replacing it with a statement that photoshopping simply means using Adobe Photoshop.

Many others who signed on to the conduct RFC had similar complaints about his involvement in articles they care about. I am willing to stipulate that he was sometimes on the "right" side of disputes, in that a final consensus was reached that agreed pretty much with his position. However, his incivil involvement appears to have always made it harder to get there, not easier. On the photoshopping question, however, he is clearly in a minority of one against a number of editors who have made good faith efforts to understand and study his policy concerns (undue weight, neologism, reliable source, etc.) and his position, and to a mediate and reach a consensus. His participation in such processes seems to be a simple rejection, calling everyone names for disagreeing and going about it all wrong. Few editors have yet found a way to work with him, other than to give in and let him have his way. Numerous complaints, three conduct RFCs, several AN/I complaints, etc. have not led to anything like resolution or progress.

DreamGuy also likes to "ban" people from his talk page, claiming "harassment" when they try to discuss things with him, or when they warn him that they're going to file a complaint, etc. He routinely removes talk comments with no response other than an abusive or dismissive edit summary. His User talk:DreamGuy page states his bad-faith attitude clearly: "Note: If you are here to leave personal attacks, false accusations of vandalism, a long tirade about why your cat photo or article about yourself should be left alone as you and only you wanted, nonsensical rationalizations of why vampires, ancient astronauts, werewolves, "creation science" and so on should be treated as completely real and so forth, do not bother, as I'll either just remove them right away or simply point you to the appropriate Wikipedia policy which you should have read in the first place."

This kind of conduct costs wikipedia tremendously in terms of the time, effort, and good will of good editors who deal with DreamGuy. His mode of interaction needs to be changed or stopped.

What I would like this arbitration case to achieve if accepted?

DreamGuy should as a minimum agree (and be held under penalty of blocking) to stop being incivil, to stop asserting a consensus when he's alone against a majority, to carry on dispute discussions on talk pages (including his own) instead of in edit summaries, and to respond as if other editor's actions are in good faith.
DreamGuy should be compelled to remove the blatant assertion of his own assumptions of bad faith from his user talk page. Hopefully, a genuine assumption of good faith can be found to underlie these conduct changes.
DreamGuy should agree to mediation of the photoshopping/photo editing/Adobe Photoshop dispute, pending finding a mediator who knows nothing of him or his history. With respect to this and other content disputes, he must stop asserting that the mediation process is worse than the deadlock that it is intended to help solve, or that other editors don't respect policies.

Statement by User:DreamGuy

Statement by User:Cool Blue

Incivility has been an ongoing issue with DreamGuy. This conduct has been going on for quite sometime.

I'd like to point out specifically March 9, 2007, where DreamGuy deliberating redirected a page to Adobe Photoshop without any consensus or discussion. Any topic that he finds the least bit undesirable, he takes some kind of extraordinary means to, in someways get rid of it; see here. The issue with Photoshopping has been going on for quite sometime now.

I've did a little bit of mediation work with the Mediation Cabal, and was looking for a case to mediate at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases when I accepted a case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-17 Photo editing. I have had negative interactions with DreamGuy in the past, but could not recall any details, and did not recall the negative interactions until DreamGuy objected, so I accepted the case anyways. I had started doing some preliminary work with two other editors, and reviewed an alternative version, when I received a message from DreamGuy stating he objected to me as mediator, and the Mediation Cabal system alike. Normally, that's how the process works, but he came forward, without any recent, previous confrontation here. I'd like to point out one passage "The ide that you can go to my talk page, ask if I want to be a party, and if not you'll remove my name and make a decision anyway is a complete misrepresentation of how mediation is supposed to work. As you seem more interested in forging ahead to a solution with or without my input, I question your ability (or perhaps willingness) to act as a fair and uninvolved mediator here. You should remove yourself as a mediator, as you cannot go forward without this being completely a sham process. Considering that it's also been clear from the start that I think "Mediation Cabal" protocols (when they are actually followed, which you did not do) are contrary to the standard rules of Wikipedia (one individual person with no background shows up and tries to determine consensus on his own? that's nonsense), the people involved *know* this and the mediation attempt was clearly made in bad faith. But, hey, thanks to your screw up in not following the mediation rules, you've only gone to prove my point on why I don't trust it." It's only a myth that the mediator needs to ask all parties before-hand, as proved here. When I explained this to DreamGuy he responded "If you intend to try to mediate in the future, you should read up on the basics of mediation. "Mediation is purely voluntary. All interested parties must be willing to accept mediation. If any interested party does not accept mediation, we cannot help." is just a starter. The mediation process here is flawed and full of people who have no business pretending to be mediators, but at least most of them read the rules before jumping in." I am aware of that, and when DreamGuy didn't want to participate I closed the case, following all guidelines of the Mediation Cabal.

As per Dicklyon above, I also feel that the message on his talkpage is unnecessary.

His attitude needs to change. Period.

Statement by ElC

This looks rather one-sided, both on the part of the initiator (whom I agree with on the content front, incidentally) as well as from an unofficial mediator who, by his or her own words, may not have been entirely objective and might have accepted a case prematurely. This is a good time as any for me to reiterate my unease of the Mediation Cabal (I note that an MC member, Ideogram, who recently launched and quickly withdrew a prior RfAr on DreamGuy, has recently been placed on a one year community ban); I always prefer formal mediation. As the admin chiefly monitoring the RfC, I've been struggling to keep it from being disrupted by editors mostly hostile to DreamGuy ^{(examples: [40] [41])} and although, DG was not entirely satisfied with me, either, I must say that if this treatment is the norm for him, I rather understand his talk page disclaimer (I don't approve of it, but it isn't that different than several others I know). Let me go beyond photoshopping, then, and discuss the conduct RfC.

As mentioned elsewhere, although the certifiers did not directly participate in disrupting this request for comment attempt, I do not feel they did enough (leaving it pretty much all up to me) to combat this negative atmosphere; moreover, they often seemed to argue that the focus should be placed exclusively on DreamGuy (I made it clear that, on Wikipedia, everyone's conduct is subject to review, at any time; there's no license for people to be uncivil simply because they are charging "reckless incivility" against the subject of an RfC). Conduct RfCs are not free-for-alls.

Members of the Committee, I've been struggling for long now to keep conduct RfCs from degenerating into indictment-like pages, where little if any prior or ongoing dispute resolution efforts are undertaken and illustrated (you may have only seen me act in high-profile RfCs, such as the Kelly Martin ones, and so on, but my work on that front has been extensive). This RfC was no exception. It started with editors violating the certification rules, continued through threaded discussions and top-page notices on the project page, and kept going down hill from there. Only thorough refractoring on my part kept the project page comprehensible and free from revert warring, but even this wasn't enough as unproductive discussion was simply diverted, mostly but no means entirely, to the RfC's talk page, where it appeared to me that several editors were already set on treating it as a step toward arbitration, arguably to impose punitive measures on DG, rather than a genuine dispute resolution attempt.

In this extension, I note the sheer volume of DreamGuy RfCs and RfArs; one of the former, which I recently deleted was created by-now two banned users who failed to undertake any efforts at dispute resolution (and yet, it was allowed to stay, with people "commenting," for years). This RfC wasn't quite as bad in some ways, but was worse in others. As I told Daniel Case (the author of the second diff I cited; and no, I do not retract my astonishment upon learning that he as an admin): "If this is the sort of expression that DG is ordinarily subjected to, that would work explain many things." Someone on the RfC has compared DreamGuy's with RickK's treatment, a comparison which, I, as someone who on several occasions personally spoken with Rick on what made him leave the English Wiki, is an apt one. El_C 19:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TexasAndroid

It was stated a number of times, in a number of ways, at the RFC, that incivility against DreamGuy does not justify DreamGuy being incivil back. And I fully agree with this: DreamGuy's incivility is not justifiable in any way by the actions of others, and should be fully subject to review and possibly sanction by this RFAr process.

But that said, it really is a two way street. If the hands of those that bring this RFAr, or who piled on DreamGuy at the RFC, are not clean in the matter, then others should be just as subject to the review and sanction by the RFAr process. So, assuming that this case is accepted, while I fully expect to see DreamGuy's actions to be scrutinized, I would hope that the actions of those that have been incivil towards DreamGuy are given just as close of a scrutiny as DreamGuy's own actions. There certainly appear to be unclean hands on both sides of this one. - TexasAndroid 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thespian

It is said that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. People will, over the next little while, repeat over and over that while people have violated WP:CIVIL towards Dreamguy, of course they, themselves, were not innocent. This will be used both in his defense, and as an argument against him (and you will see, in the investigation of this, a number of people who start out civil, if contentious, and wind up as rude as Dreamguy is).

I first encountered Dreamguy on Otherkin and Therianthropy. Now, please note, I'm not a terribly unbiased editor; you'll find I once commented that The current self-identifying therians don't want to be mistaken for otherkin because, well, a lot of people think that otherkin are nuts. But to be honest, if someone says to me, "My soul is actually that of a panther," I'm going to think the same (therians never seem to realize that their soul is that of a boll weevil).[42] However, I have friends who are furries and Otherkin, I'm involved in fandom, and I know that a moderate voice could be used between the people who want to treat it as completely real and the people who want to treat it as a psychosis. Indeed, I said as much about the articles being edited by self-defined therianthropes[43], but that also applies to anyone who has an extreme view on the subject.

Eventually, there was an issue with external linking to the WikiFur project at Wikia. I was not severely attached to either side; I was more pro towards allowing the link, because things in the softer sciences, humanities, etc., are quite simply not as rigorously citable, and I do feel that if people are looking up an obscure term like therianthropy, there's a very good chance they encountered it, at this time, through the Therian or Otherkin communities. The link is, in my opinion, useful and relevant to the audience for that page. But I wasn't going to go to a throwdown WP:OWN issue over it. The link was added, removed, discussed briefly on the talk page, and readded, and it was solid. And then Dreamguy removed the entire section[44] after returning to the page after a little over eight months away (12 Oct 2006[45] - 28 May 2007[46]). No one really knew who he was, he just showed up, ignored the varied consensus that people on the page had been working for on a tricky subject, and started making up rules, such as a declaration that 'competing wikis absolutely DO NOT meet WP:EL guidelines.' [47] He was asked to come to the talk page where other discussion of the links had been had, and discuss his change but he instead decided that his non-existant rule was all he needed, and talk was irrelevant[48] (please note that regardless of whether Dreamguy believed Mermaid was blind reverting, Mermaid had been consistantly around making an edit or two every month on the page while Dreamguy wasn't - this wasn't someone who was just wikistalking him, though Dreamguy claims otherwise, and perhaps they have elsewhere. It was certainly not the case here). Bryan Derksen pointed out that this wasn't just Mermaid from the Baltic Sea, and attempted to get Dreamguy to speak with other editors on the project.[49]

I can continue outlining this bakklewheep, but the page history is easily browsed at this point.

Now, I present you with this: first thing I ever said to Dreamguy. I think, all told, it was moderate and polite. I did say I felt he sounded aggressive (but if you read up...well). He never responded to me. Over the next couple of days, he kept firing off pretty randomly at people. Now, please note, I genuinely believed that he was editing in Good Faith, even if his random attacks and use of edit summaries to editorialize on other editors were stretching it - I believed that Dreamguy's editing was IGF, even as his meta-behaviour was becoming unacceptable. After a couple days of several editors being in consensus that all the EL links that Dreamguy had removed were good removals, except for WikiFur, and him abusing anyone who reinserted it, I filed a MedCab on Therianthropy (not, please note, on Dreamguy, but instead a way to simply get someone completely random to come in and straighten out the issues). I was a newish experienced editor at the time (nearing 1000 edits), and I've realized since that an RfC would have been a better option. That, however, didn't seem to matter. Though the mediation was intended for the whole page, and for all editors (and I was only slightly biased by my inclusionist tendencies to want to leave resources available, and not because I was passionately wanting the link to stay), Dreamguy decided that because the argument did mention it was 'a number of other editors, including myself, Bryan Derksen and more' and 'Dreamguy' as the sides, it was actually Mediation against him. He refused the mediation, and closed the case by himself. You can see it here.[50]

Dreamguy often refers to any attempt to speak with him by someone who disagrees with him as harassment. At one point, he referred to the recent RfC about him as such. I asked him how people were expected to have civil conversations with him considering his banninations from his talk page, his abuse in edit summaries, his attacks on people who try to disagree with him on talk pages.[51] He never responded to me. When the subject of this Arbitration came up, I noted that I still believe that he's editing in good faith, but that when doing something for the first time (the MedCab), he attacked me and indeed I felt he gamed the system to take advantage of a new editor and avoid the process.[52] He never replied. I asked at one point what was going on, because he doesn't seem to be enjoying Wikipedia these days; indeed, he seems to be holding on tenaciously though it's making him bitter and angry, and discussed the fact that Dreamguy just plain seems to dislike a lot of the people that he works with on Wikipedia, which is problematic because while you don't need to befriend them all, you do need to be able to collaborate with them.[53] He never responded. Indeed, my 'squeaky wheel' metaphor back there refers to this -- I often feel like the only way you can even get Dreamguy's attention these days is agreeing with him or sinking to his level of incivility - my comments, which were low key even when I was angry, simply don't hit his radar.

Despite the fact that Dreamguy abused me a fair bit with his napalm-like accusations at WP:EL that everyone who disagrees with him were 'pro-furry' and more, I've stayed fairly clearheaded on this, as Wikipedia is enjoyable and stimulating, but Not the Most Important Thing In The World. However, I have admitted on WP:AN/I that I no longer edit pages that I see Dreamguy has been editing, simply because the chances of being dragged into fights as he lays down edicts seems to escalate on any page he works on. It would be pleasant to add to several pages he works on, but it's just simply not worth it to have to deal with the anger and incivility that comes when you try and do anything he disagrees with. --Thespian 06:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ghirla

It looks like a certain clique of editors seeks to impose punitive measures on DG, no matter what, although their own behaviour merits closer examination. I don't think any of the people casting stones at DreamGuy would do any better if they found themselves hounded to an even remotely similar degree. There have been no good-faith attempts at dispute resolution, rather a sustained campaign to have their opponent chastised for real or imaginary offenses. This is not what dispute resolution is about. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wizardman

There is, of course, two sides to this story. Those who find DreamGuy incredibly destructive and hurtful to the wikimedia community, and those who feel that DreamGuy, though uncivil, has been given a very bum deal. While I agree more with the former, (DreamGuy's lack of RfC support says I may be in the majority there) I feel that the latter is skewing the situation a bit, and that it's not about him retaliating so much as him being a problem here. Of course ArbCom has to accept this case, it's about time this guy is at least looked at by ArbCom. To say that there have been no good-faith attempts as resolution is flat out wrong, there was just an RfC that was clsoed only when both sides really started attacking each other. That just means we need to bring this here even more. I note that even the people on his side note that he's been abusive and incivil, so the sooner this is accepted and taken care of, the better Wizardman 15:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alucard (Dr.)

There is a history of accusations that have been thrown around on all sides about lack of civility, POV editing, wiki-stalking, sockpuppetry, questioning motives/intent, edit warring and the like, to the point where certain articles are now a hostile editing environment, which I see as counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. Various remedial procedures have been attempted and have failed. Discussions about content issues are tinged with anger. Whether DreamGuy or the various people that contributed to the RfC are found to be at fault is, as far as I am concerned, academic at this point - this needs to stop, for the good of the encyclopedia. According to my understanding of the dispute resolution process, I see this as the logical next step, and am pleased that the scope is to look at everyone involved, rather than just one person. I encourage this case to be opened. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 19:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also note similar-style edit-warring with accusations is going on in the article Adobe Photoshop. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 18:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by clpo13

While it is true that DreamGuy is often a good editor, his attitude when he comes into conflict with other editors is really quite a problem. This is only natural when one does anti-vandalism and anti-spam work, as DreamGuy does; however, when an editor objects to his/her edits being called spam or vandalism, DreamGuy does not appear to stop and take their complaints into account. He merely brushes them off and goes on his way, even going so far as to remove their comments to his talk page as "harassment." Now, I will not deny that certain editors (myself included) involved the various dispute resolution processes are guilty of the very things DreamGuy is accused of. The case may very well be one of the pot (or pots) calling the kettle black. But the fact still remains that both the pot and the kettle are black, meaning that there still exists a problem that needs to be investigated. If that means repercussions for editors other than DreamGuy, than so be it. As Alucard said, a hostile editing environment is completely against what Wikipedia is about, and extreme attitude by even a single editor (even if there are some understandable reasons for it) doesn't help things at all. --clpo13_(talk) 08:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bryan Derksen

I'm not a party to the current Photoshopping dispute but I did participate in the RfC (I was directed to it by an editor who had referenced a mailing list posting of mine in it and I felt I should clarify what I'd said there) and have had occasional disputes with DreamGuy in the past. I was a significant participant in the Therianthropy external link dispute described by Thespian, for example. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2#Procedure question (about halfway down the section, a text search for the string "my past interactions" should jump to the correct spot) for brief descriptions of how DreamGuy and myself each perceived a major event in the incident, along with direct links to the source material so one can judge it for one's self.

DreamGuy's taken on a number of unenviable tasks in tidying up articles that tend to draw "crankish" or otherwise difficult contributors, and over the years has clashed with a lot of editors that probably needed to be clashed with. However, in my opinion he's developed the attitude that everyone who disagrees with him is someone that needs to be clashed with. I pride myself on being good at discussion but in my past encounters with DreamGuy I've found that there seems to be no way to disagree or compromise with him in a civil manner. He's very quick to make assumptions of bad faith on the part of other editors and is completely confident of his own position's correctness in the face of widespread disagreement, even going so far as to refuse to acknowledge that there is disagreement to begin with. It's unfortunate that it's come to arbitration but I think his bad behavior is causing more problems than his good editing makes up for and there seems to be no other way to address it.

Clerk notes

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

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

Accept. Kirill 18:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. James F. (talk)
Accept. Fred Bauder 21:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SevenOfDiamonds

Involved parties

User:SevenOfDiamonds AKA User:SixOfDiamonds AKA User:74.73.16.230 AKA User:69.201.147.240
User:NuclearUmpf AKA User:Zer0faults (This is the person who Seven of Diamonds is accused of being)
User:MONGO (main evidence collector)
User:Theresa knott (bringing the case)
Various other admins who I'm not sure if I should list as being involved or not.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

MONGO informed by Theresa Knott

SevenofDiamonds informed by Theresa Knott | The otter sank

Statement by Theresa Knott

Seven of Diamonds first appeared as Six of Diamonds on the 11th July. Since that time he has been accused of being the sockpuppet of a number of different ~~banned~~ users, some of whom are indefinitely banned. Most accusations have been in the form of checkuser requests:

But there have also been some quips on the incident noticeboard in the seemingly never ending threads on the matter.

On the 16th August MONGO posted an evidence page that SevenOfDiamonds was banned user NuclearUmpf to the Arbitration enforcement and a discussion followed.[54] I reviewed the evidence and felt it was pretty strong. I was close to blocking but User:El C felt that because of the number of previous check user cases that ~~Seven of Diamonds was being harassed~~ there was possible phishing going on and objected. The case was therefore closed by a clerk with the statement that it needs to go to you guys. Later on I learned that El C hadn't actually looked at the evidence page before objecting.

Later that evening another admin blocked SevenofDiamonds as a sock [55]. This caused yet another post on the admin noticeboard [56] The objection was that the block was out of process because the clerk had said it must go to Arbitration. The blocking admin therefore unblocked.

That is basically it (I've missed out some minor details to keep the request short) So far, as far as I can tell, all objections have been process ones rather than people who have looked and the evidence and stated it was not strong enough. What I would like you to do is look at the evidence (we can tidy it up for you if you accept the case) and make a binding decision on this. SevenofDiamonds is either a sockpuppet of a banned user who we can block as such, or he is a new user in good standing in which case all those saying otherwise need to shut up. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

Up front...I admit that I have no problem with ban evaders returning to work on articles so long as they don't resume doing the same things and arguing with the same editors that got them banned to begin with. I already spent a lot of hours off and on over the last month checking the diffs and information that I have posted in my userspace...at User:MONGO/Ban evasion. I could look for more, but frankly I am tired of this...I figure this is all a bit of a game anyway...he (as can almost anyone) can return and recreate a new account...the only way to detect if it is him if checkuser is stale is by tracking the diffs and cross examining them. As Theresa Knott has said, if SevenOfDiamonds is not found to be NuclearUmpf/Zer0faults, then I will issue a formal apology to SevenOfDiamonds and shut up. Do I believe the evidence is solid proof these are the same editor? Absolutely.--MONGO 17:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, I asked User:RyanFreisling here to look over my evidence page since she was convinced for a long time that User:Rex071404 (see:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404 and two other arbcom cases naming him) was user NuclearUmpf/Zer0faults. I remembered her making these comments multiple times, so I did ask her to look over my evidence page to see if the editing style she saw there reminded her of Rex. There are many examples of Ryan discussing this matter... such as this one...so my basis for making comments to such effect was due to my knowledge that Ryan is not someone that would make accusations of sockpuppetry just for the sake of doing so, and neither am I, but I have not examined any diffs that might connect Rex to Diamonds at all, and won't.--MONGO 04:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dtobias's comments below are preposterous, as are most that he makes about me to the mailing list. It is normal, as far as I know, to assemble diffs and evidence for checkuser requests, Rfc's and arbcom in one's own userspace...if this isn't the case, then why isn't he addressing the fact that SevenOfDiamonds is doing the exact same thing.--MONGO 19:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amarkov

Almost all the objections on the case took the form of "but MONGO's done this too many times already, he can't keep making accusations!" While this sure looks a lot like repeatedly making accusations until one of them sticks, even I admit that the evidence here is pretty convincing. -Amarkov moo! 17:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aude

I was the one who filed RFCU, regarding FAAFA and Rootology, based on suspicions MONGO and others had. Jumped the gun on that, and it was a mistake. Apologies to everyone. Reasons why I quickly realized this RFCU was a mistake:

Rootology and FAAFA's edits were stale, so RFCU was pointless anyway.
When I looked at the editing pattern, time of day, for FAAFA and Rootology, they were totally different. clearly not a match. Time of day isn't 100% proof that SevenOfDiamonds is a match for Nuclear, but it eliminates other possibilities. With that, one can then look at the editing behavior and style in detail and see if other characteristics match.
One characteristics of SoD/Nuclear that stands apart from others, is the way that SevenOfDiamonds seemed to have an issue with me [57] [58], from the outset. That never happened with Rootology, FAAFA, (or Giovanni and Bmedley), since I'm not involved on the state terrorism page and rarely interacted with them. So, that was an indication that Rootology, FAAFA, (or Giovanni and Bmedley) are not matches. But, Nuclear did, such as this exchange in February [59] on a page I had been watching and editing for 1+ years and Nuclear just came on days prior, and asks me to "stop following his edits" and "Try not to poke and prod." Characteristics I've seen in Nuclear's edits match the tone and style I've seen with SevenOfDiamonds.

As for Lovelight, I knew immediately it was not a match. I think the RFCU requester should have known better. First of all, Lovelight's edits are stale by now. Also, the editing styles totally do not match, as well I know the geographic location and IPs used by Lovelight (not at all a match). That's why I asked for that request to quickly be closed.

It's taken a while to pour over the evidence, but this is by far strong evidence when it's all considered collectively. Any one individual bit of evidence wouldn't convince me, but all the pieces together. Unlikely coincidence that this is a new editor and someone other than Nuclear. This is not about politics or anything, but simply that he became quarrelsome and disruptive, as has SevenOfDiamonds. This mess has been a distraction for MONGO and others, to keep having sockpuppets come back to resume the same tactics, arbcom decisions and bans not enforced. If SevenOfDiamonds simply came back and edited more quietly, I'd have no problems with that. But, that's not the situation here, and the drama and disruption needs to stop. I suggest looking past the numbers RFCUs here (many were mistakes or naive), but look at the collective evidence. --Aude (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Raymond Arritt

This is a complex case for several reasons. Most importantly, there is no single piece of evidence that proves sockpuppetry but instead an accumulation of coincidences. Each of these is minor on its own: two people following the same schedule proves nothing; two people editing similar politically-oriented articles proves nothing; two people with a similar grammatical quirk proves nothing; and so on. But when two people follow the same schedules and edit overlapping political articles and edit overlapping non-political articles and have a certain stylistic quirk in common and have another stylistic quirk in common and have various other traits in common the probability of pure coincidence becomes smaller and smaller. The lack of an obvious smoking gun resulted in a failure of administrators to reach consensus at the Arbitration Enforcement board, with some feeling there was a strong case and others summarily rejecting it. A second complication is that there is a history of antagonism and ill-will between some of the parties. Finally, SevenOfDiamonds was the subject of checkuser inquiries in the past that did not find evidence of sockpuppetry, and this fact has been used by some to dismiss the present case out of hand. Nonetheless I believe that this case should be considered on its own merits.

Since administrators are unable to reach a consensus, I request that the arbitration committee take up this case so we can put this recurring source of drama behind us one way or the other.

Statement by FayssalF

This conflict has lasted more than necessary. User:MONGO says he is being harassed all the time by User:SevenOfDiamonds and had accused the latter of sockpuppetry a few times until he prepared User:MONGO/Ban evasion. On the other hand, User:SevenOfDiamonds accuses MONGO of multiple false accusations of sockpuppetry and bullying.

I had blocked SevenOfDiamonds indefinitely as a sock of User:NuclearUmpf who has been blocked indef before. My block justification was this [Ban evasion] mentioned above which i have spotted at the ANI. An hour later i unblocked the account after i found out that there was an ArbEnfor case related to the subject in where no consensus was reached between admins. I obviously thought that the ArbCom is the appropriate entity which can sort this out and where admins failed.

All i want from the ArbCom is to consider this case and see what needs to be done appropriately. Thank you. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:SevenOfDiamonds

I am not Nuclear, I have not harassed anyone either. MONGO follows me around, he calls me names, he brings up his accusations on any page I particpate on. He went into a rant even on a RfA page attacking me.

Evidence presented consists of "both users say Thank you," "Both users edit in the same timezone," "They both live in the same city," (along with 2.5 million others) "they both edit at the same time," (as much of the east coast)

Differences ignored by MONGO that are obvious:

Nuclear stated he lives in Park Slope brooklyn according to MONGO. I live in BayRidge which is about 3 miles away and large difference in income.
MONGO states both of us live in Park Slope because of a RDNS. RDNS based on location goes to the trunk of the ISP. The trunk is located in Sunset Park, which lies between BayRidge and Park Slope, anyone living in Brooklyn knows this place because it is where you pick up your cable box.
Other than 9/11 articles and the "allegations" article, our topics have nothing in common. In fact if you look at pages I create and actively edit, you can see I mainly "argue" on 9/11 pages not actually edit them directly.
My topic of interest is Latin American studies. The articles I create and edit are on these topics, something not in common with Nuclear.
MONGO attempts to link the two by an edit Nuclear made to the "allegations" page where he added a section on Guatemala, a country I am not familiar with as I am only interested in countries with dictatorship and corrupt governments in Latin America. I have never actually edited a page on Guatemala.
MONGO stated Nuclear never wikilinks policy, then provides difs of him not doing it. Ignoring of course the times he did, in less than a minute I managed to find examples: [60] [61].
I also do wikilink policy at times: [62] [63] [64] [65]
When Nuclear left according to MONGO, he stated he already had a new account, this was in February. I have not edited with an account until SixOfDiamonds was made. MONGO ignores this fact as well.
Nuclear left threatening to cause disruption, of which if you check my block log I have not. Other than constantly having to defend myself against MONGO and his friends in RFCU's and AN/I posts, some of them not even users I have edited articles alongside.
I have been editing Wikipedia for over a year under various IP's and under two different ISP's. What MONGO categorizes as my first edit, is not, it is just the last one that can be tracked due to my use of it after registering an account.
MONGO's proof of us being the same is that we both mispell "commonly misspelled words." The key being they are common for a reason.
MONGO repeatedly has stated I started an RfC against him. This is false and if it can be undeleted it can be proven. The RfC in question was brought to my attention by a post on my talk page. After having had MONGO threaten me on my talk page with "stop or else," "I will have you blocked," and repeated accusations of being a sockpuppet, as well as vandalizing my talk page.
Most of MONGO's evidence revolves around the time of day both me and Nuclear edit, which corresponds to the day time of the entire east coast. MONGO however ignores that Nuclear's editing never drops, ignoring that my editing does at 7AM since that is when myself and most of NYC leaves for work. New Yorkers typically leave between 7-8AM to get to work at 9AM, which is why the period is called "rush hour," and known all over the world for it.
MONGO also ignores in his own chart that my editing does not peak until 2 hours after Nuclears since this is when I typically get home, living further away from Nuclear I would suppose, my train ride would take longer, if like most of NYC we both left work at 5PM. It actually does not even look like Nuclear works since there is never a drop in his editing, it just rises until lunch then tapers off afterwards, as if there is no travel time.
MONGO states that both myself and Nuclear have removed posts from him and Tom, then provides difs of only me removing his posts. This is for two reasons, I have had nothing but good interactions with Tom, or so I thought, and because MONGO failed to mention the posts I removed are accusing me of being a sockpuppet and attacking me, if you look at what he actually wrote that was removed.
MONGO states I always misspell "consensus" as "concensus." While I am sure I have my typos I have actually corrected the spelling of someone else and spelled it correctly myself. [66]
In response to Aude. As I noted in the arbitration page, my hostility toward them was due to MONGO stating they had already passed jugement on me, and felt I was a sockpuppet. I asked them about this, and they did not deny it, I then asked them not to present themselves as a neutral person.
Aude later filed a RFCU against me based on MONGO's accusations.
Aude believed the evidence presented proved I was Rootology and Fairness.
Theresa Knott is noted as stating the evidence presented by TBeatty proved I was Lovelight. Only retracting after noticing it was already declared stale.

To give some history, my interaction with MONGO began after MONGO appeared on my talk page attempting to bully me into submission over an AfD he lost, I started to watch his edits. I did not make any malicious edits on pages he participated, but I would involve myself in some debates if I knew of the topic and seen MONGO attempting to bully someone. Much like he did when he followed Giovanni to the Hiroshima page just to revert him, a page he never edited before then and only appeared an hour after Giovanni edited it, Tom appeared shortly after Giovanni reverted MONGO, of course to then revert Giovanni.

I am sure after the hunt ends I will soon by hunted down again for being user:rex another person MONGO has taken to accusing me of. This new accusation started on the Arbitration page after some did not agree with MONGO. I enjoy editing Wikipedia but these games of politics are making it dificult and are becoming quite annoying. I have had my privacy violated in a fishing expedition as I was claimed to be 5 other users, and now gearing up a 6th when this one fails, alleging I am a user named rex.

If this Arbitration is not going to look at MONGO as well as myself, then it is bias. These accusations come from "evidence" MONGO has cherry picked, and based on his intent to drive me from Wikipedia, having accused me of being four other users now, rex, Rootology, Fairness and now Nuclear / zero. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment: I just want to add that Proabivouac, a user I have had no interaction with, who has only recently appeared only to constant confirm MONGO's statements, has stated MONGO always believed before accusing me of being anyone else, that I was Nuclear. However MONGO himself has stated that this is not the case, that he in fact believed I was Rootology and Fairness, which is why he presented evidence to Aude as such and then Aude filed their false RFCU. MONGO stated he only started believing I was Nuclear last month, which I would like to point, when he stated that he was still accusing me of being Rootology if you look at the date of that RFCU. So either MONGO was lying or purposely subjecting me to RFCU's he knew were not true, or Pro is lying about MONGO in an attempt to make it seem as though MONGO was never part of the fishing expedition, in an attempt to bolster his statements. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AuburnPilot

As one of the admins standing in the way of consensus, I do not believe the evidence provided is enough to block SevenOfDiamonds based on the enforcement of a previous arbitration case. If you look only at the evidence provided by MONGO is his subpage User:MONGO/Ban evasion, there is certainly an indication of sockpuppetry, but if you look at the contributions of the editors as a whole, those diffs begin to look a bit cherry picked.

As for edit summaries, MONGO points out that the two editors use edit summaries with single words or phrases such as "huh", "+1", and/or words such as "response" and "note". True, but if you look at my edit summaries, you see "huh?" [67] [68] [69], "+1" [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75], and single word edit summaries such as "response" [76] and "note" [77] [78] [79] [80]. Maybe SOD is my sockpuppet...

Now look at the times they are actively editing. Yes, there is a general similarity, but if both users are in fact residents of New York/surrounding area, it's common sense that the two editors would be active during the same time. This is not evidence of sockpuppetry.

As for the spelling mistakes, I actually had to stop and consider how I'd been spelling those words when looking at the diffs. Thankfully, I've been spelling them correctly, but these are common spelling mistakes. I was actually sure "consensus" was spelled "concensus" but realized it was likely because I'd been looking at the misspelling for several days [81]. Must be another sockpuppet. Same goes for the other spelling mistakes; they are not common to these two users.

Bottom line, there's a fair amount of evidence presented (so much that I can't address it all here), but it is not enough to show they are unquestionably the same person. The spelling mistakes, editing times, edit summary use, and 3RR blocks (note I have one) are not unique to these users and diffs could be provided showing the same for many users. With that in mind, I'll echo several of the users above and suggest the arbcom take this case so that editors and admins can act or shut up. - auburnpilot talk 18:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the knotted facts, by ElC

Regrettably, I feel compelled argue that Theresa had taken a bit too much liberty with the facts, at least with respect to my position. I'll be brief:

First, where are the Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried? This section should have contained some of the links in a more organized fashion (the various noticeboard threads and some key talk page ones). But this is a relatively minor point.
Second, while I did, indeed, object, I did not do so on the basis that SoD "was being harassed." In fact, nowhere have I used the word harassment in connection with this case. I did, nevertheless, express unease with all the phishing. And more on that directly below.
Third, with respect to all the phishing, her list above is incomplete and flawed: Giovano33 is not banned. Here are all rfcu and users: a. As IP:70.105.24.127, IP:74.73.16.230, and IP:172.131.137.61 (result: unrelated); b. Rootology and Fairness and Accuracy For All (result: declined, stale); c. Giovanni33 (result: unrelated); d. Lovelight (result: stale, unrelated?). The NuclearUmpf one is likely stale.
Finally, the reason I felt uneasy was that the block Theresa had proposed came the next day after the Lovelight RFCU. What struck me was that the user who filed it, argued on ANI that "the evidence is strong enough to stand without checkuser"^[82] (italics is my emphasis).

In light (no pun intended) of the above, I don't think it was unreasonable for me to feel uneasy about the extent of the phishing. If it changes from the day to day yet continued to be expressed with such certainty, then insisting on having the Committee review the matter and conduct its own investigation is not unreasonable. This is not to pass judgment on the latest, NuclearUmpf evidence by Mongo, which, indeed, I have yet to review. The point is that appearances count and a formal arbitration proceeding looks to be the best way to untie the knots (pun intended!) and retie everything together in a cohesive, comprehensive, and comprehensible format. Thus, I urge the Committee to speedily accept this case. El_C 21:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I extend my thanks to Theresa for amending her statement in accordance with some of my points. El_C 21:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dtobias

The ArbCom decided unanimously that harrassment of an editor must be opposed by other editors and admins alike. This was aimed originally at combatting harrassment against MONGO, and has been invoked many times since with regard to attacks against him and various other editors. Commonly, when this ArbCom decision is cited, the point is made that the truth of any particular accusation the "harrasser" is making is either irrelevant or at least of lesser importance compared to the importance of opposing a campaign of harrassment against an editor. Now, is the sauce for the goose as good as the sauce for the gander? If MONGO and his friends, allies, defenders, and enablers engage in a campaign of harrassment of another editor, should that be regarded as a bad thing, even if it's possible one of the accusations in the whole series may be true? MONGO has clearly been out to get SevenOfDiamonds, and, with the assistance of a varying group of others, has tried a whole series of possible sockpuppet users until they could find one that would stick. This one does have some suspicious evidence, though still very circumstantial. But shouldn't the ArbCom be concerned about the sort of organized campaign of serial accusations against an editor that has taken place? Or, if this sort of thing is tolerated, then it needs to be tolerated in the "other direction" too, where even long-time, powerful users like MONGO can't duck criticisms levied at them by labeling their critics "harrassers". Because the sort of thing he did... building a subpage in his userspace collecting evidence against an editor... is precisely the sort of thing that (when it's done by somebody outside the "clique" to somebody inside it) is labeled "harrassment", "outing", "wikistalking", "creating an attack page", or, if done off-wiki, an "attack site", and is vilified and often leads to the person doing this getting blocked or banned. There needs to be an end to the double standard, where a favored clique gets different rights and responsibilities from everybody else, because some animals are more equal than others. *Dan T.* 22:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Tom harrison

I hope the arbitrators will review the evidence and decide whether or not SixOfDiamonds/SevenOfDiamonds is Zer0faults/NuclearUmpf. If he is not, then we can can apologize and move on, hopefully without needing any further dispute resolution. If he is, then the remedies in the previous arbitration should apply. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RxS

I also urge ArbCom to take up this issue. The ban evasion evidence page is quite compelling. Raymond Arritt put it well, so I won't repeat it except to say that each individual piece may not be convincing, but all together they point pretty clearly to a sock puppet link. The number of previous accusations are unfortunate but this request should be judged on it's own merit. I also think that if anyone other than Mongo had brought the ban evasion evidence forward there's a very strong chance the block would have stuck and we wouldn't be here. Mongo's role in this is fair game as is anyone else who is directly involved. One last thing, Dtobias claims that using a subpage to collect and organize evidence constitutes harassment. It needs to be understood that using a subpage for this purpose is perfectly acceptable, it's done routinely in preparation for RFC's, Checkuser requests, mediation request etc. Bottom line, even some of SoD's supporters admit to some suspicions about his status as a sock, this debate has to end somewhere and this is as good a place as any.

Statement by KWSN

As a CU clerk, I patrol those pages a lot. The Lovelight CU page was not checked and closed by a CU, but instead by another admin (I did a listuser to confirm). Kwsn(Ni!) 02:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Proabivouac

Before he had posted anything on wiki, MONGO e-mailed me asking me, as an experienced evaluator of sock reports, to review the contributions of ZF/NU and SevenOfDiamonds. It didn't take too much reading to determine that these were probably the same writer. Combined with the circumstantial evidence, ZF/NU's declared intent to return to harass his enemies and special fixation on MONGO, I concluded that Diamonds was ZF/NU.

While such impressions can be reliable, they are black boxy. To demarcate and assemble specific points of evidence is a laborious task which the wiki interface (at least the version I'm using) doesn't facilitate. The first step is to download a corpus of text from both usernames accompanied by diffs and times, which, barring some automated solution, must be done diff by diff. Ideally, this should not be necessary: a handful of disinterested people with a proven ear for style would take a look and come to a conclusion. However, few users are particularly good at this, and fewer willing to examine something in which they have no stake.

Per Diamonds' and Auburn Pilot's statements, all assemblies of positive evidence look like "cherry picking" - it's the presence of so many cherries which makes them convincing. Even statistical analyses like the edit time chart are chosen to support the point. Conversely, material which indicates nothing in particular has no place in any report. The only things that would be immune to the "cherry picking" charge are links to contribution histories - and even here it's obvious. While but one point, the consistent misspelling of "concencus" is a fantastic example of something that was anything but "cherry-picked" - one diff MONGO presented showed Diamonds saying "concensus," I wondered if ZF/NU did the same, and googled it: it was everywhere.

To observe that others display one or another of the traits which link these two users is to entirely miss the point. Suppose we identified someone as John Smith, male, 27 yrs. old, born on August 18th, 5'11", 73 kg, living in Sudbury, etc. It is as if we observed, but many people are named John, that means nothing. Many are named Smith; that too, means nothing. Lots of people live in Sudbury. etc. It is the persistent confluence of many logically independent lines of evidence which indicates identity. To proceed as if this reasoning were inherently invalid will make the identification of any sockpuppets - and the enforcement of any remedy - impossible.Proabivouac 04:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tbeatty

I requested CU for SevenOfDiamonds being Lovelight because in the middle of the history of a bunch of disruptive edits that Lovelight was later banned for, were two IP edits doing the identical thing. SoD admits these disruptive edits were his before he created the Six/Seven accounts. I did not know that MONGO had such a strong case against SoD being NuclearUmpf and he was planning on filing a arbitration enforcement case. There are two things that are known here: 1) SevenOfDiamonds is a sockpuppet with the only question remaining is of whom (and MONGO has an extremely convincing case) and 2) SevenOfDiamonds is disruptive enough that he has drawn the attention and ire of numerous editors and admins. Having to complain about so many checkuser requests isn't a badge of honor but rather something that should give great pause to the quality of contributions being offered by this person. His similarity to a number of banned editors is problematic at best. If he is NuclearUmpf, then the protestations can just be added to the long list of lies proffered by NuclearUmpf prior to his ignominious departure. --Tbeatty 04:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Giovanni33

I would like this case to be considered because it involves questions of user behavior. Specifically, the hounding, personal attacks, and user check phishing, with over 5 user checks, and various bad faith accusations--all carried out by this small group of POV opponents with questionable behavior and editing practices, against a rather good editor--SevenOfDiamonds. Arbcom should comment on the appropriateness of this, so that SOD can be free of this harassment to edit in peace, continuing to create valuable articles for this project, as he has been doing.

I feel Arbcom has a basis to look at this because I believe there has been a systematic attempt by right wing editors to purge Wikipedia of left wing editors with whom they come into conflict with over article content. Thus it’s no coincidence that the repeated fishing expeditions have been by various far right editors against effective left wing opponents. WP “Is not a battleground' but what I've seen is that it is being treated as a major political battleground, unfortunately: a team of tight knit right-wingers are constantly going after those who opposes them on various politically charged articles. This takes the forms of taunting, personal attacks, lots of requests for user checks, lots of digging to make cases that the editor is a sock of a banned user, wiki-stalking to edit war, etc.

Despite the various and continued user checks, which have all shown to be without basis, now we have this new tactic, yet the weakness of nature of evidence, and lack of assuming good faith remains at the root. Looking at some of the specific charges, I see a classic case of confirmation bias: the case is being cherry picked to create an image that doesn't quite fit; I happened to see the evidenced match another editor whom I did not like that much (because he always likes to remove information because the source isn't the best instead of fact tagging it and allowing other editors to find better sources--or find them himself). Nuclear did this but SOD doesn't. The politics are not the same, and the editing tactics have not been the same. What stands out with this cherry picked evidence that it only looks for 'evidence" that furthers the thesis--what the POV opponent, the accuser wants to advance; it disregards any evidence that doesn't fit. Thus, we don't see a NPOV presentation of the evidence at all--no limitations section, or facts that don't fit but are very relevant. No, we only see every possible angle that can further the desired agenda to make the case to get this user banned. Its classic cherry picking that displays confirmation bias. And even then it can only paint a cloudy picture at best because there are common sense alternative explanations if one assumes good faith interpretations. SOD deserves our good faith assumptions which knocks down each and every one of these various circumstantial pieces of evidence. That leaves us with a question of assuming good faith nor not? Now, in truth, I did not give serious consideration to the alleged evidence simply because it’s like the boy who has cried wolf once too many times, and this is just more of the same. Also because of the clear political nature of who is making the accusations against whom. For these reasons the charges lose some credibility. So Arbcom should comment on the importance of not going after editors that you disagree with over content disputes, trying to make a case over and over again by any means necessary without a solid basis because such constitutes harassment.

Arbcom can also take the case to comment that even if we think the evidence is noteworthy, even if we think its significant, and even if we think its compelling (not that it is), then we have to ask, aside from the question of fairness given the possibility the he is innocent (as I think), it’s a question of what is best for WP. The editor in question, in fact, has been contributing in a very positive way to WP, making this a better place. He has worked well with all serious editors on improving article contact with the use of the talk page. In WP best interest, we should err on the side of caution, not consider banning such a good editor from the project. We need more editors like SOD, and quite frankly, less editors like those who are accusing him and want to see him banned. Arbcom can reinforce this cardinal principle: do what is best for WP, the spirit of the rules, not always the exact letter of the law. So the larger issue is that any examination of the fact regarding the possibility of him being a sock should be tempered with that most important rule of all (ignore all the rules) that reminds of why we are all (supposed) to be here in the first place: to write an encyclopedia first and foremost. If anything gets in the way of that all-important rule, then disregard it. That goes for any conclusion that SOD is a returned and reformed banned user---which I highly doubt.

In this light I hope that the honorable judges of the arbitration board, as revered, trusted, and respected members of the community, and as members who are in a position to take a stand that has some lasting and enforceable effect, issue statements that the will have the positive effect that WP needs so that SOD can be left alone to edit in peace, and that those who keep hounding him are warned appropriately and reminded once again that WP is NOT a battle ground. As another editor wrote on SevenOfDiamond's talk page: "As you are patently the victim of both WP:STALK and WP:HARASS from multiple editors including MONGO, Tbeatty,...Morton Devonshire,...it may be in your own best interests to pursue arbitration against all of them directly. Given that they have harassed you in a continuous fashion for nearly a month, you have demonstrated deep patience and calm in this troublesome situation. That you have not lashed out at even one of them is a testament to your personal strength, moral fibre, and ethical compass. Please consider it, for your own safety and protection. It is the responsibility of every single Wikipedia administrator to defend and protect all other users on this website." I agree. We should protect our fellow Wikipedians. Finally, lets leave our personal POV at home (as much as possible), and not divide the community between right vs. left—but lets instead unite with our common goal of building an encyclopedia for everyone according the both the letter and spirit of the various rules and guidelines for whose purpose they were created.Giovanni33 05:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thatcher131

Um, what is this case for? There was a request to take enforcement action against SevenOfDiamonds at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:NuclearUmpf. It was clear that there was no consensus among admins to act based on the proposed sockpuppet identification, so I closed the discussion after recommending Arbitration. This was proven hours later when FayssalF blocked Seven and then unblocked after complaint and discussion on the noticeboard. But I think the parties have missed my point. I believe there should be a new Arbitration case to deal with allegations that SevenOfDiamonds is a disruptive editor who should be sanctioned. Such a case would also probably have to deal with SevenOfDiamonds' counter-allegation that MONGO has harassed him. I have not looked at extensively at Seven's behavior but after 4 or 5 different sockpuppet allegations, it is obvious than many editors feel he is a disruptive editor who should be removed, but there is no consensus among admins for a community ban. If there is going to be a case, that should be its focus. Thatcher131 13:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bigtimepeace

I have interacted with both MONGO and SevenOfDiamonds in the recent past on the notorious Allegations of state terrorism by the United States article. MONGO, and others, have spent a great deal of time gathering evidence that SevenOfDiamonds is NuclearUmpf and have presented it in good prosecutorial fashion. The evidence is essentially all circumstantial, but obviously a pretty good case can and has been made. I've reviewed most of the evidence and personally I am agnostic on the SoD/NU question at this point, in part because similar effort has not, so far, been made to find exculpatory evidence that SoD is not NU (beyond some points mentioned by SoD above). I think it would be useful for someone to present such evidence (preferably a neutral person) so it can be weighed against what MONGO has gathered. I never knew NU and don't know the specifics of his banning, but if he is violating it using the SoD account then obviously appropriate remedies should be taken.

Like Giovanni I am worried about possible confirmation bias. MONGO and others have assumed for a long time that SoD is a ban evader/troll (hence the repeated check user attempts). They may be right and ArbCom should certainly make a decision about this claim, but of course they may be wrong. In addition to examining the SoD/NU connection, I believe ArbCom should look generally at the dispute between MONGO and SoD, as that dispute is what lies behind this whole thing and god knows it's spilled over on to AN/I on multiple occasions. Personally I think SoD has a fairly strong claim to harassment (or some other word if you prefer) by MONGO and other editors who have accused him of being a troll or a sock (MONGO's edit to SoD's user talk page here is probably the most egregious example). Even if SoD is a ban evader, the efforts by other editors to essentially blacklist him might also be problematic (just as a cop may catch a criminal but go about it in an illegal or immoral fashion). Having several (unsuccessful) check users run against you may be a sign that you are a problem editor as Tbeatty and Thatcher131 suggest above, or it may be a sign that other editors simply don't like you and are campaigning actively to run you off Wikipedia. The latter would obviously be disturbing, and I would hope that ArbCom takes up this case to evaluate: 1) The SoD/NU connection if any, 2) The general conduct of various involved users, 3) The question of whether the repeated accusations against SoD and failed RFCUs violated the spirit or letter of policies and guidelines like WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Obviously a conclusion--even if it's one of no consensus--should be reached on the first question before considering addressing the latter two.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Notice has been given to Giovanni33 to substantially shorten his statement, per request from Charles Matthews, below. Newyorkbrad 19:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Accept to sort this out. FloNight 16:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept to consider behavior of all involved. Kirill 17:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The statement by User:Giovanni33 runs to nearly 1200 words, and reads like an op-ed piece. I'd like to see a 500 word limit enforced much more strictly, and people addressing the issue of acceptance. Clerks please note. Charles Matthews 18:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept; scope per Thatcher's comment. James F. (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Fred Bauder 21:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jebbrady and Armstrong-related articles

Initiated by SarekOfVulcan at 16:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jebbrady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and his known IPs:
- 208.253.158.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 69.115.162.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Jebbrady notified here. IPs were also notified here and here.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Talk pages: has been tried by multiple users
Disengage: considered as evidence of the validity of his position
Third parties: I was brought in as a third party by User:Lisasmall, who has also posted on WQA. An article RFC was tried: when Jebbrady found it, he demanded that I remove it, or I would be reported for lying.
Mediation: Given Jebbrady's past statements and behavior, I do not think he would accept a mediation outcome unfavorable to him.

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

Jebbrady is taking a very active role to present his POV on articles on articles related to Herbert W. Armstrong, such as Worldwide Church of God and Armstrongism, while ignoring closely-related ones like Garner Ted Armstrong, which present Armstrong in a less-favorable light. He has claimed to be fighting against a Wikipedia tendency toward religious discrimination.

Out of his 300 edits between July 28 and August 16, only 3 were to articles other than his core interests and related talk and user talk pages. He persistently assumes bad faith: for example, when I made two reverts of his deletion of my summaries of comments on the talk page and logged off due to a drained laptop battery, he accused me of colluding with the IP editor who continued to restore my comments to bait him into a WP:3RR violation[83]. In other cases, he has taken politeness as proof of bad faith[84]. He has declared that he's "in for the long hall"(sic)[85], that "a new order has come to the plains"[86], and that "there is going to be a long a very hard battle"[87].

Despite being asked by at least two editors, he rarely uses edit summaries. His posts on the Talk pages ramble at length, and he does not indent his paragraphs consistently, making it hard to follow the threads. He claims that he can decide which sources are valid for the article[88]. He takes the dispute resolution process as a personal attack[89]. He claims to be a new editor[90], when he's actually be editing since October 2006.

Until recently, he did not properly sign his talk page comments with tildes, which makes diffs rather difficult to find, as many lack timestamps, or have modified timestamps.

He has previously been blocked for not logging in[91]: he still does not consistently do so, as can be seen in the history between August 11 at 9:54 EDT and August 12 at 12:24 EDT, where he switches twice from IP to account.

Addition after Kirill's decline vote: I'd like to point to this diff (previously linked above) as a reason I don't feel an RFC/U would be productive. Among other things, he calls either the article RFC I opened or the WQA report Lisasmall opened a "vicious complaint".

Addition after two more declines: Got it. RFC/U opened.

Statement by User:Jebbrady

Comment by RelHistBuff

I ask the arbitrators to seriously consider this case. The problems with this user ~~has~~ have not only occurred recently. I have had the same problems as described by SarekOfVulcan, but going back to 2006. I originally had a fairly neutral version of ~~this~~ the article, Herbert W. Armstrong, which I was working on in October 2006. User jebbrady started editing it at the end of that month. I tried to reason with him but he could only bring in his POV, continuing to revert all my suggested changes. In December 2006, I asked for a third opinion to resolve the dispute amicably. Even with the support of the third opinion, User:Amatulic (see the diff here), jebbrady refused to cooperate. As I was alone on this case and without support, I stopped editing the article and stopped the discussion as it was clearly like talking to a brick wall. However, it is clear from the description of SarekOfVulcan, this user has continued to act in the very same way with other editors. Clearly his behaviour does not change, despite the fact that all editors have tried to deal with him civilly. I see no other solution than to solve this through arbitration. --RelHistBuff 20:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Lisasmall

I also ask the arbitrators to review this case. My problems with the user (with diffs and references) are laid out in the WQA. The article about a 20th-century American religious figure is not the problem; any random group of editors would be able to produce a good article quickly. The user who owns the article is. He assumes bad faith at every turn, and has repeatedly stated his belief that being civil is a strategy against him.[92][93] As a voluntary courtesy, I let him know July 31 that I would disengage while he planned to work on a comprehensive re-write. I used the time to contribute elsewhere; he believes I spent it adopting new identities to bedevil him.[94][95] Many patient attempts have been made by me and other editors to work with him, but the article continues to suffer and now the editors brought in via RFC, THIRD, ASSIST, etc. are suffering too -- from exhaustion. (Some of these steps have been tried more than once). Please consider his repeated disregard of WP:SOCK (particularly the audit trail provision) and his lack of cooperation with earlier conflict interventions when you decide whether to review the case and when determining its outcome. -- Lisasmall | Talk 05:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Decline as premature; a user-conduct RFC would be more appropriate at this juncture. Kirill 17:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as premature. Paul August ☎ 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, premature. James F. (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. Place new requests at the top.

Zen-master

The year-long ban on Zen-master (talk · contribs) has recently expired. IIRC, one of the actions that resulted in his ban was his perennial harping (and creating multiple Policy Proposals) against using the term "conspiracy theory" in articles. It took him less than a week to drop back into his old behavior, as evidenced on this "new" proposal (now userfied), canvassing, spamming edit warring, and pointless debate. Frankly I find it hard to find any edits in his contribs log that do not relate to his POV pushing. I suggest that his presence is not only a net negative, but an overall negative to the project. >Radiant< 13:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: The prior decision involving this user is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zen-master. Newyorkbrad 16:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some users are trying to ban me because of what I discuss on discussion pages, is that really a bannable offense? Resubmitting a proposal after 2 years have elapsed is perfectly acceptable under Wikipedia policies as far as I know. Also note some editors are trying to ban me because I discovered that the race and intelligence article utilizes a racism inducing method of presentation, see the scientific racism article. If you think the phrase "conspriacy theory" is neutral feel free to disagree with me, but please don't try to ban me just because I don't think it's neutral. zen master T 16:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the one-year ban was converted into an indefinite block on August 27, 2006 by user:Samuel Blanning on account of "evasion via sockpuppetry indicates no inclination to serve ban." See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zen-master. On August 8, 2007 user:Zscout370 unblocked the account, "giving him another chance". In a related action, this user's account on Wiktionary was blocked due to POV pushing in the "conspiracy theory" entry.[96] Among other things he'd been using the Wiktionary definition, that he'd written, to support his assertions about its use on Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was blocked on wiktionary allegedly for my behavior on Wikipedia according to the admin that blocked me on Wiktionary, Connel MacKenzie, who has yet to list and explain how any wiktionary edits are indefinitely blockable offenses. I'd also like someone to explain how any of my Wikipedia edits, especially me recent edits, could be considered blockable offenses? Why aren't any users complaining about me linking to any of my edits? Answer: because none violate policy. Just because a coordinated group of users don't like my User:Zen-master/Conspiracy theory title neutrality proposal doesn't mean you should let them block me over it. zen master T 19:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you were blocked for sending a rude email to Colin (a very senior admin over there)Blueboar 20:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true, my email to his wiktionary account had the same tone as my post to his Wikipedia discussion page here. And I only emailed him after he had already blocked me indefinitely. I've pasted below my posts to his Wikipedia discussion page:

Why did you block my Wiktionary account?

Hello Connel MacKenzie, please list and explain here what wiktionary edits for "Hollow are the Ori" are in any way blockable offenses? Why did you make the block indefinite?

If there are any other wiktionary.com admins reading this page please look into this case. zen master T 21:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop spreading falsehoods that my email to you regarding your unjustified block of my wiktionary account had a bad tone. The tone of my email to you was the same as my tone is here. I repeat my request for you to list and explain here how any of my wiktionary edits are indefinitely blockable offenses? zen master T 23:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't any of the editors complaining against me listing any recent Wikipedia edits of mine that could be considered blockable offenses? Why is there a group of coordinated users conspiring against me and my proposals? I repeat my request for someone to list and explain how any of my Wikipedia edits, especially recent ones, are blockable offenses? Recently all I've been doing is pretty much discussion on discussion pages, how is that a blockable offense? zen master T 20:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant's original message links to specific problems with your edits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of those edits list anything that violates policy, normal wikipedia edits. And please link to specific edits rather than just article history. And how is debate on a proposal page a blockable offense? It's a very sad state of affairs if someone can be blocked for alleging that a phrase used in article titles isn't neutral. Feel free to disagree with me but don't block me because we disagree. zen master T 20:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disrupting Wikipedia is a legitimate cause for a block. Your edit warring at 9/11 Truth Movement was not productive, and may have violated WP:3RR, or at least come very close to doing so. You've been blocked ten times for 3RR violations previously. You edit-warred before your ban and you don't seem to have changed your behavior. Spamming and canvassing are also disruptive. Pointless debate is not productive either. Can you explain why you asked for your block to be overturned and what productive edits you've made since your return? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on you to try to make a case for why I should be blocked, not the other way around. zen master T 21:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zen-master's behavior is the same as it was before his ban: Edit-warring, and trying to ban the phrase "conspiracy theory" from article titles. Zscout370 unblocked to give him another chance, and Zen-master has chosen not to take it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrongfully banned the first time around and it looks like I will be wrongfully banned again. I followed wikipedia policy in making my proposal that the phrase "conspiracy theory" is not neutral enough for use in article titles, it's a very sad state of affairs if making an unpopular proposal can get someone banned. zen master T 21:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about agreeing to stay away from any page (in any namespace) dealing with conspiracy theories? I don't think a complete ban would be necessary if these pages were voluntarily avoided. Chaz ^Beckett 02:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about discussion pages? I actually prefer to have the entire arbitration committee fully review this case and re-open the original case since it was and is wrong. zen master T 02:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, discussion pages seem to be a big part of the problem. I personally don't believe you're going to accomplish much by attempting to re-open the case, but it's your choice on how to proceed. Chaz ^Beckett 02:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So someone can be banned for discussion on discussion pages? This is ludicrous. The principle of neutral presentation should prevent the use of language such as "conspiracy theory" that is ambiguous, discrediting and deceiving at a subtle unconscious level. No one has made a case as to how any specific recent edits of mine are blockable offenses. zen master T 02:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may cite Kosebamse's law, "People of strong opinion are not banned or blocked for promoting strong opinions. Eventually, they are banned or blocked for violating social standards in the attempt to defend their views." >Radiant< 07:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying there is a social standard against discussion on discussion pages? That is ridiculous. Just because you "strongly disagree" with my User:Zen-master/Conspiracy theory title neutrality proposal doesn't mean that's a blockable offense. zen master T 14:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[97] was my reasoning for unblocking the account. Sorry if I cannot provide more details, since I don't keep IRC logs. Whatever actions the ArbCom or other decisions make, I will not oppose them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When is the full arbitration committee going to start reviewing this case and re-open the original arbitration case? zen master T 14:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely (re)blocked Zen-master. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

Many arbitration cases have endorsed the principle that making personal attacks on Wikipedia is not acceptable. Is the introduction of off-wiki statements largely unrelated to Wikipedia or its editors at a request for adminship for the apparent purpose of disparaging the candidate's moral character, as occurred at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crockspot#Q15, considered to be a personal attack? If so, what remedies, if any, are available when it is reasonably believed that a request for adminship failed as a direct result of the presentation of such personal attacks therein, and off-wiki canvassing for oppose votes containing repetitions of such personal attacks? John254 00:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Bmedley Sutter, there is information on Wikipedia Review strongly suggestive that he received that negative information from the banned user Fairness and Accuracy for All. I have already blocked and warned Bmedley Sutter for another post that was a proxy edit for FAAFA and for taunting Crockspot. I did not know at the time about the RfA issue. If Bmedley Sutter continues to post content at the request of FAAFA he can be banned for a year under the prior case, and I will also extend FAAFA's block, which I forgot to do before. Any Admin who wants to issue a longer block or ban against Bmedley can do so; if no other admin unblocks, it becomes a community ban unless he appeals.

Regarding the RfA, contact the bureaucrats and ask them to reconsider, pointing out that WR was used to canvass against it. I do not believe it is within ArbCom's jurisdiction to overturn a closed RfA and declare a winner, you'll have to talk to the bureaucrats. Thatcher131 00:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am grateful that the candidate's comments were brought to light, and apart from whatever offenses Bmedley Sutter has committed, I thank him for linking to them. Editors' off-wiki behavior is often used when evaluating their conduct, and I see no reason why simply pointing out what the candidate has said can be construed as a personal attack. The only reason this is being suggested is because the candidate's statements were so vile. After the off-wiki comments were brought to light, the community consensus rapidly turned (see graph at right) and I would be appalled if a bureaucrat decided to ignore this obvious will of the community. ←Ben^B4 03:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. If there is serious reason to question a candidate's moral character, we should be thanking the people who introduce such evidence. -Amarkov moo! 04:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would a more succinct expression be "Any stick will do to beat a dog?" Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A more succinct expression unfortunately is that the community, upon learning that the user in question had used racist and homophobic epithets, decided that the user in question was not fit for a position of leadership on the website. The RFA more than anything is a statement for better or worse on what the current users of this website consider to be acceptable social behavior by potential administrators. It not within ArbCom's purview nor of any Steward or Beurocrat to supercede the decision of the userbase in a matter like this. Having "conservative" administrators, or as you put it on the RFA talk page, (paraphrasing) "not promoting someone to admin because they don't share your social justice is a problem" isn't in fact a problem. If the community doesn't trust a user, so be it. They don't need to be an admin.

As for whether Crockspot's inappropriate behavior on the Conservative Underground was admissible evidence for RFA, why not? Are not such things admissible evidence for matters such as RFAR? 88.73.104.70 18:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they're not. ArbCom does not consider off-wiki behavior unless it relates directly to disruptive behavior on-wiki. Someone who has a blog attacking X will not be sanctioned here if their behavior here is generally good. Someone who runs a web site attacking X who edit wars and is uncivil with respect to X-related articles is likely to be sanctioned, but would be anyway based on behavior. RfA voters can have their own standards, of course, but that has generally been ArbCom's position. Thatcher131 19:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but there's also a difference in what's being judged; Arbcom's charter is to review abuse cases or conflicts on-wiki. Requests for Adminship is looking at whether we (the community) trust user X with the mop and a few potentially moderately dangerous permissions bits. Someone who's behaved well on-wiki but In Real Life has deeply held fringe opinions or beliefs which most may find offensive or troubling may not be someone we want to mop. Past good on-wiki behavior by someone with past bad off-wiki behavior is still potentially a real problem.

There's a legitimate serious policy problem here, a collision between on-wiki user privacy standards (including encouraged use of pseudonyms, etc) and the rest of the world. I find myself troubled by the implications in both directions. And glad again that I don't bother to hide my identity here at all (not that this helps resolve the policy question raised...). Georgewilliamherbert 19:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not support posting on a banned users behalf, the question of if an admin is racist or homophobic is in fact directly linked to if they can be trusted to be impartial. While I do not particularly approve of the source, the information was obviously seen as valuable to those who were "support" and changed to "oppose." --SevenOfDiamonds 04:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So when the RfA fails and Bmedley posts "Crockspots, this is a message from an "old friend". He says: (quote) " PWNED ! LOL ! REMEMBER ANDY ! " " to Crockspot's talk page, that's ok too? Thatcher131 11:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why this is under my post, as I was addressing the issue of the RfA and the contents of a racist nature posted there, admittedly by Crockspot on the CU forum. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, acting in an obnoxious, gloating manner rubbing somebody's defeat in their face is not a good idea regardless of the merits or demerits of either side in the controversy. This is entirely independent of the issue of what facts ought to be brought up during the debate itself, however. *Dan T.* 18:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the question is, what would have happened if the question had been added by a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet of FAAFA. Obvious indef block based on using sockpuppets to evade his ArbCom-imposed one-year ban. But instead he fed the information to another editor (proxy editor or meat puppet) who posted it. What should happen to the proxy editor? Thatcher131 19:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More worrysome and general problem: What do we do when a well known admin or longtime user in good standing comes across off-wiki information of equal import to a pending Request for Adminship, and posts it in a more polite manner to the RFA page?

It's easy to say "This was FAAFA using a proxy, just deal with that", but the policy issue of the information itself... yuck. Georgewilliamherbert 19:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have written Wikipedia:Make personal attacks at requests for adminship as a satirical critique of the present trend of making personal attacks against RFA candidates. John254 11:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pseudoscience category precedent

The pseudoscience RFAr contained some rulings related to the use of Category:Pseudoscience (specifically, principles 15, 16, and 17) that are being used in the arguments in a CFD for Category:Denialism. There are obvious similarities between denialism and pseudoscience, e.g. both present arguments that run contrary to what is widely accepted. However denialism is arguably a more strongly pejorative term and is less well-defined (to the extent that no one has identified any dictionary that defines it). While Timecube may serve as "obvious pseudoscience" deciding what is "obvious denialism" (aside from say Holocaust denial) would be difficult and there isn't exactly a community of experts to turn to for deciding what is or isn't denialism.

Given that a substantial fraction of the argument at this CFD is based on drawing parallels to Category:Pseudoscience, I think it might be helpful if one or more of you would express an opinion on whether or not you find those parallels compelling in this instance. Dragons flight 22:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of User:COFS

As per the proposed remedies on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS, the user has requested renaming prior to the completion of the case. Do you want us to do it now or hold off until the case is closed, or case closed and any ban finished? Secretlondon 19:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to see it done now rather than waiting. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Nothing gained by waiting.

James F. (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal Clarification on the use of qualifiers as discussed in various holdings

Five arbitrators voted to take on the Paranormal case; the two who stated their reason for taking the case indicated it was for "conduct issues". Of the 29 principles, findings of fact, and remedies that passed, most did deal with conduct issues; however, an important minority dealt with some of the content that has been at the core of the protracted disputes about paranormal-related articles. I apologize for the length of the following explanation of what I see as the core content paradox within the ArbCom holdings, but I have used examples in order to, I hope, make the situation as clear as possible:

The Wikipedia article on psychic raises issues with the recently closed Paranormal ArbCom. Finding of Fact #5, "Cultural artifacts", states: ""Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist." Principle #6.2 states, in part, "Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include ... "paranormal", "psychic" ... or "parapsychological researcher". ... "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing."

Lemma 1 the Arbitration Committee sees the label "psychic" as a cultural artifact. Saying that Jeane Dixon is a psychic does not imply that she has psychic abilities or powers, or even that such abilities or powers exist. This is true to such an extent that clarification, such as "Jeane Dixon is a self-described psychic", is disallowed.

In reading the article on psychic, however, I became confused and concerned. The psychic article's lede itself states that psychic denotes paranormal extra-sensory abilities that are inexplicable by "known natural laws". This doesn't seem like a typical cultural artifact, in that this statement implies that there may exist some unknown natural law to explain it (i.e., the description invokes science, not culture). However, several sentences later we learn that the existence of this ability is highly contested. Does this resolve the situation?

No. While this skepticism helps a reader understand that psychic abilities may or may not be real, it still leaves the reader with the impression that "psychic" means "someone with scientifically inexplicable powers" - it's just that now we recognize that such people may not exist. That is, thus far, the word "psychic" has always been used to mean "someone with paranormal powers". The infobox on the right side of the page is even more explicit: "Definition: An ability or phenomona said to originate from the brain, but to transcend its confines. Primarily in relation to Psi" (see the box on the righthand side of the article).

Lemma 2: So what is a psychic? The article repeatedly indicates that a defining feature of a psychic is "an ability". There is no ambiguity. It does not say that psychics have an apparent ability. It does not say that psychics may or may not have abilities. It says that a psychic has these abilities.

Imagine that instead of psychic we were talking about a rare device, the PerpetualMotionMachine (psychic). An article states that the PerpetualMotionMachine is an infinite (paranormal) power-output device (ability). The article also has an infobox that defines PerpetualMotionMachine as "A device or product that originates from the Midwest and is capable of infinite power-output." At this point, it's pretty clear that a crucial quality of any PerpetualMotionMachine is that it is an infinite power-output device. Then, I get to the sentence, "the possibility of infinite power-output is highly contested." Now, I still believe that PerpetualMotionMachines are infinite power-output devices, but now I recognize that the term "PerpetualMotionMachine" may have no real-world referent. I now understand that there may not be even one single PerpetualMotionMachine, but if there were one, a defining quality of it would be that it could output infinite power.

Likewise with the paranormal article. It asserts that psychic powers are paranormal abilities, inexplicable by known natural laws. It also tells me that there may not actually be any psychic abilities in the real world. However, from the definitions, I still gather that if there are psychic abilities in the real world, then they cannot be explained by known natural laws. The phrasing here does not strike me as a simple cultural artifact. Just reading the sentence, I am inclined to think that scientists of various disciplines must have looked into this and decided that known natural laws cannot explain the results.

This is in contrast to the holdings of the Arbitration Committee, which found that the term psychic is just a cultural artifact. The Committee held that "psychic" may not imply that the "a psychic" actually has scientifically inexplicable abilities. Therefore, even if a psychic does exist in the real world, they may not have psychic powers. ArbCom: "Psychic means someone who has, or claims to have, these powers. These powers may not exist, but the term still refers to real people." Article: "Psychic means someone who has these powers. These powers may not exist, and in that case the term has no real-world referent."

Lemma 3: The ArbCom's operative understanding of psychic differs in a subtle but crucial way from the psychic article. Actual paranormal powers are an intrinsic quality of a psychic according to the psychic article (although the existence these powers is contested), whereas paranormal powers are not intrinsic to the ArbCom's understanding of psychic (so even if these powers don't actually exist, there still may exist psychics).

A comment was made on the psychic talk page that I think exemplifies the potential for confusion: "When we call a person a psychic we convey a constellation of meanings, all or only some of which may apply. We might be saying the person has psychic powers, performs on stage as a psychic, makes their living doing readings, fraudulently bilks people out of money by claiming paranormal abilities etc. The word has "a" meaning which is multifaceted and contradictory, and all notable ones should be contained somewhere in the psychic article. One part of the meaning of "psychic" is that a person has powers. Another part is that the person may be self-deluded or a fraud. Another is that the person may be an entertainer, comforter, psychologist..... All of these things, or any one of them, may be conveyed by use of the term psychic. It is largely up to the reader to decide which is appropriate."[98] Such a multifarious term could reasonably, from time to time, be misunderstood.

For consideration: Due to subtly different interpretations, there exist diverse understandings of the word psychic which persist, even within Wikipedia. Judicious, appropriate, and infrequent qualification of "psychic", "paranormal", and similar terms should be allowed when such qualifications are contributory to the clarity and meaning of the epistemological status of a subject. This is especially true given the content of the psychic article. This is suggestion is closely in line with Principle #6.1, and Findings of Fact #6, #8, #9, but somewhat at odds with Principle #6.2 and Finding of Fact #12.

Thank you, Antelan ^talk 08:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven, Soul, and a whole host of other terms that refer to something that may or may not exist do not bother saying that it is "claimed" to exist. Only terms that show up on a skeptical watchlists do. It's an issue on Energy (spirituality) but not on obscure terms that don't make it to the list like Prana. Psychic is a cultural artifact because everyone in the world already has an opinion on whether or not psychics are real, or totally bogus. Wikipedia does not have to inform them that psychics may not exist. They are quite aware of it already. No one will realistically read a technical definition at Wikipedia of psychic that says it refers to "supernatural forces, events, or powers" and walk away thinking "Holy cow, Wikipedia says psychics are real!" It's not even plausible. They have already formed their own opinion. All the other encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc. that don't bother saying that it may not exist don't waste the reader's time, or insults their intelligence, by pointing it out. If nothing else, it fails to meet the notability standard. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 09:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When we call a person a psychic we convey a constellation of meanings, all or only some of which may apply. We might be saying the person has psychic powers, performs on stage as a psychic, makes their living doing readings, fraudulently bilks people out of money by claiming paranormal abilities etc. The word has "a" meaning which is multifaceted and contradictory, and all notable ones should be contained somewhere in the psychic article. One part of the meaning of "psychic" is that a person has powers. Another part is that the person may be self-deluded or a fraud. Another is that the person may be an entertainer, comforter, psychologist..... All of these things, or any one of them, may be conveyed by use of the term psychic. It is largely up to the reader to decide which is appropriate.

So to state it the way I have at other times that the meaning of the word "psychic" is "A psychic is someone who has psychic powers, but those powers may not really exist," is not quite accurate. Rather, the word psychic conveys many meanings. The two most important to skeptics and believers, however, are the two I stated- powers and doubt about thier reality. Both of those meanings are contained in the word psychic, and both are reflected in the current Psychic lead, which is well-framed per the ArbCom. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice prose, but I'm still not buying it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving it your consideration. Antelan ^talk 00:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you talking to? Me or Antelan or Nealparr??

The psychic article says "People who are thought to have these abilities or to be able to produce these phenomena are often called "psychics". " Thus, if we call someone a psychic, is is saying just what Antelan says it should say: "psychic" = "thought to have these abilities," and of course the full understanding would be that the person might or might not. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antelan's was the nicest. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, that's true -it was very well done- and UninvitedCompany said "still," which must have been referring to his having not bought it before either. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying someone is a psychic is the equivalent of labeling them a faker. It is not necessary to say they are a faker so long as they are labeled as a "psychic". Fred Bauder 13:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on ED

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not an ED troll, but an interesting question was raised at a recent DRV (see bottom) for it. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, it was ruled that ED links and material is banned from Wikipedia. However, it was questioned in the DRV that even if reliable sources that established notability were found, would it come in conflict with the ArbCom ruling in that case? Kwsn^(Ni!) 04:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ED article itself has clearly posed internal problems for us. I think the turning point for me would be this: Are there sufficient reliable sources about ED which demonstrate that ED so clearly inside our inclusion guidelines that our project would be incomplete without it? If that were the case, I myself would support an amendment to the MONGO decision to permit an article. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my goodness. Well, I can't see much more reason to edit this website if the arbitrators are going to support the recreation of an article about that website which has attacked a number of our contributors in ways that simply cannot be put into words. Oddly enough, the article on me there is hardly one of the worst.--MONGO 22:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relax. We have lots of articles about things, people, and organizations we don't like, and your concern is hypothetical since there aren't reliable sources covering ED. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my own opinion, the ArbCom way overstepped its proper bounds in imposing a flat and absolute link ban, and this has had ongoing pernicious consequences; one of them has been to turn me from a strong supporter of Wikipedia to somebody who's largely disillusioned and disgruntled, because of my scuffles over this silly policy. Also, labeling people "trolls" for disagreeing with a clique here is hardly productive. *Dan T.* 18:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see us linking pages to uncyclopedia all the time. Having links to ED in individual pages outside of the ED article (if it is re-created mind you) is pointless. Part of the reason for the ban is the numerous amounts of attack pages on the site, how would you feel if someone posted the link to a page blatantly attacking you on your userspace (talk included). Regarding the "trolls", in a nutshell, what they are doing is trolling, just not on-wiki. Kwsn(Ni!) 17:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd find it funny, actually... a while back when I was on both Daniel Brandt's Hivemind and Jeff Merkey's Merkeylaw, with some silly attacks on me in both places, I actually linked to them on my own userpage to laugh at them, something that wouldn't be permitted these days under the silly "no links to attack sites" policy. *Dan T.* 19:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To each their own then. Kwsn(Ni!) 19:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No attack sites was rejected. Or at least the form I have seen was - people seem to be thinking it IS actually policy though! Viridae ^Talk 05:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article on Daniel Brandt can be a redirect, then surely anything ED-related can be a redirect also. What he's done carries far more clout and legitimacy than what they've done. Durova^Charge! 16:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood3

The arbitration committee has closed the above case.

Restrictions applying to Huaiwei:

Huaiwei (talk · contribs · logs) is restricted to proposing only one page move, poll of editors, or policy change relating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) per week. he may be blocked, for up to a year in repeat case, if he violates this restriction.
Huaiwei (talk · contribs · logs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation indefinitely. Any administrator may ban him from any article he disrupts, for cause.
Huaiwei (talk · contribs · logs) is placed on General Probation indefinitely. Any three administrators may, for good cause, ban him from the site.

The above is the shorthand restrictions placed on Huaiwei after an ArbCom case more than a year ago. Several months ago, it was found that Instantnood was not only being generally disruptive but also running farms of sockpuppets to disrupt votes/discussions and Instantnood is now permanently banned. Huaiwei hasn't been in any other kind of dispute resolution before or since the Instantnood issues.

It's clear to me that while Huaiwei was wrapped up in Instantnood's belligerence (as were a half dozen others on the periphery) it was Instantnood's wiki-stalking of Huaiwei (which continues with sockpuppets even now) that caused the problem, and not a general problem with Huaiwei as an editor. Without the instigation of a bad actor, Huaiwei is an excellent and dedicated Wikipedian who has been with the project for several years. These restrictions and potential punishments hang on him like an albatross.

I'd like ArbCom to review Huaiwei's contributions since the permanent banning of Instantnood and remove the previous restrictions.

SchmuckyTheCat

You mean, like, the six blocks for edit warring he's received since then, most recently a month ago? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Instantnood was banned on 16 April. Huaiwei was blocked only one time after Instantnood was banned. --Kaypoh 09:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Huaiwei has one 3rr with one user that is not Instantnood. I think the sequence of that one was, slow revert, Huaiwei realized he went over and reported it, both got blocked. He was also using the talk page to try and work out what was going on with someone belligerent.

One instance does not justify such harsh restrictions. SchmuckyTheCat

Well, that one instance is not the justification, the entire history is. I'd like to see three clean months before I support lifting the restrictions, though. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that in a similar situation recently, the committee voted that someone's probation from a prior case would be ended if he remained out of trouble for a specific period of time. That might work here. Newyorkbrad 16:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nowhere near a neutral party here (too many underlying reasons), but I second what NYB says. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See motion in arbitrator voting section, below. Newyorkbrad 05:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)

Huaiwei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note: See also the discussion in Section 2 above.

I move that the restrictions, now over a year old, from the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3 case on editor Huaiwei be lifted. While Huaiwei appears to have been involved in some edit wars and has received a number of 3RR blocks, I do not believe that the probation and limits on participation remain relevant at this point.

As there are presently 13 active arbitrators (of whom one is abstaining), a majority is 7.

Support:

Oppose:

First, I would like to see a clean block record for at least 3 months and no evidence of edit warring. FloNight 11:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

As I suggested above, I'd like to see a bit more time. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand

With the passage of time and Betacommand's continued contributions to Wikipedia, the Committee hereby restores Betacommand's administrative privileges under these stipulations:

Betacommand may not operate any bot that utilizes administrative privilege without prior approval. For the avoidance of doubt, the term "bot" is to be construed broadly to include any full or partial automation of the administrative functions not already in widespread use by other administrators. Prior approval may come from the Bot Approvals Group (BAG), or for bots that provide partial automation that would not ordinarily require BAG approval, this committee.
Betacommand must observe the notification requirements and delay periods specified in policy prior to deleting images.

As there are presently 13 active arbitrators (of whom one is abstaining), a majority is 7.

Support:

Oppose:

Uncomfortable with this, given his continually controversial behavior. Kirill 17:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 03:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Abstain until I discuss with Betacommand by email his views on blocking established users. FloNight 21:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 == Current requests ==
 <!--place new requests immediately under this line, above any prior requests-->
-=== Deletion of [[Child pornography]] article ===
-: '''Initiated by ''' [[User:Evouga|Evouga]] '''at''' 21:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
-==== Involved parties ====
-*{{userlinks|evouga}}
-*{{admin|Phil_Sandifer}}
-; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
-Note on user page of [[User:Phil_Sandifer]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APhil_Sandifer&diff=153820556&oldid=153762562]
-; Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
-Statement by deleting admin that he will not abide by the decision of any body besides the ArbCom: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2007_August_26&diff=153814799&oldid=153814516]
-==== Statement by [[User:evouga]] ====
-On 28 May 2007 [[User:Phil_Sandifer]] deleted all revisions of the article [[Child Pornography]] because "several hundred versions contained a keyword used to search for child pornography," in complete disregard of any Wikipedia policy including [[WP:NOTCENSORED]]. When his decision was challenged at Deletion Review (see diff above) he unilaterally closed the discussion, further declaring that he will continue to re-delete the article unless ArbCom intervenes.
-Phil_Sandifer seems to have forgotten that Wikipedia is consensus-driven; I would like an injunction forbidding him from closing a second Deletion Review of this article, and binding him to respect the decision of such a review.  [[User:Evouga|Evouga]] 21:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
-==== Statement by Phil Sandifer ====
-My statement has been e-mailed to the committee. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] 21:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
-====Statement by uninvolved [[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]]====
-Since I'm not involved in the dispute, I could be wrong. However, it appears to me that he had no objection to undeletion of the revisions that did ''not'' contain that search term, and at the DRV there was pretty strong consensus that was the right course of action. -[[User:Amarkov|Amarkov]] <small>[[User_talk:Amarkov|moo!]]</small> 21:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
-:The problem is that there have been many uncontroversial edits since the term was introduced. I'm sure there is no objection to the removal of the term from the current revision of the page, but he has insisted on purging the term from the history as well, and deleting all revisions since the introduction of the term, an action that should be subject to community review. [[User:Evouga|Evouga]] 21:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
-====Statement by [[User:SqueakBox]]====
-This seems a very spurious request and I hope the arbcom will soundly reject it. Phil actually said "the current version is an abomination in terms of NPOV, written entirely with information denying the damage of child pornography" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChild_pornography&diff=134206285&oldid=134200597 diff], a statement with which I was in full agreement at the time, and still am. Phil's re-starting the article was entirely sopund and taken with consideration of GFDL. The only opposition was from a user called [[User:Nandaba Naota]] who was blocked the very same day for trolling pedophilia articles by another admin and who I believe check user indicated was also the sock of a banned user, otherwise there was no opposition to Phil's move and he received my support. The article was not deleted so it should not have been taken to DRV and PPhil was right to quickly close that illegitimate debate. Has mediation been attempted? No. Thus I question the legitimacy of this request and suggest Evouga takes his issues to the child pornography talk page where he hasnt bothered to say anything so far, [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 21:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
-: I am not an administrator and cannot see the deleted content; however the declared reasons given for the deletion of the revisions were nothing but [[WP:NOTCENSORED|censorship]]. I am a new user to Wikipedia and not very familiar with mediation, but Phil's comment in the deletion reviewed suggested that the ArbCom was the proper venue for this request. [[User:Evouga|Evouga]] 22:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
-==== Clerk notes ====
-:Arbitrators are requested to advise whether this case will be considered on-wiki or (as has been the practice in some matters involving this subject area) via the mailing list only. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 22:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
-==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ====
-*
-----
 === [[User:HAl|hAl]] related edit warring on [[OOXML]] ===

Revision as of 22:06, 26 August 2007

Current requests

hAl related edit warring on OOXML

Statement by 202.160.118.227

Clerk notes

Dalmatia

Involved parties

Statement by Isotope23

Statement by DIREKTOR

Statement by Zenanarh

Clerk notes

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

User:Vintagekits

Involved parties

Statement by User:SqueakBox

Statement by User:Vintagekits

Statement by retired User:Gold_heart

Statement by User:Rockpocket

Statement by User:Kittybrewster

Statement by User:SirFozzie

Statement by User:Alison

Statement by uninvolved Giano

Statement by uninvolved Newyorkbrad

Statement by One Night In Hackney

Statement by uninvolved Sam Blacketer

Statement by Scolaire

Statement by User:Counter-revolutionary

Clerk notes

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

User:DreamGuy

Involved parties

Statement by User:Dicklyon

Statement by User:DreamGuy

Statement by User:Cool Blue

Statement by ElC

Statement by TexasAndroid

Statement by Thespian

Statement by Ghirla

Statement by Wizardman

Statement by Alucard (Dr.)

Statement by clpo13

Statement by Bryan Derksen

Clerk notes

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

SevenOfDiamonds

Involved parties

Statement by Theresa Knott

Statement by MONGO

Statement by Amarkov

Statement by Aude

Statement by Raymond Arritt

Statement by FayssalF

Statement by User:SevenOfDiamonds

Statement by AuburnPilot

On the knotted facts, by ElC

Statement by Dtobias

Statement by User:Tom harrison

Statement by RxS

Statement by KWSN

Statement by Proabivouac

Statement by Tbeatty

Statement by Giovanni33

Statement by Thatcher131

Statement by Bigtimepeace

Clerk notes

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

Jebbrady and Armstrong-related articles

Involved parties

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

Statement by User:Jebbrady

Comment by RelHistBuff

Comment by Lisasmall

Clerk notes

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

Requests for clarification

Zen-master

Personal Attacks

The pseudoscience category precedent

Renaming of User:COFS

Paranormal Clarification on the use of qualifiers as discussed in various holdings