Request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.
| Dispute resolution (Requests) |
|---|
| Tips |
| Content disputes |
| Conduct disputes |
|
|
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open cases
Currently, no arbitration cases are open.
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
| Case name | Closed |
|---|---|
| Venezuelan politics | 25 May 2024 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation | none | (orig. case) | 7 June 2024 |
| Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads | none | none | 4 June 2024 |
| Amendment request: India-Pakistan | none | (orig. case) | 27 June 2024 |
| Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions | none | none | 10 June 2024 |
| Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland | Motion | (orig. case) | 21 June 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.
The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.
0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.
This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or clerk may do so.
Under the Current requests section below:
Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template
8bitJake's continued edit warring, misuse of various mediation tools, lack of civility, and neglection of community consensus has caused disruption in WP's article space, and the situation as such has caused at least one editor to consider leaving the project entirely.
In my statement, I link to the results of a mediation request w/User:Dan100 from December of 2005. I am unable to find the diff for the actual request at this moment, but I will add it as soon as I'm able to. Mediation request. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, 8BJ has been disruptive to the point of driving an editor to leave the project . [1]. 8BJ was first involved in a mediation dispute about content [2] in December 2005, where thoughts about notability, verifiability, and published sources were given to him. They didn't matter, as he began warring recently at Henry M. Jackson [3] [4] [5], eventually being blocked for 3RR twice in a three day span, and three times in less than 10 days, and at Christine Gregoire [6] [7]. 8BJ has also shown incivility in his edit summaries ("Biased gang-bang editing", "Someone has an axe to grind", "Sour grapes editing") misleading edit summaries (Citing nonexistent talk consensus here as well), and various false and often incivil arguments on article talk pages ([8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]). He has consistently ignored consensus at both Jackson and Gregoire, and has also been known to blank warnings on his talk page, making it difficult for passing admins to deal properly. [14]
Bazzajf 12:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irishpunktom has been blocked about a dozen times for edit warring--around half of those blocks in the past five months. His chronic misbehavior is soaking up administrator resources and is probably having a severe net bad effect on the articles he edits. The only question in my mind is whether or not a probation or similar remedy would improve his behavior to an acceptable level. --Tony Sidaway 22:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know Irishpunktom from the Islamophobia article and therefore I can attest, that many of his reverts have been against subtile cases of vandalism. It seems pretty obvious to me, that an editor who puts this on his user page, has no genuine interest in improving the Islamophobia article. Another problem Irishpunktom has to face is Wikistalking from Netscott, who openly planned to attack Irishpunktom to get him censured as a Wikipedia editor. See also: [15] Raphael1 10:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have found Irishpunktom to be an extremely difficult editor to work with, even when we happen to share broadly the same point of view. Specifically, when he dislikes an edit, he will often revert without explanation, and if reverted, he reverts again. While quick to castigate other editors for failing to use article talk pages, he rarely outlines his problems there, and when he does, it is in a combative way.
I appreciate that Irishpunktom has contributed useful articles and edits about Islam and I would not myself favour a lengthy block from editing, but his style of editing is aggressive and time-consuming. The ArbCom may wish to consult a draft RFC which I did not get round to filing due to pressure of work. I am considering adding myself to this RFAr as an involved party. David | Talk 13:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pudgenet is unable to control his emotions on discussions related to Perl. In earlier month this took the form of very hostile personal attacks. Lately it has become more serious and converted into sustained personal attacks as part of a campaign of harassment against Barry and attempted intimidation against other editors who have attempted to intervene to prevent further harassment.
Pudgenet has been a problem for an administrator (User:Durin) [23][24] regarding the Perl article, and for me regarding Wikipedians with articles, where he's continually reverted the links that I added to brian d foy's entry, which had been agreed to here. I managed to get Pudgenet to discuss this a bit here, before that discussion was considered off topic and reverted by a mediator for a different issue. Pudgenet has an unusual interpretation of what was agreed to on the talk page of Wikipedians with articles, and I believe he's not being honest. He's certainly not trying to work it out on the appropriate page.
Pudgenet has also been uncivil in this and this edit summary, in this post to my talk page, and has criticized me here, on his user page, without me being able to respond because he deletes everything I post to his talk page without responding [25]. Probably worst was when he vandalized the Perl article with this paragraph (at bottom left) in which he insulted me.
Pudgenet claims that use.perl.org is his site [26] and I believe he's biased in favor of Perl and in favor of notable Perl guru brian d foy, aka Scarpia, whose biased edits he keeps covering up by reverting my links to them. -Barry- 06:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I became involved in Perl mediation as part of a request made to the Mediation Cabal. I generally specialize in mediating religion cases (which needless to say are often very heated); but I took this programming related case because it is in a language that I am knowledgeable about and the subject matter was highly technical (issues like various compiler flags used to modify the runtime engine have come up). The culture on the discussion board related to Perl was entirely unacceptable and in my opinion crossed the line into abusive. My attempts at stopping this abuse and creating an environment designed to write a high quality encyclopedia article have met with limited success mainly as a result of Pudgenet attempting to intimidate me (and possibly other editors) into allowing his personal vendetta against Barry to continue. It should be mentioned that Barry and Pudgenet know each other from other discussion boards going back at least to early 2004, as do many of the other editors. Pudgenet has successfully driven Barry off other Perl related discussion sites and this campaign of harassment did not start on Wikipedia.
As part of my investigation I conducted a survey of Pudgenet's postings on Perl related discussions (Perl related includes biographies of leaders in the Perl community, and cross programming language discussions) . There were 50 which violated policy (out of approximately 75 posts) so his major contribution to Perl appears to be insults and harassment. None involved any substantial content, which is curious given Pudgenet's substantial expertise in this area. Conversely on other discussions about the Iraq war and political figures (Iraq war, Doug Roulstone, Stacey Tappan, Mike McGavick) there was not a single violation and he has conducted himself admirably. So Pudgenet knows how to be an effective wikipedian he is either unable or refuses to do so on Perl related topics.
It is likely that Pudgenet is going to respond to this filing by arguing that Barry in some ways deserved this campaign of harassment, and that I am incompetent. I can provide references from other cases if my judgement becomes a primary point of dispute. However addressing the issue of Barry, his actions have been examined by 3 senior wikipedians. All have agreed that while there are minor problems with his edits the much more serious problems were in Pudgenet's edits. Given the history that I was not aware of until recently I would say that Barry has conducted himself admirably. More importantly, Barry has graciously accepted guidance from more experienced wikipedians, has responded to critique in a positive manner and has acted to facilitate the dispute resolution process.
[30] [31] [32]. Barry had already caused problems before Pudgenet showed up [33], after which he continued revert warring [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] and attempting to embarrass Randal Schwartz and O'Reilyl Media [44] [45] [46]. Unsucccessful the actions of several editors, Barry decided to declare the entire Perl article as biased [47], which several editors removed. Barry then removed Perl from the Good Article list. Pudgenet had very little to do with any of that, and most of the things of which you accuse him happened in over Talk places, which didn't really affect the editing of Perl. I think you may have skipped most of this history is deciding Barry is "reasonable" and "admirable". It was certainly happening before Pudgenet and I got involved. Scarpia 18:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is the opinion of many administrators and users that Raphael1 has continued tendentious editing on many Islam-related articles, refused the acknowledgment of any wrong-doing, attempted to modify Wikipedia policy at the behest of a banned user, and posted very questionable things in his userspace that are little more than attacks on administrators claiming abuse and "persecution of Muslims".
Raphael1 has consistently, over the period of many months, been disruptive in regards to the page Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. He continued trying to remove or hide the images on the page despite an incredibly strong 80% consensus of over 200 editors. Eventually, after more than a month of this, he was finally blocked for a sufficient length of time to get him to stop – at which point he started compiling a list of blocking admins (see deleted edits) claiming "persecution of Muslims". I am bringing this to arbitration today because he has just recreated this deleted page in another form here. Consistently throughout this whole ordeal Raphael1 has continued to insist that he has not done anything wrong and he makes it clear that he is not going to desist. He has also been closely associated with Resid Gulerdem, a banned user. Raphael1 is serving as his mouthpiece both on-wiki and on the mailing list, pushing for extreme (and utterly rejected) forms of policy overhauls. Don't think I am throwing this term around incorrectly, because I mean it in the true sense of the word: Raphael1 is functioning as a meat puppet of a banned user. --Cyde↔Weys 01:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can equally attest to Cyde's words above as I too bore witness to User:Raphael1's long time tendency to be disruptive as an editor on Wikipedia. Even before registering his username, Raphael1, on March 4 was censoring the JP cartoons citing non-existant "consens" sic. Raphael1 has dwelled almost exclusively on this point in his editing on Wikipedia and it is the core of his "contributions" here. In his efforts he has not only removed the cartoons himself but has spammed other users towards such ends. When he created his first "Persecution of Muslims" list he proceeded to spam a select list of self-identified Muslim editors on Wikipedia and thereby setup the blocking admins (who were just doing their jobs) for attacking. His latest endeavor is to act as a proxy for permanently banned user Resid Gulerdem in trying to bring into existence a policy proposal created by Resid Gulerdem called Wikipedia:OURS (WP:OURS). As Cyde mentioned, this policy was proposed via the WikiEn-I mailing list. Raphael1 didn't like being called a "proxy" despite it being an accurate description of his relationship to Gulerdem and he subsequently filed a WP:PAIN report against me whereupon I illustrated nearly all of our fellow editors who described his actions using such terminology. I have repeatedly tried to counsel Raphael1 to "let it go" but my counsels have fallen on "deaf eyes". Now with this latest recreation of his list (note the mention User:Cyde and User:Pegasus1138 in this historical version) I actually have the impression that he truly is incorrigible and short of someone possibly trying to mentor him (ie:User:GTBacchus perhaps?) he should just be banned outright as an editor on Wikipedia lest he continue to be disruptive in his own right or at the behest of Resid Gulerdem. Netscott 02:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone thinks, that I should be blocked, because I dissent from the results of the polls in February (which had already been archived, before I joined Wikipedia), you don't have to read any further. I am guilty on that charge. If my charge is tendentious editing, I am guilty as well (as is Cyde [48][49][50] and Netscott [51][52][53]), because I tend to prefer decency over profanity.
I have stopped touching the cartoons on the 24.3. until a month later the article was nominated as a "Good article" and Anjoe changed the GA rules to take away everybodys veto-right to prevent me from delisting it. This is when I decided to be bold and make the article deserve its "Good article" nomination by moving the cartoons behind a link again. Though Cyde has been engaged in this content dispute[54], he blocked me for a week because I did so twice in five days. Since I think, that everybody should be aware of the consequences of enforcing the poll results, I decided to compile this list, which I initially entitled "Persecution of Muslims". I admit, that the choice of the title has been inept and immediately consented to rename it to a less offensive title.[55][56] Regardless of that Zoe decided to delete that page and block me for a week.
The meatpuppet charge is completely ridiculous. Neither do I know Rgulerdem personally nor have I edited any of "his" articles apart from the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (after he stopped editing it) and a few minor edits on his Wikiethics proposal, which user space copies have been unwarrantedly removed under CSD G4/G5. Is Cyde a meatpuppet of Netscott, because he filed this Arbcom case on his behalf? [57] And what about the meatpuppets, who came from sites like [58] [59] to vote on the cartoon poll? I read Rgulerdems WP:OURS proposal draft on the mailing list and found that it contains interesting ideas. Since Mr. Wales expressed interest in the proposal as well and in order to discuss it in Wikipedia, I revised his ideas and created this proposal, which got removed a few hours later for CSD G5 after Netscotts intense "proxy" campaign. Raphael1 14:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, that since I've created my account on the 5th of March, I moved the cartoons behind a link eight times in total. The last time I did that change on the 29th of April before I've been blocked by Cyde for one week. Raphael1 17:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the Clerks: The attempts at dispute resolution I removed are invalid, because firstly the polls were already closed before I joined Wikipedia and secondly the Mediation Request on Islamophobia has been rejected by the Mediation Committee. Raphael1 18:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Zoe: I have never accused anyone of "abusing Muslims". Instead I have accused administrators of abusing their administrator privilege as per WP:BP#When_blocking_may_not_be_used. If one conceives this as personal attack, than nobody will ever be able to file an RfC without violating WP:NPA.
Please note the contradiction between Netscotts comment of "excessive discussions in the Image Display talk area" and JzGs remark of "people won't sit down and talk". Raphael1 19:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I became involved with Raphael1 when I was repeatedly having to revert his deletions of the Mohammed images despite a clear and overwhelming consensus to leave them in the article. When he created a list of users whom he accused of abusing Muslims, I deleted the page and issued him a temporary block. He has now become an open proxy for a banned user (WP:ANI#Permanently_blocked_editor_User:Rgulerdem_now_formulating_WP_policy). He has exhausted the community's patience, and has outworn his welcome on Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should also like to add that, whatever Raphael1 claims today, the page he had in his user space, in which he was documenting the blocks of people who had repeatedly removed the Muhammed images was labeled User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims. Persecution, abuse, it's still attacks on admins because of their proper activities and labeling it as something else. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This archived WP:ANI talk relates to why User:Zoe ultimately blocked User:Raphael1 relative to the "Persecution of Muslims" list. Netscott 00:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I too have reviewed and confirm Cyde's assessment of the situation. Raphael's claim that he was ignorant of consensus because it had been archived before he joined does not hold up: he was made aware very early on that his actions were against consensus. As so often with those who have strong convictions, where Raphael's convictions conflict with policy, he allows his convictions to win. I stand by my outside view in the RfC Raphael raised; while I fundamentally agree that the images should be linked not displayed inline (I think this is a perfectly acceptable way of handling any images which can be shown to cause genuine offence - there is no need to ram them down people's throats), Raphael's actions are completely unacceptable and his interactions with others show a refusal to abide by policy and precedent. It is impossible to run a project of this size if people won't sit down and talk. So much for the cartoons.
As for meatpuppetry, Raphael is very clearly working to help Resid, an indefinitely blocked user on both Englisha dn Turkish Wikipedias, to promote an agenda. He should stop this. Now. Resid is pushing his barrow on WikiEN-l, many editors and admins have seen what he has to say (as has Jimbo) and his agenda has been comprehensively rejected here (Wikipedia:Wikiethics) and on the list. Wikiethics goes against WP:NOT censored; as such it will never gain consensus. Resid's other proposal, Wikipedia:OURS (now I think deleted) is similarly unlikely to succeed, since it starts by stating that we must follow "well-established guidelines such as Wikipedia:Wikiethics", which as I say has already been comprehensively rejected. That is not meatpuppetry, but it is disruption, and quite likely violates WP:POINT. Raphael's attempts to thwart the GA nom for the cartoons article undoubtedly violates WP:POINT.
I commend to Raphael the "notes for the passionate" penned by William Pietri and held at WP:TIGERS. Just zis Guy you know? 17:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rapahael1's claim that his involvement with Rgulerdem's Wikiethics proposal extends to "a few minor edits" is somewhat at odds with the fact that he recreated the page in his userpage at User:Raphael1/Wikiethics and, after it was deleted there, argued vigorously at WP:DRV for its undeletion, going so far as to solicit 'votes' [60]. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted User:Raphael1/Consequences of enforcing results of polls in February as a recreation of User:Raphael1/Persecution of Muslims. The only difference was that the usernames of the blocking admins were blacked out, and as the blacked-out usernames can be found in three clicks (one with popups) by looking at the block logs of the blocked IPs and accounts, this does not constitute a substantial difference - particularly as the names were not removed, but blacked out so you can see how long they are. If that makes me a party to this arbitration, so be it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I have not been directly involved with Raphael1, I have followed many of the events with interest, and would like to encourage the Arbitration Committee to accept this case. If I could suggest some points that would be useful to address if the case is accepted, most of which relate to Raphael1's RFC against User:Cyde in regards to admin activity on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article. Phrased as assertions, they would include:
I suspect that the above is a good approximation of the basis on which most people have been dealing with these issues currently, and confirmation by ArbCom would be extremely helpful in further attempts to handling the situation. David Oberst 17:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raphael's interest in WP doesn't appear to be primarily in contributing to an encyclopedia, but rather in repeatedly 'adopting' Muslim editors (I remember Haizum, Irishpunktom, LionKing and Rgulerdem, there may have been more) and seconding them unconditionally for a while, because he feels that they are 'persecuted' as a matter of principle, and he feels he has "no choice" but supporting them. He has stated as much repeatedly[61][62], been told repeatedly by other editors (including myself[63]) to stop that pattern, because it makes Muslims look stupid[64], and lobbied around endlessly on their behalf, including several rounds of mass mailings to talk pages.
He thankfully stopped removing the Mohammed cartoons a while ago (after this culminated in him dedicating[65] his image-removals to editors that shouted Qur'an verses on talk pages[66]). After that, I lost sight of him, until he took up his lobbying for the benefit of Rgulerdem, with whom I happend to be in an edit dispute on Fethullah Gülen. Oddly enough, Raphael now has adopted[67] Rgulerdem's favourite source, Gülen's Zaman newspaper, too.
I glanced at Raphael's last 500 contributions[68] and found one, that I would count as 'contributing to an encyclopedia': It's about the programming language Perl[69]. The rest was lobbying on talk pages, and berating people on several RfC boards, policy proposals and the like for being islamophobic, uncivilized and uncompassionate etc.
Now, Irishpunktom certainly knows a a good deal about Islamic history, and Rgulerdem about Fethullah Gülen. That's why they contribute to related articles. They may be pushing an agenda (like everybody, including myself, does to a degree) but they know about their subjects. Raphael doesn't push an agenda, because his qualifications are apparently elsewhere, probably in programming/computer stuff. Instead, he's pushing his peception that WP persecutes minorities (mostly Muslims) and spends his time playing advocate, thought police and lawyer, thereby eating up people's time. If he's so much into WP, why doesn't he contribute in his field? Azate 20:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to suggest that while his actions on the cartoon controversy pages were unwelcome, disruptive, and worthy of censure, the list that he was creating, in my opinion, should not be considered to be abuse per se. Persecution is a very subjective term, and saying "I feel persecuted by something XXX did" is very different than "XXX is an asshole". As much as this user has acted problematically with regards to this issue, I would hope that the committee not consider the list he maintained on his page to be problematic. I argue that the user who deleted it made a bad judgement call, but the call was understandable and no shame should come of it (although I would hope not to see similar such calls made in the future). All that being said, I do think that the user has gone fairly far out of their way to make problems on the cartoons article itself, and have no recommendation for handling that issue in arbitration. --Improv 22:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raphael asked me to come here, and so I have. I believe that he should not have constantly removed the images after being told not to, repeatedly, irrespective of the correctness of the cause, or whatever, behind his reasons for doing so. Considering he hasn't done that for some time, I think its fair to say he now appreciates that. However, since then, he has been Wiki-Stalked around every article he edits, and thats simply uncalled for harrasment. If he has proposals, let them be voted on. If they pass, they pass, and will be for the good of the community, if they fail then they fail. What good is there in removing the proposals before they even begin? Also, I really think there should have been an RFC first. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raphael removed valid attempts at dispute resolution. I have restored them. Johnleemk | Talk 17:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the opinion of several administrators, Moby Dick continues to stalk another editor despite warnings. He is believed to be the sock of an editor who was formally warned by the Committee not to engage in this behavior. He may also be in breach of a one-year ban on editing articles which concern politics.
See:
In the opinion of myself, Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and MONGO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Moby Dick exhibits stalking behavior similar to that of Davenbelle (see Cool Cat arbitration) who was one of three editors warned against stalking Cool Cat. He has persisted despite warnings. Davenbelle's last edit is too old to permit technical means to be used to verify this user's identity.
Davenbelle is also enjoined from editing articles which relate to politics (Trey Stone and Davenbelle arbitration, August 2005) and Moby Dick's identity may have a bearing on that ban. --Tony Sidaway 18:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is absurd. User:Cool Cat and his friends are defining stalking as making reasonable edits to articles that he happens to not like. I have made many reasonable edits to articles and talk pages, added cited facts, and have sought consensus. Unfortunately, User:Cool Cat does not like the facts and does not seek consensus. He seeks his way and harasses anyone who does not yield to his will. His allegations of sockpuppetry are merely an attempt to run me off from the very group of articles that he was found to have made many POV edits to.
User:Tony Sidaway has stated that User:Cool Cat repeatedly attempts to promote the removal of categories, templates and content related to an ethnicity that, while not having a single national entity of its own, is significant enough to be treated seriously by an encyclopedia. Editors who complain about his activities and his attitude thus have a solid basis upon which to do so. diff
InUser:Cool Cat's current complaint about my editing on wp:an/i, he states that I opposed him on all of the vote options on Talk:Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict — Not True, he also opposed four of the moves that I opposed. And it is entirely reasonable that I'm involved in that article. I voted on the AFD that resulted in its being renamed and I edited the article proper before User:Cool Cat ever did.
Of course I participated in the CFDonCategory:Kurdish inhabited regions, as I did the previous CFD. I have been attempting to categorise Kurdish homelands and User:Cool Cat hates the Kurds and has been highly disruptive of such efforts by myself and others.
User:Cool Cat has shown up on a number of pages right after I've edited them: Talk:Nationalist Movement Party diff, CFD of Category:Imposters of Moby Dick diff. And he has bee hyper-aggressive on pages such as Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 27#Category:Kurdish inhabited regions, badgering every user that does not agree with his POV.
It is User:Cool Cat who is stalking, harassing and seeking the deletion of encyclopaedic content related to Kurds and the users who edit in ways that he does not like.
See also: User:Cool Cat's disruption of Kurdish categorization efforts
--Moby 11:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Cat out 12:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although South Africa agreed to cease supporting anti-government forces, their support of RENAMO continued. In 1986 President Machel himself was killed in an air crash in mountainous terrain near the South African border after returning from a meeting in Zambia. South Africa was suspected of sabotaging Machel's Soviet-built presidential aircraft.
OnDecember 21 1988 UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, was en route to the signing ceremony in New York, whereby South Africa was to cede control of Namibia to the UN, after over a decade of defiance of Security Council Resolution 435. Carlsson was among 270 people killed when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over LockerbieinScotland. Because foreign minister Pik Botha and a 22-strong South African delegation were due to travel on the doomed flight — but cancelled their booking at short notice — some also suspect South African involvement in the PA 103 sabotage.
DV8 2XL has been abusive, threatening, and uncivil in mediation case and before.
Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-28_Editor_abuse_and_threats
I am not arguing the case. I lost. That's over. I am accusing DV8 2XL of being abusive, threatening, and uncivil in the mediation case and before. His behavior shows a pattern of abusive and threatening treatment of me, and intimidation of both myself and the mediator.--Ewrobbel 03:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with the AN/I statements that User:Ewrobbel is linkspamming and self-promoting. In particular, he's been adding references to his own books to Transistor radio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Crystal radio receiver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and links to his web site under Walkman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). As far as I can tell from both the links and the discussions linked above, the only work of utility to Wikipedia from these would be the photograph of various old Walkman models.
Skimming several of the discussions involved, I don't see any serious justification for User:Ewrobbel's statement that threats are being made. User:DV8 2XL stated his intentions to continue removing linkspam in accordance with Wikipedia policies. In my past interactions with User:DV8 2XL, I've only ever seen him act in good faith. While I think he could have phrased his statements more diplomatically, I get the strong impression that User:Ewrobbel is using this as a delaying tactic in order to continue self-promoting. The discussions on AN/I and elsewhere make it clear that classifying the edits as linkspam has substantial community support.
This has been through a mediation attempt and was discussed at length on AN/I. I don't think further attempts at dispute resolution would work. User:Ewrobbel brought this to ArbCom; let him reap the results. --Christopher Thomas 03:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: As far as I can tell from the mediation case and elsewhere, the claims of attacks and threats are baseless. The statements that User:Ewrobbel considers "threats" were along the lines of, "I will continue to remove edits that violate Wikipedia policy". --Christopher Thomas 04:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one is claiming "attacks" as Christopher Thomas misstates. DV8 2XL is simply accused of abusive, threatening, and uncivil treatment of me, and intimidation of both myself and the mediator. I trust the arbitrators will be more careful in their reading of the accusation and their review of the mediation case than Christopher Thomas has been.--Ewrobbel 15:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When DV8 2XL tells me "don't let the door hit you on the way out" on my talk page, and that (among many other things) is considered by admins SimonP and James F. as "at worst a bit curt," I can only suggest that there is a culture of rudeness in these back pages of Wikipedia which many seem so steeped in they don't even notice it anymore.--Ewrobbel 16:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process.
The complainant has never even sought mediation (there has been no survey, no 'third opinion', etc.), nor a request for an advocate, before bringing this RfAr. How is it that the case has been accepted? Are cases brought by admins subject to lesser restrictions vis-a-vis process?
Here's Phil's comment about mediation (he never pursued it after Robert's comment) [81]. He did not follow thru on the possibility of mediation. Here's Noosphere's next discussion regarding possible mediation of disputes[82] And again here's Noosphere, not Phil, seeking mediation after a round of fierce warring: [83] and the continuing thread, ending in the removal of the mediation request due to a lack of interest [84].-- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, mediation was skipped on this article. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder is the only arbitrator who I've ever seen make a comment on the proposed decision talk page. from how they are blatently misrepresenting my beliefs, and even my statements... -- assuming good faith here, i can only assume that they simply 'do not read said talk page.
This logical conclusion is derived from the following (besides the stated assumption of good faith):
So in light of this, what I want clarified is: are the arbitrators who have already voted on what i believe (and i'm rather new to the idea of having a select committee decide what my beliefs are for me) going to read and consider the statements of the parties, or make judgements and put words in their mouths without giving the people involved a fair hearing (and that means actually listening)? I actually do want an answer to this question. It's not just rhetorical. I seriously don't know the answer and I want this issue clarified. Kevin Baastalk 22:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above in my request to reopen 'Rex071404_4', Merecat/Rex071404, who was banned by ArbCom from editing John Kerry and sockpuppeted as Merecat in order to circumvent the ban, has engaged in disruptive editing under the guise of Merecat, resulting in indefinite bans.
Rex' 6-month ban from Rex071404_4 has also apparently ended. Please extend the ban and widen it, in light of this willing violation of ArbCom policy and continuing disruptive conduct. If Rex can simply assume another sock, and violate a permanent ban, there appears to be no solution to his attacks on Wikipedia process. Please consider this, in order to minimize the impact of the next disruptive sock proven to be Rex. (update) Mr. Tibbs has above suggested limiting Rex to one account. Please advise on the correct course of action in light of Rex' willing circumvention of ArbCom. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since Ryan and Mr. Tibbs have not explained the status clearly, this message will: 1) User:Merecat did edit John Kerry. 2) If Merecat was a alternate acccount for User:Rex071404, then Merecat can be deemed a "sockpuppet" and blocked on that basis, because Rex was not supposed to edit JK. However, if you read the full dialog on this (here), you will see that the check user policy is being abused. The users which Tibbs refers to are Neutral arbiter and Wombdpsw, neither of whom have transgressed in any manner. For this reason, if they are indeed alternate accounts, (which is permissible - see here), the Tibbs's drive to "out" them is an egregious violation and misuse of check user. In fact, the original check user which was done that "outed" Merecat may not even have been valid on it's face as the request may not have been properly founded. Be that as it may, Merecat is blocked by User:Katefan0 who has quit the wiki. But Rex is also blocked - by User:Cyde. However, the block against Rex is invalid as it says that Rex is a "sockpuppet" of Merecat. But, even a cursory check of their contributions histories will clearly show that Rex long pre-dated Merecat and Rex himself is absolutely not a sockpuppet. As it stands now, it appears that Rex would like to be unblocked and possibly cede to being deemed to being Merecat so as to be able to quit using the Rex account and instead use the Merecat account. It would seem that the Rex071404 account should be closed in favor of the Merecat account. On top of this, there may be a few loose ends to attend to, but on the face, no editor has made a strong case that Merecat is bad and for that reason, if Rex is Merecat, Rex should be allowed to transition to Merecat and drop the Rex account. On the other hand, if the ArbCom doesn't want to move this forward, then at minimum, Mr. Tibbs should be instructed to stop the witch-hunting. These new users that Tibbs acccuses are not sockuppets. In fact, they are either individual editors or at most, non-transgressing alternate accounts. Rex071404 is not under any sanction or ban that either User:Neutral arbiterorUser:Wombdpsw has transgressed. Nor have these editors transgressed wiki rules. They are not disruptive, they are not doing 3RR, etc. There is simply no valid reason to keep fanning the flames of Mr. Tibbs vendettas. Also, if I am not mistaken, Ryan recently accused User:Tbeatty of being "Rex/Merecat". How many times will these two be allowed to accuse non-transgressign editors? It's time to retire the Rex bogeyman. Good ole John Kerry is not being molested and this type of bossing against others by Tibbs and Ryan is bad news. 69.46.20.59 07:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the checkuser indicated that the users are socks of Merecat/Rex. So the above looks most likely to be yet more mendatious doublespeak from a Merecat sock. Not all of the Merecat edits are directly POV pushing, his latest tactic appears to be an attempt to create an alternative reality by posting pieces to his opponent's user pages accusing them of being biased. (For evidence take a look at this [87] then look at the other edits by this IP, it is hard to see why a newbie editor would immediately acquire Merecat's fixations, the post is a transparent attempt at deception and self justification/pity). Other posts are made to complain about the unfair treatment of Merecat. If the above paragraph was indeed factually accurate and the sockpuppets have not been found to be engaged in 'transgressions' it is hard to see how they would be identified as sock puppets. Clearly their behavior was suspicious enough. Merecat is a revert warrior and POV pusher. Keep the ban. --Gorgonzilla 17:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When will this witch hunt end, We have User:Neutral arbiter, User:Tbeatty, User:Wombdpsw all accused of being Merecat. I am waiting for my turn to pop up on the list considering there evidence ammounts to use of "lets keep it NPOV" summaries. Are any of these even proven sock puppets? I think an admin needs just do a checkuser then state how long rex is banned as he and merecat cant both be sockpuppets. --zero faults talk 17:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To extend the witch hunt, you have people accusing everyone of being merecat, its becoming silly almost: User_talk:RyanFreisling#Another_merecat_sock.3F If you touch an article that this group defends you risk being accused. When does this become fishing or even worse an intimidation tactic. --zero faults talk 17:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny that so many people who all just happen to edit the same set of articles in the same particular direction all use the same language in their pleas here. Of course that does not mean that they are all sockpuppets of a single person but there is a remarkable similarity in their approach. --Gorgonzilla 21:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The tactics this individual or clique use to evade bans show through in their edits. This smacks of being a propaganda campaign. They argue black is white then call people fools and liars for saying it isnt. They make the most tendentious POV edits imaginable then accuse others of POV peddling for reverting their nonsense. If someone was running a for fee Wikipedia scrubbing service for GOP pols this is what it would look like. Oh and BTW one does not have to assume good faith after a user is banned for repeated bad faith. --Gorgonzilla 22:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to keep everyone up-to-date Neutral arbiter, Cal Burrattino, and Wombdpsw were all found to be sockpuppets of Rex071404 and have been banned indefinitely.[95]. Also it turned out I'm not a sockpuppet, fancy that.[96] I have no doubt that in the future we will be seeing more sockpuppets of Rex, so everyone keep an eye out. -- Mr. Tibbs 05:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a matter of curiosity rather than confusion, but what was meant by "this grossly ineffective request for arbitration"? Being the one who brought that request, I naturally wonder whom/what that bit was directed at. Sorry for this rather belated request (I could have asked this weeks ago if I'd been paying attention in class). --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The enforcement for Crotalus horridus conflicts with the enforcement provided in the userbox remedy. Presumably the enforcement applies only to Crotalus's probation should that be invoked. Or can admins choose whichever they prefer? (And, if they can, could 5 two-week blocks result in triggering the year-block even though the remedy would not have been invoked since it limits blocks to a week?) -Splashtalk 16:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you tell me how this is going to work? I have these specific questions:
You can answer these questions directly or refer me to some literature/examples that illustrate how these bans work. Thanks, AucamanTalk 05:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is[99] within the prohibited editing by 203.213.77.138, 220.*, 58/56.* AA et al.? 203 has stated on his talk page that he thinks it is not within the prohibited edit set (see his talk page for details) and so I have brought the matter here for clarification. JoshuaZ 03:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aquestion has been asked: "Does Raul, a potential litigant, get to define the parameters of the case so that they do not include him?" I will ask a different question: What are the suitable steps to have the case also include those involved parties who actually hold power, both on Wikipedia and the foundation-affiliated #wikipedia, and have potentially abused it. I urge for realistic means to pursue this. Otherwise, the appearence will be that the powerless (Blu) are fair game whereas the powerful (Linuxbeak, Raul) are absolved, shielded, and unaccountable. El_C 19:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the conclusion of the Arbitration case, StrangerInParadise (talk · contribs) has continued to assume bad faith and make disruptive edits with the StrangerInParadise account while maintaining a separate, older, user account. Thus, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al is modified to include the following remedy:
StrangerInParadise is restricted to one user account. Any sockpuppet accounts will be blocked indefinitely and the main account blocked for up to 48 hours if this is violated.
This motion has been sitting here for almost a month now. Who will officially implement it, and when? 18:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.117.11.27 (talk • contribs) .
