Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Epopt (talk | contribs) at 16:30, 9 August 2004 (the Epopt votes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:30, 9 August 2004 by The Epopt (talk | contribs) (the Epopt votes)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut
  • ]

The last step of Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution is Arbitration, (see arbitration for a general overview of the topic). If, and only 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.

See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy, Misplaced Pages:Arbitrators, /Admin enforcement requested


Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
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: American politics 2 none (orig. case) 15 January 2025
Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Earlier Steps

Please review Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution for other avenues you should take before requesting Arbitration. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request for Arbitration will be rejected.

Current requests for Arbitration

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. Be brief - put a quick list of the nature of the complaints. Link to detailed evidence elsewhere if you need to. New requests to the top, please.

Guanaco and MyRedDice vs Lir

Guanaco and MyRedDice continue to abuse their powers, insisting on a revert war at My Arbitration Defense Page. Guanaco is the same user who has banned me without just cause, both here and at the so-called "unofficial" IRC channel. This is yet another clear example of my being denied due process. Every user has the right to defend themselves without infringement by sysops and supersysops -- these users must cease and desist.


I've answered them multiple times. I'll answer them here -- I have no sysop accounts, and I've never claimed to. You people can't even honor the principle of letting someone present their own defense -- you should be ashamed!Lirath Q. Pynnor

Comments and votes by arbitrators

  1. Reject. Lir, please just answer the questions MyRedDice is asking you. Fred Bauder 12:21, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Reject; second Fred's request. James F. (talk) 23:33, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. Reject --the Epopt 16:28, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User:RickK

Abusive towards others, doesnt not like to accept when he is wrong, and enjoys erasing messages to put things behind on his talk page. If not arbitration, at least needs someone to sit with him and tell him to calm down. Prove: "It is very serious to call me a polish nationalist and a vandal. Can you please explain yourself on my page or on my e-mail. Also you revert all my edits to the versions by a user who on the first version of his page placed a german nationalistic statement. Also, why did you revert my edit on Kiev? Why did you revert my answer to Burschenschafter? Are you taking sides without discussion? Or maybe you already have a strong opinion on every article I edited (what a coincidence) and instead of voicing it, you express it by blocking my account? Anyway, in the future I would like a group hearing before calling me a vandal, because ou're obviously biased. Thank you for understanding. User:Space Cadet" User:RickK

Prove:I DID NOT block you, and I don't appreciate your lying about it on the mailing list. I also don't appreciate your character assassination. RickK (when I asked him to unblock me) to which I answered: "Look Rick you DID block me, DICTAtor. As far as character assasination, I dont give a point what you think of it because you commit suicide yourself. Watch your words when dealing with other wikipedians. If you want to be seen with respect, treat others with respect. You are not a Dictator as you act like, Jimbo Wales is the monarch and president here.

AND remember , ask for a article merger before blocking people.

So before you go and get mad at other people for talking about you, look inside your personality and ask why did they talk like that.

People who act the way you do make it harder for others to enjoy working at wikipedia: I will stay so dont think that what ou told me will demoralize me, but please work here for the betterment of the world and not for the world to think you are better than anyone else.

Sincerely yours, "Antonio Stronger Martin"

to which he answered: "Irepeat. I did not block you. If you think I did, show some scintilla of evidence. I did block your father, because he refused to discuss why he kept reverting the redirect to an already-existing article, and I would do it again. RickK"

To which I answered (looking for peace here): Hey Rick: You blocked me when you blocked my dad, because we use the same computer. But now that the article is merged, and its all good, let bygones be bygones. I was actually thinking of giving you a Barnstar to make up for all the nasty talk used.

God bless you! Sincerely yours, Antonio El Gigante Verde Martin" to which he answered: Sorry, I have no interest in dealing with someone who called me a liar and used little tricky usages of spelling and word capitalizations to make snide comments. RickK

To which I, finally fed up, answered: Fine. I come at you trying to make peace and forgiveness (because humans FORGIVE each other in case you didnt know) and you come back with an attitude. Maybe you dont deserve the Barnstar after all. End of discussion. I will have someone arbitrate this and maybe ask for action if you answer me ONE MORE WORD, UNDERSTAND?????? (and he didnt answer, but he did erase my two last messages from his talk page; I understand thats perfectly ok to do but he clearly doesnt accept it when someone proves him wrong)

And if you want further prove, Go to his talk. Many, many others have complained about him. Theres a lot of prove there. - - "Antonio Better than you Martin"

"Antonio The Butcher Martin"

Comments and votes by arbitrators

  1. Please expand your complaint to include specific examples and links to them. Also detail what steps in the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution process you have taken. Fred Bauder 22:21, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • I didnt take any steps in the dispute resolution page because I didnt know that existed. As far as expanding the cmment I will find prove so you can see. "Antonio Tonya Martin"
      • Since that is the case, why don't you withdraw the complaint and follow the steps in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. You may end up back here, but you also might resolve the dispute and not need to come to this final step. Fred Bauder 23:02, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Follow earlier steps of dispute resolution. --mav 08:23, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. Reject. Earlier steps first. Martin 22:19, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. Reject; premature. James F. (talk) 23:33, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Reject --the Epopt 16:29, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User:Mike Storm

Original comments by Dunc Harris

This user has taken it upon himself to become the protector of the substub. This has serious implications for the Misplaced Pages:cleanup routine, and the reputation of Misplaced Pages. His attitude to anyone opposing the use of substubs has been aggressive, see Misplaced Pages talk:substub, always trying to have the last word.

He has been extremely aggressive towards anyone who opposes him, and has to have the last word on the issue. I, along with others, attempted to add to the policy on the issue but this user seems to regard the Misplaced Pages:substub page as his territory and has reverted all edits which go against his POV.

I also tried to arrange a sensible discussion on the talk page with concise pro- and against arguments with appropriate voting but he reverted this as well. This user is against the spirit of Wikidemocracy, which seems to be backed up with his masterplan to gain sysopship. Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:45, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Further note that your own opinion on this matter should be by-the-side; you ought to vote on his behaviour rather than his opinion. We can then have a sensible policy discussion and reach consensus. User:Duncharris who can't sign his name at the mo;
Most of the evidence is at

Response to Duncharris' original comments

How dare you accuse me of those things. I openly welcome all contributions to Misplaced Pages:Substub and all discussion on [[Misplaced Pages talk:Substub]]. I have even gone so far as to put that on my [[User:Mike Storm#Substubs|user page]]. Have you bothered to notice how much Misplaced Pages:Substub has changed since I first created it? There have been 29 edits that weren't made by me to the page. Still think I object to other people's contributions?

The reasons that Duncharris is accusing me are a) because he objects to the very idea of substubs, and b) because I objected to (among other things) his complete rearrangement of [[Misplaced Pages talk:Substub]]. I explained to him 3 times (very politely at first) why he should discontinue his behavior, but instead of changing his own, he complains about my behavior.

Sequence of events:

  1. He posts message against substubs.
  2. I reply to his message (politely).
  3. He moves my post to a separate section (making it look not look like a reply to his message), labelling it a "random comment" on the talk page and an "obscure rant" in his edit summary, instead of what it really was - a simple reply to his post. Apparently he is under the impression that anyone who disagrees with him is ranting.
  4. I revert and explain to him why he shouldn't a) call another person's post a rant unless it really is one, b) call another person's post obscure unless it really is, and c) post his opinion in his edit summary instead of on the talk page itself.
  5. He completely rearranges the talk page.
  6. He deletes his post and completely rewrites it, making my reply look foolish.
  7. I revert (but keep his new post) and post a message asking him to a) stop rearranging other people's posts, and b) it is considered (or rather, I consider it) impolite to delete one's own, and c) to start signing his posts, and I tell him how to do so.
  8. He (once again) rearranges the talk page and calls my posts "long POV ramblings" in his edit summary. Apparently he misunderstands the purpose of talk pages, which is to express your POV.
  9. I revert and post a message explaining to him a) the purpose of talk pages, b) that just because he doesn't like my posts doesn't give him the right to call them "rambling" and rearrange them in any way he pleases, c) that people arrange their posts in a specific way for a reason, and d) asked him one final time to please stop.
  10. He posts me here, on Requests for Arbitration.

And I'm the one with "bad behavior"?

Also, I have no "master plan" to gain sysopship. That section of my user page is simply there to tell people that, if nominated, I gladly accept. Duncharris' claim that this is somehow "evil" is unfounded.

I am an emphatic supporter of the Wikidemocracy, and I once again would like to refer you to the page history of Misplaced Pages:Substub which shows that there were 29 edits that weren't made by me, and I objected to only two of them. Duncharris' claim that I "own" that page is also unfounded.

Furthermore, Duncharris says that I have to have the last word on everything. I'm assuming that he says this because whenever someone posts a message against substubs on Misplaced Pages talk:Substub (or elsewhere), I always reply to it. Am I not allowed to defend my position? None of my replies have been flames, so what's the problem?

Duncharris says that he wants a sensible policy discussion. However, isn't it a little hard to have a discussion when one user (me) actually posts his reasons for a page change, while another user (Duncharris) makes changes and then consistently reverts with zero discussion at all? We have a hypocrite in our midst.

It would appear that Duncharris himself should be the one listed as a bad Wikipedian on this page. My defense can be summed up by one final statement: with his hypocrisy, rudeness, and baseless accusations, Duncharris is the one at fault here. ] 02:16, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Further comments by Dunc Harris

The Misplaced Pages:substub page was created at 00:32, 21 Jul 2004 by User:Mike Storm, as a legitimate topic discussion page. . He stated in his first edit that it was likely to be controversial. He then went on to expand it variously, with User:Eequor making several contributions.

The first evidence that I would like to be submitted is the Misplaced Pages talk:substub. User:Angela made some sensible comments, and at this point User:Mike Storm appears to be within his limits as reasonable discussion, but there later developed a flame war between Cyrius and User:Mike Storm, with Mr Storm acting in an aggressive manner, and even gauding Cyrius at User_talk:Cyrius#substub_reply. It seems that he is trying to pick a fight, and his behaviour elsewhere such as on my user page such suggests that he always wants to have the last word. This is clearly impolite and breach of Wikiquette.

As further evidence of Mike Storm's control of the page see his reverts, most recently of Equoor "reverted - WRONG information", and of my edit suggesting the redirection of substubs .

I posted my POV on Misplaced Pages talk:substub only for me to be flamed. To keep my comments in the context that they were intended, I separated out my comments from Storm's flame which contained no new points, and to avoid voter intimidation, and got slightly annoyed by his reversion and rudeness, and was rude back, possibly escalating it unnecessarily, which I am a bit ashamed of.

I tried to arrange for a proper policy debate by formatting the talk page so as to avoid this flaming, but this was reverted. . My intention was to present consise pro an con arguments with votes.

We need to have this policy debate, but it needs to be in a structure, organised debate, especially so since the controversial nature of this page. The first thing we need to do is decide on a definition. If Mike Storm can abide by the rules, then this is okay, but I'd rather deal with other users who are polite such as Jamesday (I'll even play devils advocate myself if you want, or arrange someone to). Basically, Storm needs to agree to holding a proper debate or told not to participate in such a debate if he can't keep his rattle in his pram. Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:30, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Response to Duncharris' further comments

I will structure this post as a response to each of Duncharris' paragraphs.

I did not flame Duncharris. I did everything in my power to explain to him politely, what talk pages are for and what their structure is. The fact that I expanded upon it merely shows that I am dedicated, and User:Eequor was not the only contributor.

The discussion between myself and User:Cyrius was not a flame war. I will admit that I did, once, say that Cyrius had a "swelled head", but I was under a considerable amount of stress and pressure to defend the existence of substubs. I assure you, Cyrius was just as "agressive" as I was (which was not very much). I never gauded Cyrius. Duncharris appears to enjoy twisting facts. On User talk:Cyrius#substub reply, I did not pick a fight, I was merely checking to see if Cyrius knew that I had posted a reply to his message. The message that I posted on User talk:Duncharris was there for exactly the same purpose. The fact that I "always want to have the last word" - am I not allowwed to defend my position?

I reverted those two edits not because I had a personal vendetta against Duncharris or Euquor (indeed, Euquor had been the most prolific and helpful contributor), but because their edits went against the definition of substubs.

Once again, I never flamed Duncharris. Actually, Duncharris did not even at the time understand that talk pages were for expressing your POV, which he stated in his edit summary. Even though he did not understand what talk pages were for, I can prove my point about his character by taking a trip into Duncharris' brain at the time: "Hmm... I don't like Mike Storm's reply to my comments. I'll call them POV and move them to some other section. But wait a minute... that means that my comments are POV too... but I shouldn't move those, because I must be right, and whatever Mike Storm says is either POV, a rant, a rambling, a flame, rude, or obscure." (Note: he has called my posts all of those things.) Duncharris did not separate my comments from his own for contextual reasons, which is clear because he labelled them "random comments" instead of what they were - a reply to his comments. You can check the page history for proof of this. I do not wish to intimidate voters, and I was never rude.

There was already a proper policy debate in place - I had started the "Substub support" vote a few days previously, and Duncharris started the "Substub opposition" section. I have no objection to the "Substub opposition" section. When reverting, I did not remove the "Substub opposition" section. If I did, it was by accident. Also, there is already a definition of substubs in place, if Duncharis would take the time to read Misplaced Pages:Substub all the way through.

I do not post flames, but if I did, this post would be a conflagration. It is truly hard to sum up my anger at Duncharris' twisting of facts, omitting of facts, and outright lying. I have been nothing but helpful, to Duncharris, and this is how he repays me: by embarrassing me like this without cause in front of my Wikipedian peers. ] 20:18, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

More flaming here: Wikipedia_talk:Substub#Substub_opposition

Comments by Cyrius

I found Mike Storm aggressive enough on Misplaced Pages talk:Substub that I decided to cut my involvement before things turned uglier. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:26, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mike Storm removed the above comment from this page. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:24, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
First: believe me, Cyrius was just as aggressive. Second: what comment? I did not remove any comments from this page. What the heck are you talking about, Cyrius?
Mike Storm removing my comment. -- Cyrius|✎ 15:40, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Whoops! I swear, that was an accident. It was caused by an edit conflict. I had been typing the Response section for a long time, and during that time I suppose Cyrius must have posted that comment. I wasn't notified of the edit conflict because I switched computers while working on that section, and the MediaWiki software can't detect that. It was an accident, and I apologize. ] 15:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was involved in no flame war. I noted the disagreement between his interpretation of policy and what I observe to be the currently accepted interpretation. When Mike Storm resorted to abusive language, I cut my involvement as it was evident that a productive discussion was not going to happen. I allowed myself one more comment in a separate thread on the subject, and then stopped until both Mike Storm and Dunc Harris began trying to drag me back in. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:22, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I resorted to minimal abusive language, and that was only because I was stressed. You, along with Duncharris, are lying: you have posted numerous comments on my talk page, which no one dragged you in to. By the way, in your posts on my talk page, you too have used abusive language. Yet another hypocrite. ] 20:18, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's it. I'm not going to try to reason with someone who flat out calls me a liar because of a small misstatement. Dunc Harris asked me to get involved because he felt you had become so aggressive that he could not reason with you. I told you not to be mean (no, really. "Don't be mean."). And then you kept going.

The closest thing to abuse I left on your talk page was telling you to grow a tougher skin. I'm not going to put up with this. Any further replies by Mike Storm to my comments will be ignored. Comments by Mike Storm on my talk page will be removed. Wikistress level is rising, and I'm not going to make it worse by continuing to try to talk to someone who has called me a swelled-headed lying abusive hypocrite who he won't take seriously (not all at once, mind you. That's over several comments). -- Cyrius|✎ 21:50, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Not listening to someone at all is much worse than not taking them seriously. And isn't it ironic that when Cyrius combined all of my comments into one insult so as to make me look like a flamer, he became exactly what the insult was calling him? ] 21:57, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments by Siroxo

I'm not really sure if I'm supposed to post here, but I'll be bold and do it because I believe I had a good view of this problem as it happened. I've followed the substub idea since it was created, and saw most of these events as they unfolded (ie, not through viewing histories). In an attempt to take a neutral side, I have a few comments to make.

Firstly, many of Dunc Harris' actions on Misplaced Pages talk:substub and its corresponding article did have me surprised, and I would have asked him to explain them, and possibly reverted them, especially if his edits took my personal comments out of context.

Secondly, Mike Storm was not polite to Dunc Harris in general and argued in a way that showed his anger towards Dunc Harris, but none of his edits were made simply to anger Dunc.

Both users could have approached this situation in a more cooperative way. Discussions of ideas should have been made on the talk page before implementing them, but responses to "pre-emtive" implementations should have not been so harsh. I will not post further on this matter, feel free to delete my comments if they are not appropriate. —siroχo 01:03, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

dispute resolution

I listed all the steps in the dispute resolution process; the dispute listed here is about (supposedly) my "bad" behavior, not about whether substubs should exist or not. ] 19:20, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Okay, who was your mediator? --the Epopt 00:35, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oh. That's what you meant by dispute resolution. I assumed you meant the steps that I had taken to resolve the issue. Sorry. ] 01:22, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See wikipedia:dispute resolution. Martin 22:14, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by arbitrators

  1. Recuse. I feel so strongly on this matter that the very word stub has been banned from Wikinfo. Fred Bauder 21:54, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
  2. I see no description of the failures of the earlier steps in the dispute resolution process -- remand to mediation --the Epopt 18:57, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. Mediation. --mav 08:21, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. Reject/Mediation. Or, try discussing it with the other guy. Pretend for a moment that we're not here. Martin 22:14, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Reject; premature. James F. (talk) 23:32, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Guanaco and Lir

Tim Starling banned me from the IRC channel #wikipedia. I don't feel he had adequate reasons and, since there is no appeal process, I would like to bring this to the attention of the arbitration committee. Lirath Q. Pynnor

  • I don't know for certain that it was Tim Starling who banned me; but since he banned me improperly before, I assume it was him. It doesn't really matter who banned me, what matters is that the wikipedia is ruled by a cabal of petty tyrants. Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • I have been informed that it was Guanaco who banned me. Lirath Q. Pynnor
      There is no way I could have banned Lir; I don't have channel op status on #wikipedia. Guanaco 22:51, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
      Lir, you should be going after Fennec, not me, and not Tim Starling. He is the one who banned you from the channel. Guanaco 03:32, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

  • Fred, I'd love to prove my innocence; as I'm sure you must recall, its their responsibility to prove my guilt -- I didn't record a log, since I didn't know I was going to be banned. I don't believe I made any inappropriate posts; as far as I know, they took offense at two particular posts:
    • "Please do not make personal attacks." (they were calling me stupid, and making vulgar comments about my mom)
    • "There is a cabal." (immediately after noting this, I was banned by the cabal)
    • Lirath Q. Pynnor

The #wikipedia channel is not "unofficial". It is run by sysops and developers. Declaring it to be "unofficial" would just be a beauraucratic shuffling to avoid responsibility. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I'm sorry, but I disagree. It is run by them, yes, but not officially. If there's something you want to complain about related to activity by the operators on the IRC channels, I'd recommend asking a Freenode person. James F. (talk) 12:36, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Stop avoiding your responsibility. Everybody knows that the channel #wikipedia is run by the wikipedia. Lirath Q. Pynnor

If the channel is out of your jurisdiction, does that mean that actions on the channel cannot be used as evidence? Or would a ruling that IRC is out of your jursidiction mean that assessing penalties in IRC is not part of your job description, however you can assess penalties on Misplaced Pages proper for behavior in IRC (Much as Michael was banned from IRC due to his behavior on Misplaced Pages proper)? Snowspinner 14:05, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by arbitrators

  • Lir, could you fill in the rest of the story, giving for example what sorts of posts you were making on IRC, a log would be nice if you have it. Also it would be helpful if you would tell us the other steps in the Misplaced Pages dispute resolution process you have followed. Fred Bauder 21:07, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely sure that we have jurisdiction over the IRC channels; they're unofficial, after all. James F. (talk) 12:01, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC) To make it clear: reject. James F. (talk) 23:32, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Reject - This is outside of our jurisdiction. --mav 08:25, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Reject: jurisdiction --the Epopt 16:27, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • While the IRC channels are currently unofficial, they will become official in due course, I believe, based on this email by Fennec Foxen. However, arbitration is a last resort, and I don't see that Lir has tried, for example, talking to other IRCers with operator priviledges. Therefore, reject. Further, there do not appear to be any policies relating to use of chanops on #wikipedia, rendering it unlikely that we would find in favour of Lir in this case. Martin 22:57, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade and 172

I would like the arbitration committee to look into the issue of Sam Spade. He has a long history of inserting POV into articles under the guise of NPOV (see Talk:Gay bathhouse and the histories of Racial hygiene and Adolf Hitler for further examples).

Does Misplaced Pages have a responsibility to present every view? Before answering quickly, think whether we have to present a defense of Nazism or a justification of the Matthew Shephard murder just to ensure neutrality. Is this an encyclopedia, or is it a soapbox where every Internet kook and extremist can make their statements under a veneer of legitimacy--after all, it's in the encyclopedia?

When he is challenged regarding the unencyclopedic nature of his work, Sam's behavior is marked by a fundamental failure to communicate reasonably regarding disputes, which is why I am bringing up this case. He has a maddening habit of turning content disputes into personal disputes. (I have only crossed paths with him a handful of times. The most extended encounter was on Fascism. Ever since then, he has been following me around with an ax to grind.)

I hope you choose to take up this case. 172 23:55, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User:Danny withdrew this same complaint against Sam Spade about a week ago, saying that he was willing to try a modus vivendi with Sam. I also tried to do the same. But Sam was so unbelievably unreasonable on his talk page that decided to revive this request.

See also Talk:Gay bathhouse, Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Gay bathhouse, User talk:Exploding Boy and User talk:OwenBlacker. — (More evidence concerning Sam Spade's past identity User:JackLynch: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive/Lord Kenneth (JackLynch), Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive/JackLynch, Talk:Internet troll/Archive 1)

Can someone find a diff of Danny's withdrawn request? Thanks. Martin 00:17, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is no difference. I stated so above. I think that Sam Spade is a severe problem user and that something has to be done. Danny's old request hits the nail on the head, so I wish to reactivate it. 00:21, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)172

Is this what you were looking for, Martin? Sam 01:30, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Response

Here are a few policy links and a link to my conversation with 172 which he characterized as "unbelievably unreasonable" User_talk:Sam_Spade/_-_archive_August_2004#172.

Sam 01:04, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh and in case it matters (I'm not saying it should, but it has been mentioned) I neither justify the murder of Matthew Shepard, nor have I ever done anything to suggest that, nor have I ever edited an article relating to him to my knowledge. Sam 01:22, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

When and where did 172 attempt any part of the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution regarding these issues, other than coming directly to arbitration? To my knowledge we've never discussed, nor edited together on these particular issues. Isn't this RfAR therefore fundamentally invalid? Sam 01:57, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"If, and only 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."
Sam 03:29, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments and votes by arbitrators

  1. Recuse, based on 172's participation. Fred Bauder 01:42, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Reject - follow earlier steps. --mav 08:38, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. Reject; premature. James F. (talk) 23:31, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. Reject --the Epopt 16:30, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

172

172 has been reverting me at New Imperialism and he refuses to discuss the matter. I request that the arbitration committee examine this uncooperative behaviour. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I strongly request that User:172 be examined by the arbitration committee, regarding a general tendancy towards edit wars and incivility. Sam 04:09, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See Dialogue below for an interaction. Sam 22:19, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I also request that User:172 be examined by the arbitration committee, because of his extensive edit wars with VeryVerily, and Lir.--Plato 22:08, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A note: 172's proposed solution to the problem at New Imperialism was a poll between the two versions - virtually identical to what Lir did at one point on Saddam Hussein. I'm interested in how Lir distinguishes between the two. Snowspinner 12:52, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. We appreciate your concern. I do not recall ever requesting a poll at Saddam Hussein -- however, we will take your point into consideration. Lirath Q. Pynnor

172 has repeatedly deleted contributions by others in the "Evidence" section. I'm disturbed by his actions in this regard - surely a party in an arbitration case should not be permitted to delete contributions by other parties? The issue is being discussed at . -- ChrisO 19:30, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade, Lir, and Plato did not follow dispute resolution procedure so they should also be considered defendants. 172 14:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, we have -- but you continue to reject mediation. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Evidence

If people could refrain from removing evidence, that'd certainly help. I don't appreciate my job being made more difficult. Thanks. Martin 17:51, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I believe Muriel G would also agree with this request, the following exchange is from her talkpage:

  • As you have learned, by arguing with 172, the cabal is real. They are a group of petty tyrants with no respect for common decency -- their goal is not to make the wikipedia better, but to make the wikipedia theirs. Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • Thats why i moved to wiki.pt :) Muriel G 10:25, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No she would not. I never dealt with 172 (except in VfD) so i couldnt have an opinion on the matter. And i apreciate if people refrain from putting words into my mouth, especially when they are grossely out of context. Muriel G 18:34, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nobody put any words in your mouth; in the above exchange, you clearly stated that 172s actions were "why i moved to wiki.pt". If you mispoke -- that is your fault. I would guess the real problem here, is not that Muriel objects to 172s behaviour; but that she is afraid of being labeled a "troll" and facing future punitive actions by the cabal. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I don't think Muriel needs her mind read, her motivation intuited, or her opinions stated for her. Nor is she in any danger of being labelled or punished on the basis of a label. - Nunh-huh 02:48, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But she apparently needs you to speak for her... Lirath Q. Pynnor

  • I'm speaking for myself. - Nunh-huh 03:52, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Dialogue

Comments and votes by arbitrators

  1. Recuse Fred Bauder 12:18, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Accept. James F. (talk) 03:23, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. Leave hanging while the two existing Lir cases are resolved - the outcome of those two may render arbitration in this case unnecessary. Martin 23:52, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. Recuse - Involves Lir which biases me in favor of 172. --mav 09:58, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)



User:JRR Trollkien

Evidence of sock-puppetry presented by various users moved to User talk:JRR Trollkien. Martin 00:47, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Complaint by UninvitedCompany

This user appears to be the same user who was previously banned as:

and who was believed to be, in real life, Craig Hubley (website).

In accordance with Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, I have tried to discuss these matters on the user's talk page, as has another user. My concerns have gone unanswered despite User:JRR Trollkien making continued edits elsewhere. I have also asked User:JRR Trollkien to confirm or deny having edited previously under one of the three identities listed above, on a related arbitration page, and he neither confirmed nor denied having made such edits. I do not believe that mediation is appropriate in this case, both because of User:JRR Trollkien's refusal to discuss any edits on any talk page, and because of the existing ban. However, if the committee should conclude that mediation would somehow be beneficial, I would be happy to participate.


Requested relief

If the committee can satisfy itself that this is the same user banned previously, I request that the existing ban be reaffirmed and enforced. I believe this is important, notwithstanding the quality of any current edits, to preserve the integrity and effectiveness of user bans and the right of the community to choose its members.

If the committee believes that this user is unrelated to any previously banned user, I request that the committee ask User:JRR Trollkien to quit adding content written by previously banned users and since removed through the consensus editing process.

Respectfully, UninvitedCompany 23:10, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


there is something I find a bit problematic here UC. It is simply that some of these edits you mention here, have been done while the previous user was not banned *yet* (for example 24). Besides, the user mentionned has not been banned because of the content provided, but because of an behavior considered inapropriate by the community standards. You are basing a good deal of your argument on the fact trollkien is reintroducing content provided before the ban and not object of the ban.
While I understand very well your concern, I am also worried that what you are asking will set a couple of precedents that could be unwelcome. Right now, it is not current practice to remove edits made by banned users previously to the banning. And I would add that we punish users being bad with the community by punishing them, not deleting contents. What you are now suggesting is that we change this entirely, and use from now on a new law. From a legal perspective, when a law is changed, it is not fair that it is applied by anteriority on people.
So, I'd say, the committee should only feel concerned by one question : if this user is a banned user, the ban should be enforced. If not, this user should not be bothered. In all cases, what this user is doing is irrelevant and the type of edit he is making is only to be used to make the relationship betwen previously banned user. Content made while the editor could edit should not be taken into account directly.
Between you and I, I think you should try to loosen this unhealthy obsession :-) But well... friendly yours. Ant
The original ban of 24 was due to a refusal to work cooperatively with other editors, because 24 engaged in exactly the sort of constant re-insertion of his material that is going on here. 142, as I recall, was chiefly banned as a "reincarnation," and the stated reason for EofT's ban concerned the contents of a specific edit.
Nope. 142 was not banned for being a reincarnation. He was banned for making threats. I think that whatever the reason of the ban, and whatever its validity, it is important to say that the reasons of the 3 bannings were not content itself, but behavior. It would be nice that over time, the reason why people are banned are not distorted. I think it is important. If only to remind and insist that people are banned because of behavioral issues, and not for content issues. If reinsertion of content added by a user who has been banned *after* the edition is motive to ban people, then we admit that we ban people for issues of "content". While if we ban people for being reincarnation of ban user, we inforce banning, but we ban over behavioral issue, not content issue. I am in agreement to enforce ban, I am not in agreement to ban people on issues of content. And I do think that the argument you are giving above is borderline in that context. I'd say it is okay to try to make a link between people using the argument of reinsertion, but it is not okay to ban them because they are reinserting content that did not justify the ban in the first place. I am not sure I am explaining myself clearly enough here Steve, but I hope you will see the slight difference in approach that I suggest. Enforce banning over sockpuppet if you wish. But please, do not put a ban on someone because of an issue of content properly. I think that would be a very serious slippery slope to do so. Do you understand what I mean ?
Several users have counseled me to provde evidence that the user is indeed the same as the ones previously banned. Since there is no technical means to provide such evidence (since we don't try to verify identity and since we haven't saved logs from a year ago to use to compare HTTP headers), I can only point to the editing pattern, which is what I've done. I have already pointed out User:JRR Trollkien's refusal to deny authorship of the 24/142/EofT material, which, IMO, speaks volumes.
The edits being reinstated by User:JRR Trollkien are ones that were removed one at a time, through the course of careful editing by a wide varity of users. None of them were removed by me, and only one was removed due to authorship alone, and that after the ban. By re-adding this content, verbatim, paragraphs at a time, to a fairly wide range of articles, User:JRR Trollkien is undoing the careful work of many people who reworded it or rewrote the articles to make them better in the intervening time, well over a year in some cases. I think that's unfair, regardless of the true identity of the people involved.
Well, that is a wiki, and everyone is free to participate I'd say. Since you consider that readding content removed over a year by 2 or 3 people is unfair, I take it you consider that the opinion of 2 or 3 people only is more important that the opinion of just 1 person. That means that you agree to follow the opinion of the majority then, and that you lend all power to only 2 or 3 people. I think that is also a dangerous direction. It is perhaps interesting to see in the view of current political dispute involving 172. Imagine that WP is providing a very antiisraelite view. And that one user comes around and add his pro-israel view. Then leave for a while. During a year, 2 or 3 people against israel view come along and carefully, quietly remove the pro-israel view. Then the initial user comes back and tries to reinsert his pro-israel view. Would you say that this is vandalism and unfair ? I'd say that it is not; and if you reacted by excluding this guy, you would perhaps be on the slope of censorship and majority of pov promoting. I think I can say that fairly. I have seen work done on antifrench articles. I tried to improve them a year ago. Over a year, a good deal of what I added was removed quietly by anti french people. Would it be unfair that I add it again ? Just because more people removed it ? Arenot we not bordering something bad here ? I agree that some of the work done is perhaps best than what was done previously, but I also wonder if there is not a risk of "paralysing" the life of articles when a set of users decide that "this version" is the good one, and should not receive again input in another anterior direction. This is something I fear a bit for Misplaced Pages : the organisation of team who will protect some articles and prevent growth. Overprotection. Hmmmmm.... just think about it please, when you are over your hunting energy. Please, do think about it... from a woman working as well on a younger wikipedia, and who can see the protective forces at work. Do not forget that they are cases which could be dangerous to set. That is all I mean, and I wish you see beneath that precise case to think about that. Okay ? :-) SweetLittleFluffyThing 19:22, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
As to whether this is an unhealthy obsession, I disagree and would be happy to discuss the reasons why at some more suitable location if you're interested.
UninvitedCompany 17:23, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think I already know your arguments. But perhaps it is too important to you. I think you consider you have been trapped at some point, and want to compensate now. Well.... no big deal. I still object, but I have other things to do in my life. I think I enough said my opinion. If you understand what I try to say, so much the best, otherwise, it is not worth I go on :-)

User:JRR Trollkien should be permanently banned asap. If WP does not have a mechanism for making such a ban effective, we should really sit down and figure one out. User:JRR Trollkien is a time wasting moron -- get rid of him immediately. BTW I think it's beside the point whether User:JRR Trollkien is the same as some other troll. Same or not, just ban him. Thanks. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:30, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I ask the arbitration committee not to ban JRR Trollkien, but to recognize that he and EntmootsOfTrolls are the same person. There is no need for a new ban to be implemented, if it is shown that JRR Trollkien is already banned. Guanaco 08:08, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hephaestos blocked JRR Trollkien and Leo Trollstoy for thirty days. Later on 10 Jun 2004, Mark Richards unblocked, asking (here) "Has the committee already ruled? On both users? If I've missed something here please let me know".

Votes and discussion by arbitrators (2/1/1/0)

  1. Accept Fred Bauder. There is strong evidence based on his earliest posts that this user was not a new user when he entered Misplaced Pages, See 12:57, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Recuse - Comments by 142.177 to me were the main reason why that user was banned. --mav 09:13, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  3. Accept; if he is, indeed, shown to be a reincarnation, this will be a short case. James F. (talk) 09:56, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC) This looks like it will be unnecessary, as JRR is currently deemed by popular acclaim to be a reincarnation, as said; however, also accept for purposes of reviewing sysop behaviour in relation to this account &c. James F. (talk) 01:02, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC).
  4. Accept. My current belief is that under current banning policy, JRR may already be blocked for being an obvious reincarnation, without even needing an arbitration ruling. As of now, reject. Now that JRR has been blocked as an obvious reincarnation, we only need to consider this case if Mark, Heph, and the community in general are unable to resolve any difference of opinion regards whether the reincarnation is sufficiently "obvious" (in which case, accept). Martin 02:57, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Matters currently in Arbitration

/Template

Rejected requests

  • Avala vs various users - Rejected - try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Avala
  • Wheeler vs 172 - Rejected - please try mediation first. Discussion moved to user talk:WHEELER
  • Cheng v. Anonymous and others - Rejected - refer to wikipedia:username for name change policy. For content dispute, try other forms of dispute resolution first, please. Discussion moved to User talk:Nathan w cheng.
  • WikiUser vs. unspecified others - Rejected due to lack of a specific request.
  • Simonides vs. "everyone" - Rejected - referred to the Mediation Committee.
  • Sam Spade vs. Danny - Withdrawn
  • Sam Spade vs. AndyL - Withdrawn
  • Raul654 vs Anthony DiPierro - Withdrawn after agreement of both parties (see standing order).


Completed requests

  • /Theresa knott vs. Mr-Natural-Health - Decided on 11th Februry 2004 that Mr-Natural-Health would be banned from editing for 30 days (i.e., until 12 Mar 2004). The vote was 6-2 in favor of banning, with 2 explicit and 1 de-facto abstention.
  • /Plautus satire vs Raul654 - Decided on 11th March 2004 that Plautus satire is to be banned for one year, up to and including March 11 2005. The vote was unanimous with 8 votes in favour and 1 de-facto abstention; a further vote in favour of extending the ban indefinitely was held but not met.
  • /Wik - Decided on 15th March 2004 that Wik would have a three month probation during which he may be temp-banned in certain circumstances. There were six votes in favour, three opposed, and one de-facto abstention. Further decisions and minority opinions can be read at /Wik.
  • /Anthony DiPierro - Decided on 25th April 2004 to instruct Anthony with regards to his VfD edits, and refer other issues to mediation. The vote was unanimous with 6 votes in favour and 4 de-facto abstentions. Note that the case was accepted solely to investigate use of VfD.
  • /Mav v. 168 - Closed on 03 July 2004 with an open verdict.
  • /Cantus - Decided on 01 Aug 2004, apply a revert parole to Cantus and other remedies.
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests Add topic