Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Everyking (talk | contribs) at 14:09, 11 April 2006 (→EK appeal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
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
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal none none 11 December 2024
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

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. 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.



How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

  • Click the "[edit]" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;
  • Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
  • Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
  • Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
  • Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

Dbachmann and clique

Involved parties

Confirmation that other parties have been informed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nyenyec#RFA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adam78#RFA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LukasPietsch#RFA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bishonen#RFA

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

  • [1]
  • [2]
  • tried to add rfc that was deleted by the clique
  • [3]
  • [4]

Statement by Bgully

impact of such cliques to wikipedia
  • articles are incorrect and contain dogmatic views of small (hate) cliques
  • quality of articles gets worse, important facts remain unmentioned or get permanently vandalized as here
  • donators and potentional donators hear the above practices, and stop donations

Statement by Dbachmann

This is Antifinnugor (talk · contribs) back from his year's ban. Since he does not seem to have changed his ways during his year away, I would actually welcome a revision of the case by the arbcom, suggesting that now would be a good time to pronounce a permanent ban. dab (ᛏ) 16:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LukasPietsch

I haven't been involved in all this except for one (admittedly strongly worded) comment on the article RfC linked to by Bgully above ([21]). While I don't consider myself a party to this "dispute", the Arbcom might want to consider the absurdity of calling this a "rassistic hate comment" as in itself constituting a breach of WP:NPA. This together with the even more blatant and absurd insult with which my comment was answered ([22], see also [23], [24], [25]). Arbcom should note that Bgully is obviously identical with User:Adam88, the account which he used during the actual "dispute" in March (not to be confused with User:Adam78!), and I'd suggest as a temporary injunction that Bgully should be required to clarify this identity, as well as that with Antifinnugor. Note also that Bgully had earlier contributed to Wikipedia during Antifinnugor's one-year ban, with contributions like this: [26]. --Lukas (T.|@) 18:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway, clerk

Antifinnugor was not banned from Wikipedia, but banned for one year from editing the articles Finno-Ugric languages and Uralic languages "and related articles" for one year, The case was closed by User:Grunt on 1 February 2005, and the initial term of any ban would have expired on 1 February, 2006.

Bgully has not edited either article but has edited Talk:Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language Groups. Most of his edits on Wikipedia seem to have been personal attacks on the editors he names in this application. He also contributed allegations, 10 March, 2006, resembling those above, to a now-deleted RfC

Bgully has only ever made two article edits, both on 28 April, 2005. In one, he reverted an edit on Relations between Catholicism and Judaism by Jayjg to restore a version that, in part, referred to Jewish Cantors by the Christian title of "Reverend". In the other, on Adolf Hitler, he changed "the genocidal Holocaust" to "the allegiated genocidal Holocaust". The account was dormant between 28 April, 2005 and 10 March, 2006. --Tony Sidaway 16:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs)

Involved parties

Rms125a@hotmail.com, and his various sockpuppets and anonymous IP addresses, has persistently and blatantly breached several Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, WP:3RR and WP:SOCK.

Confirmation that other parties have been informed

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Demiurge

Problematic behaviour includes inserting virulent anti-Irish/anti-Catholic/anti-Croatian POV into articles, vitriolic personal abuse, revert wars and a wide array of sockpuppets. A user conduct RfC was filed, but the user flatly denied all wrongdoing and the sockpuppetry and aggressive POV editing continued. Examples of each category of disputed behaviour (much more evidence and examples provided in the RfC):

Statement by party 2

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries.)

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

Monicasdude

Involved parties

Section added by Stifle

Monicasdude is alleged to persistently assume bad faith in others, ignore consensus, make personal attacks, and remove warnings and messages from his talk page.

Section appended by Monicasdude

Swatjester has wikistalked Monicasdude and cast bad faith AfD "votes" in an attempt to offset Monicasdude's position.

Calton has edited this page several times to remove or alter statements by Monicasdude, and included personal attacks in his edit summaries. Calton is persistently uncivil and makes personal attacks.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Two RFCs: 1 and 2 have failed to cause any change in behaviour.
  • Attempts to informally mediate has failed, and it is believed that any formal mediation will also fail.

Statement by User:Stifle

I first interacted with Monicasdude in February 2006 when discussing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross C. DeVol. He voted for speedy keep, and I suggested [30] that this may not be a valid vote (although I admit now that it was at the time). Monicasdude replied [31] accusing the nominator of vandalism and accusing me of repeated bad faith AFD nominations. When I asked him to quote one such nomination [32], he replied with a cryptic comment [33] which did not cite any actual bad faith AFDing by me, before deleting [34] the entire conversation from his talk page with the edit summary "obsessive personal attack refactored". My request not to do this [35] was summarily dealt with the same way [36].

Monicasdude also regularly makes bad faith and/or vandalism accusations of nominators to AFDs, when voting Speedy Keep. [37], [38], [39].

He also makes personal attacks against people voting to delete on AFD [40], [41], [42] .

I also beg to incorporate by reference the evidence and accusations at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude 2.

Later addition

Statement by User:Monicasdude

I urge the Arbitration Committee to quickly reject this matter and, metaphorically, spank Messrs. Stifle and Ong and send them to bed without supper. I also urge the committee to state its disapproval of Stifle's electioneering, soliciting users involved in entirely unrelated matters to support his claims, as well as Mailer Diablo's parallel efforts at vote stacking. As for the RfA:

  • First, Stifle misrepresents the history of his dispute with me; it began after I opposed his speedy deletion nomination of Fly_(artist) here [43] and criticized the practice of tagging an article for speedy deletion while its initial author (a rather new user) was still writing it.
  • Second, since Stifle's dispute with is entirely unrelated to the previous editing disputes he mentions, there have been no previous attempts at formal dispute resolution in this matter, and an arbitration request is clearly premature -- especially given the frequency with which consensus in the relevant AfD discussions lines up with my positions. Mailer Diablo's recent addition claiming failure of informal mediation is misleading, and does not refer to the dispute originally cited in this RFAR. Monicasdude 03:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third, Stifle made a series of posts on my talk page demanding that I change my vote in an AfD, with an increasingly rude tone and stronger elements of personal attacks. When it was clear the discussion was unproductive, and increasingly hostile, I cut it off and refactored the matter. Many users are much more aggressive in removing such material, and their actions are not seen as inappropriate. Since he now admits that his position there was incorrect, I find his insistence that his error be preserved for all to see rather, well, odd. Stifle does not like the term "refactored"; "redacted" will do just as well. I used "refactored" to indicate that the text remained in the page history, and that I had not asked an administrator to entirely remove offensive material, as other users have done.
  • Fourth, Stifle cites several allegations of bad faith he says I made. Alleging bad faith is not itself inappropriate, since Wikipedia editors regularly behave in bad faith, and he does not claim the allegations were incorrect or baseless. (Indeed, with regard to the first of three he cites, Mr. Ong made a stronger allegation of bad faith [44], where I had said only that the nomination gave the appearance of bad faith and asked the nominator to explain it.) Also note that in the third example cited, my comments are a response to a thoroughly uncivil personal attack by the AfD nominator, and I believe the bad faith in that situation is quite clearly demonstrated.
  • Fifth, Stifle alleges personal attacks in three matters where I comment on policy violations or criticize editing practices. Nothing about such statements is inappropriate, and they are not personal attacks. I believe that editors who summarily tag articles from new editors for deletion, without making any efforts to assist them or to verify the substantial accuracy of their own position, are violating WP:BITE and damaging the integrity of the Wikipedia project. I believe that editors ought to recognize an obligation to verify claims of non-notability that they make; to do otherwise violates their WP:AGF obligations towards the authors whose work they proposing removing, since there is so often no reason to believe the authors held a good faith believe that the subjects they wrote on were notable. And I believe that an editor who openly admits outright ignorance of a subject should not presume those involved in the field are non-notable and call for deletion of pertinent articles, as was the case in one of the disputes he cites.

Frankly, AfD is a cesspool of bad behavior, marked ongoing incivility toward, often personal attacks on, the authors (and sometime subjects) of articles targeted for deletion. Such bad behavior, whether malicious or grossly irresponsible, should be identified and criticized much more frequently than it currently is. The requesters in this case ardently and enthusiastically propose and support deletion on a virtually wholesale basis, too often in defiance of consensus guidelines and criteria; I suspect the real reason for this request is frustration in my success in opposing their positions. And their positions actively damage Wikipedia: driving away editors, especially new editors, acting in good faith; offending the subjects of articles who happen upon discussions in AfD disputes (often via Google) and find themselves maligned, and removing worthwhile subjects/articles from the project over defects in form, when Wikipedia policy and guidelines clearly call for improvement rather than removal. The Committee would do better to shut down the deletion processes entirely rather than give this pique-driven request serious consideration. Monicasdude 18:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few words of support from Jimmy Wales, quoted without authorization or permission

The things that turn up in one's email. Not written with regard to this case, of course, but months ago, and not intended as any claim or endorsement or personal support from the benevolent dictator. (And not sent to me by him or on his behalf.) Just an example of minds thinking alike. I quote the most relevant section and add a link to the full text

"We have gotten to a cultural state where "Gee, I never heard of this" seems to be a good enough excuse to nominate something for deletion, RATHER THAN raising legitimate issues on the talk page first to see if anyone can help improve the article.

In this case, the nominator should have said "Gee, I never heard of Fawcett or Playboy, and this New York Times thing sounds fishy, and I looked in Google and found only n listings for the name, so I wonder if there's a problem here.

Then, pop a note on the talk page. "Hey everybody, I don't know much about publishing or science fiction, but I never heard of this guy and had trouble verifying the information. It's probably my own lack of searching skills, so I wonder if anyone can help me out here. Is this article as good as it could be?" I went through a rather tortured process yesterday in which I had to really put my foot down to put a stop to a CfD vote which was taking place without _any_ community dialogue or discussion first. I do not know the exact solution to this problem, but this is part of an ongoing problem with have *most particularly with bios of living people and existing companies*. "I haven't heard of this" seems to be an instant excuse for "non-notable" and "AfD", which is offensive to the subjects, when the real approach should be _at a bare minimum_ and effort at dialogue with other editors *before* jumping to a "vote"." [45]

In the full text, the author describes this problem as "a sickness in the process" and described the AfD process (then VfD) as "ludicrous." I doubt I said anything stronger than that. But quite a bit that parallels it. I therefore modestly propose that ArbComm join Mr. Wales as a party to this case if it decides to take it up.Monicasdude 21:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to JIP

JIP posted a comment on my talk page which he admits came across as uncivil and insulting, whatever his intentions. I removed it and asked him not to make such posts in the future. He does not claim incivility in my response. I am baffled as to why taking his post at face value could be seen as objectionable, or why he believes any user has an obligation to immediately respond (or respond at all) to unsolicited comments. Monicasdude 19:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Swatjester

I believe Swatjester violated WP:BITE and said so. WP:BITE describes how new editors should be treated, and the guideline is not limited to prohibiting nasty posts to or about new editors. It calls on experienced editors to assist new editors in correcting their mistakes. Swatjester tagged a new editor's article for deletion while the editor was still writing it, made no timely attempt or offer to help, and has apparently driven the new editor away. I believe that is fairly described as a WP:BITE violation and have previously explained my position in more detail here [46] Monicasdude 20:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Jareth, Mailer Diablo, and Kirill Lokshin

If the committee elects to take up the grievances of this growing crowd of ochlocrats, I hope it pays careful attention to the entirely spurious RfC these three users framed. I would be ashamed of myself if I had let it change my behavior. The three of them insisted -- quite explicitly -- that Wikipedia's core policies of NPOV, NOR, and verifiability, were subordinate to consensus, and could be disregarded by agreement of editors. I think the response I gave then, at the link Lokshin provides, states my position as well as I would do now, and commend it to the committee's attention. The RfC itself is an outright cry of defiance against clearly established Wikipedia policies; it cites such mortal Wikisins as reporting an undisputed 3RR violation by another user and reporting a user (the same user) for violating the probation imposed by this committee. I am surprised they have come here at all; their complaints are more appropriately directed to a Committee on UnWikipedian Activities, since they propose ignoring Wikipedia's core policies and repressing disagreeing views, or perhaps to a comité de salut public. Monicasdude 23:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response regarding BGC and JDG

Both of these users are retaliating after ending up on the short end of disputes (let's be frank here); and both have been subject to admin warnings, sometimes significant blocks, for violating substantive Wikipedia policies. JDG was recently given a one-week block for deliberately defying Wikipedia copyright policy [47], then, under a sockpuppet account, posted extreme personal attacks on the admin who imposed the block [48] [49] [50] [51], following up with taunting comments on Kiefer's talk page (from both accounts) [52], [53] as well making odd, sometimes threatening comments on the talk page of another admin involved in the same dispute [54] [55]. User:JDG has repeatedly made clear his unwillingness to abide by Wikipedia's core content policies -- Verifiability [56] [57], neutral point of view [58] , and no original research [59]. He has been quite clear about his refusal to accept the no personal attacks policy [60].

I had several disputes with BGC, aka PetSounds, principally over his refusal to comply with WP:NPOV and his practice of using misleading edit summaries to disguise substantial and controversial changes; he also rather often made abusive comments to editors who disagreed with his editing. Other users and admins made similar complaints, and he was regularly warned about those practices -- warnings he systematically deleted from his talk pages. He also engaged in an extensive war with several editors. including myself over an effort to replace an existing template with a new version without seeking or gaining consensus and without resolving the nontrivial "fair use" issues involved. [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68]

JDG Comment on Monicasdude's all-but-libelous Response regarding BGC and JDG

Mdude, I can only think you are relying on my laziness, as the above is easily grounds for another RfAR. What makes you think Jim Tour is me? The one week block was handed down by an admin with all sorts of problems and dozens of (justified) detractors. He has now apparently left Wikipedia. Plus, using the fact of a block to attack a Wikipedian's position on this or that is an odd maneuver for one freshly off a block!... The statements to JKelly have nothing threatening about them. I'm simply trying to piece together why you go to him when you're in trouble and why he would be sympathetic to an editor who causes so much grief and wasted time... And "retaliating after ending up on the short end of disputes"? You've very much got it backward. I can't think of a single disagreement we've had in which you've prevailed. And finally, BGC is known as a good, energetic worker despite all your attempts to bring him down. JDG 23:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Nihiltres and Abhorsen

While I respect Nihiltres' good intentions in attempting to settle the dispute between Swatjester and myself, I believe he has gone seriously astrayin his conclusions. Not every dispute is susceptible to resolution by consensus. I believe that Swatjester's treatment of new user Tardonut violated WP:BITE, and I said so. He believes that my statements regarding his treatment of Tardonut were uncivil personal attacks and said so. Nothing in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines requires that every difference of opinion between editors be resolved; the best course of action is generally to accept that people hold different opinions and respect their right to disagree. The dispute Nihiltres was attempting to mediate was one such; both parties to the dispute had stated their positions, and neither was willing to change. I chose not to comment further in the talk page dispute, since the discussion was sterile and hostile. I believe that Swatjester's making seven posts to my talk page in seven hours, demanding that I agree with him on a point in dispute, is a much more substantial civlity violation, "personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress," than the comments he complains of. I also note that while Swatjester said he would place encouraging comments on new user Tardonut's talk page in an attempt to assuage my concerns [69], he did not do so [70]. I believe that places his protestations of good faith in perspective; actions are at least as important as words. Abhorsen's comments disappoint me; when he was a new user and his efforts were treated as badly as Tardonut's were, I supported him and helped keep his worthwhile article(s) from being deleted. I do not understand why he thinks other new users do not deserve the same consideration. I also believe his comments that I made personal attacks on Swatjester to be unfounded, and I ask him to either cite diffs showing those attacks or withdraw that particular statement. Monicasdude 14:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:TKE

I strongly believe that the statements made by TKE regarding the current state of the Afd process are grossly inaccurate. I therefore have reviewed roughly the last two dozen AfD nominations on which I voted keep, to see which view of the process is more accurate. There should be little doubt that the description I provide is more accurate than that presented by User:TKE:

The Handsomest Drowned Man In The World Talk page activity: none

N. Namasivayam Talk page activity: none

Idar Kreutzer Talk page activity: none

Bernd Sebastian Kamps Talk page activity: appropriate

AJ Roach Talk page activity: none

Sean Hood Talk page activity: none Afd nom 3 minutes after last edit by initial author

Ben myers Talk page activity: none Afd nom 1 minute after last edit by initial author

David Haugh Talk page activity: none

Chris Skrebowski Talk page activity: none Initial prod 14 minutes after article creation

Bernard Ramsey Talk page activity:none Initial prod 4 minutes after last edit by article creator

Prison Planet Talk page activity: none relevant Initial prod 12 minutes after article creation

Girl Power Talk page activity: none Initial prod 25 minutes after article creation

Robert Colin Boyd Talk page activity: none

Eire Og Talk page activity: none

Hamblen Elementary School Talk page activity: none

Emanuel Wynn Talk page activity: some

Lakeshore Catholic High School Talk page activity: none

Real bills doctrine Talk page activity: request for peer review, but not by nominator

Fred Carama Talk page activity: none Afd nomination 7 minutes after last edit by article creator, tagged as minor edit w/no mention of AfD

Insurance hall of fame Talk page activity: none Prod 1 minute after last edit by article creator

Timothy Kanold Talk page activity: none

Tari Schreider Talk page activity: none Prod 3 minutes after article creation

Thomas Bannister Talk page activity: none Prod 3 minutes after article creation

Subbaraju Raju Gokaraju Talk page activity: none

Rick Telander Talk page activity: none

Kristen Ghodsee Talk page activity: none (despite 2 prods)

Hikari Hayashibara Talk page activity: none related to deletion

Ernest Rides Again Talk page activity: none Prod 7.5 hours after last edit by article creator

I would think it quite clear that the practices I cited, and that Jimmy Wales earlier criticized, remain substantially unchanged. Monicasdude 05:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:JIP

I have seen Monicasdude vote "keep", or even "speedy keep" in many AfDs, where I and most others have voted "delete". This morning I remembered I had never, ever, seen him vote "delete", so I decided to ask him about it: [71]. He reacted to this by removing my comment entirely from his talk page and accusing me of vandalism and insulting him: [72]. I admit my original message was formed very badly and read like an insult. This was not my intent. I was genuinely curious in a neutral, academic sort of way. I replied to him: [73], but so far he hasn't either replied to me or removed the comment from his talk page.

While I admit I came across as impolite in my original message, I feel that Monicasdude assumed bad faith and overreacted, resorting to terms like "vandalise". I don't know whether this makes me an involved party or not. JIP | Talk 17:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Swatjester

While I was not involved in the initial bringing of this case, I found it and feel the urge to join as a party. Monicasdude recently attacked me for my actions in an AfD. (My action was to nominate the article for deletion, I in no way spoke to the articles author). Monicasdude repeatedly attacked me personally and with an uncivil tone, accusing me of Biting the Newbie (impossible since I never spoke with them), questioned whether I was a deletionist "clown", accused me of doing "no shred of research", directly called me a "busybody editor", and refused to refactor the personal attacks when asked nicely. I have at no time been less than civil, even thanking him for his criticism, but Monicasdude still refuses to refactor his personal attacks and incivil tone. Monicasdude has a nasty habit of attacking other editors rather than attacking their positions. It's been shown time and time again on AfD. Enough is enough. 50 million elvis fans can't be wrong....Monicasdude assumes bad faith in everyone. I endorse Stifle and JIP's positions as well. I haven't provided diffs: the appropriate comments are still up on Monicasdude's talk page, and on the AfD page shown above. I will provide diffs upon request. ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 18:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in regards to explaining the situation to Tardonut: At this point in time I am not sure if I should answer on Tardonut's page. I will concede that I said (per Monicasdude's diff above, number 57) that I would leave a message on Tardonut's page. I have not done so at this time (per diff 58). It slipped my mind, whether due to the stress of this situation, my civil and military obligations, or just plain lack of memory. I would like to, per Nihiltres' suggestion (and good manners) leave a message belatedly explaining things but I will refrain from doing so at this time until I have assurance from an Arbiter that this will not negatively affect these proceedings. I do not want to make the appearance of "stalking" Monicasdude, or trying to badger the newbie, etc. On the other hand, if the powers that be feel that doing so will not negatively impact the proceedings, I'm more than happy to do so. ⇒ SWATJester   Ready Aim Fire! 02:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Jareth

I belive the second RfC summarized the bulk of concerns rather well. Monicasdude has a long history of biting most editors he comes into contact with, especially if anyone dare disagree with his viewpoint. After he disagreed with my assessment of a 3RR report things escalated over several days until he was blatently attacking instead of his usual snide and sarcastic remarks. The prior RfCs seemed to produce no effect on his behavior, so I believe this RfAR will unfortunately be necessary. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Monicasdude regarding Wikistalking by User:Swatjester

After adding his statement to this request, User:Swatjester went to virtually every AfD on which I had voted in the last 24 hours and cast contrary votes, mostly without any substantive explanation. [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] He did not "vote" on one AfD where all "votes" except the nominator's were in accord with mine. He did not make comments or "votes" on any Afds other than the ones I had addressed during that time. I would hope this resolves any questions of good faith, at least as between my actions and those of Swatjester. Monicasdude 20:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kirill Lokshin

As quite extensively documented in the second RFC, Monicasdude has a history of assuming bad faith towards anyone who disagrees with him (or even indirectly agrees with someone disagreeing with him). Once this has occurred, he acts in an incivil and confrontational manner—even more so than ususal—often descending to accusations of incompetence and outright personal attacks, particularly on administrators. His response to the RFC, unfortunately, was to further attack those bringing it, so it appears that arbitration is the only remaining option here. Kirill Lokshin 21:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mailer Diablo

From my previous dealings with Monicasdude (in which I filed the RfC), I strongly recommend that ArbCom accept this case to have a look at his behaviour, which has not changed in any way since. - Mailer Diablo 21:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

While I have not been involved in the current issues leading to this RfA, my prior history of editing pages Monicasdude edited was very consistent with the complaints raised here. In all cases, Monicasdude was disruptive, belligerent, hostile to all edits he did not make, and quite willing to "game" the system in whatever way he could find (opportunistically claiming policies/guidelines, while disregarding the same ones when they concerned him). In fact, I ultimately simply gave up on editing or watching the article Bob Dylan because it was simply too much effort and frustration while Monicasdude was there (an initial RfC against Monicasdude seemed to result in a month or two of better behavior, but he returned in full belligerence). Generally, everyone I've "talked" to who has dealt with Monicasdude agrees that his pattern is to drive other editors away from whatever topic he has decided belongs to him, through creation of a hostile atmosphere on those pages.

I encourage arbitrators to consider this current complaint. I cannot speak to the specific merits of the latest issues, but feel that they do at least merit more careful consideration.

Statement by BGC

My experiences with Monicasdude read virtually word-for-word identically as Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters's. The editor concerned here has been nothing short of rude, hostile, manipulative of facts and Wiki guidelines (to suit his own ends), obstinate, belligerent and extremely uncooperative. I have personally been stalked by this user and the recipient of edit wars instigated by him. His near-megalomanical control of the articles he favors has had a smothering effect on the works themselves, leading myself and many users to - sensibly - walk away. I urge immediate action on this issue.


Statement by Ardenn

This user has frequently insulted me and acted uncivil towards me. I have left comments on his talk page and he removes them citing "grafitti". He also insists on allowing personal attacks [81] [82] to stand. --Ardenn 00:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Calton

1) Says User:Monicasdude: Frankly, AfD is a cesspool of bad behavior, marked ongoing incivility...

Hmm, maybe he has a point. Let's see some examples:

  • another pointless, ineptly researched Afd nomination. [83]
  • As for "original research," nominator has track record of applying inappropriate tags in AfD discussions, and contents of article verifiable by simple Google search. [84]
  • When an Amazon check shows that Amazon physically stocks an author's books, you should presume that the author's ales meet the notability requirements. And if your instinct says delete, take the 5 minutes required to actually to the research. [85]
  • Given the verified CV, why do you argue he isn't notable? [86]
  • Nomination appears to be part of a "Get as Many Academics Out of Wikipedia as You Can" campaign [87]
  • Nominated for deletion one minute after being written, a sure sign that the nominator has made no effort to check out the NN claim. [88]
  • ... You can say that as often as you like, if you're insistent on demonstrating your lack of competence in using Google. Though it looks more to me like you just dislike her politics and want Wikipedia censored to remove references to somebody whose ideas you don't like, even though she's well known, treated as notable in press and commentary, and her activities are often reported. Looks more like censorship and badfaith than any real question of notability. [89]

Yes, it's Cheap Rhetorical Trick #3: Using the Debater's Own Words. There's more (many more) , but I'm getting tired of cutting-and-pasting them. This ought to be enough to give the flavor of the hostility, insults, high-handness, light paranoia, and -- given his whining about "cesspool of bad behavior" and "marked ongoing incivility" -- hypocrisy.

2) Also seems to have some residual bitterness over an AfD nomination he "lost" (didn't get his way on, or whatever you want to call it) over one "Air Force Amy", given how often he brings it up:

Inevitably mentioned, indeed.

3) Bad faith: slipped into the original introduction to this request Swatjester has wikistalked Monicasdude and cast bad faith AfD "votes" in an attempt to offset Monicasdude's position. [100] Note that he didn't even provide the common courtesy of "alleged", just stated it as a fact. I inserted the "alleged" and a note to the effect that Monicasdude had put that there [101], but he reverted that, preferring to keep his handiwork unannounced. [102] I have removed it entirely: if he wants that charge on the table, he needs to take responsibility for it instead of sneaking it in.

Update: Note that Monicasdude keeps attempting to slip in his own addition to the original charge, unmarked. [103] [104] [105]. Maybe it's an overweening sense of entitlement, or maybe he hasn't quite grasped the whole "Response by" format thing. --Calton | Talk 03:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


--Calton | Talk 00:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:TKE

Over the past several days as I have been watching the AfD page, I saw this happen real time.

First, neither Swatjester nor the other editors have been "wikistalking" Monicasdude. They are all regular contributors to the AfD page.

Second, Monicasdude has been a reversal of WP:BITE, in a new user attacking other editors. The user doesn't like criticism, plain and simple. Any disagreement sparks hostility and invites trolling, the examples have been provided above so I won't waste time repeating those. The user does not assume good faith nor want to be civil, as the responses here demonstrate. Mediation and arbitration are about settling disputes which requires compromise. The user's responses to this RfArb suggests that they will settle at nothing but "I'm right and they're wrong;" which is not a value to be held by the Wikipedia project.

Third, regarding the AfD process: I'm not sure why Monicasdude has such distate in the AfD process. The quote from Jimbo is nice, and that's exactly what the process is. The page is nominated, step two is to provide reasons why on the talk page, third is to list it. Now if you see just "NN Fancruft" as the reason, go to the page and see what's up in the history. Usually PRODs or SPEEDYs have been removed by the creator. Then check the creator's talk page; odds are a reason was given for the previous two steps and the editor hasn't listened. I rarely vote on articles listed that way, simply because it's not necessary. The serious AfDs have citations and whatnot provided immediately. It's a process that actually is followed well; I thanked User:Commander Bubble yesterday for civility in dealing with the deletion of their first creation. I'm really not sure why any of us are even here having this talk.

Statement by User:JDG

My keyboard is messed up so I will add only a tiny statement in support of disciplinary action against Monicasdude. He is unrelentingly disruptive, seeks to control articles and uses the revert power as a bludgeon. This is especially sad because he has a great deal of knowledge in certain areas and would be a standout contributor if he would only learn to collaborate. Two RFCs have failed to reach him. Now the ArbCom simply must do something to get his attenton. Far too many personhours are beng burned up in needless disputes with this editor. JDG 09:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Terence Ong

Since I was the one who proposed the closing of the motion and bring this to Arbitration, I would like to say once again Monicasdude is a Wikipedian who assumes bad faith at users who disagree with him, incivil and disrupts editing. He also makes personal attacks at users and admins at his second RFC. He called my comments inappopriate grafitti (which he removed on his talk page) and later accused Jareth of inappopriate behaviour. He has this style of biting users and trying to have an edit war with them thus filing a 3RR against them. I strongly support the ArbCom case as his behaviour hasn't change a bit since his last RFC. He makes things hard for me and many other editors which is definitely unacceptable. Arbitration is the last resort for him, unfortunately. --Terence Ong 10:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Nihiltres

I'm here for comment late due to a hardware problem, but I was involved for a brief time trying an extremely neutral method of dispute mediation between User:Swatjester and User:Monicasdude, which is still visible on his talk page. I asked for each party to consider conceding mistakes to each other, and I noticed that Monicasdude did not respond when challenged with a request for a statement of his goals in the dispute. Swatjester, on the other hand, responded quickly and calmly with well-defined reasons detailing why he thought that his actions were appropriate and in line with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I am therefore inclined to believe that Monicasdude is the party at fault, without even consiidering that Monicasdude's talk page contains several disputes - a sign that he is, as a user, prone to cause problems. I support disciplinary action against Monicasdude, but hope that he recognizes that unless he is given an indefinitely long ban, there is opportunity for redemption in the assumption of others' good faith. Nihiltres 02:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Abhorsen327

I'm here to say that I was a witness to the discussion between Monicasdude and Swatjester, on Monicasdude's talk page. I witnessed this grow from a civil comment by Swatjester asking for Monicasdude to remove false allegations to an all-out war, with Monicasdude growing less and less civil, accusing Swatjester of personal attacks and Wikipedia violations. Also, after Nihiltres attempted to mediate between the two, Swatjester responded civilly, according to Wikipedia etiquette, while Monicasdude absolutely refused to consider mediation. I was also witness to Monicasdude's conflict with JIP. To my mind, both then and now, JIP's initial statement asking about Monicasdude's AfD vote history was made more out of curiosity than hostility, and Monicasdude was in error when he deleted the message rather than asking JIP to clarify his tone. After JIP clarified his initial message, also, Monicasdude has, up to the time of this message's posting, failed to comment. As per Nihiltres, I support disciplinary action against Monicasdude. I hope that, after any disciplinary action has been taken, Monicasdude sees the value of being a friendly and civil Wikipedia editor, whose actions and statements do not cause discord or anger among fellow Wikipedians. Abhorsen327 04:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, as per above, that this is my understanding of events as they occurred, from my POV as an outside viewer. Monicasdude's comments to Swatjester may not, under some definitions, be construed as personal attacks, but his tone throughout the conversation was hostile and incivil. I also wish to note that Monicasdude removed a speedy delete tag from my first article, Odds Bodkin. As of my current standpoint as a somewhat experienced Wikipedian, however, I feel no sense of loyalty to him for this action, and admit that, in its first incarnation, the aforementioned article was poorly formatted, poorly cited, and asserted no notability whatsoever, all criteria for submission to AfD, if not Speedy Delete. Again, my above statement is that of an observer to Monicasdude's dealings with both JIP and Swatjester on his talk page, and is my understanding of events and tones of discussion during those conversations. Abhorsen327 15:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Natalinasmpf

Monicasdude has the potential to become an appreciated and valuable contributor. However, his belligerency and hostility is increasingly unbearable for many editors. It seems that Monicasdude perhaps has high standards for professionalism, but he often goes about it the wrong way, and uses bad faith accusations instead. This is in regard to my experience regarding the FAC at Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) and many other articles. I hope the arbitration committee will find an appropriate remedy for the situation. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 04:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Monicasdude regarding User:Calton

However civil or uncivil I may have been, it should be clear that Calton has violated the civility standards far more often and far more severely. [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] and bites new users with particular enthusiasm [119] [120]. He has also been wikistalking me since the RFAR began, most conspicuously tracking down "PROD" nominations I had objected in good faith to, tagging them for speedy deletion even when speedy deletion was clearly inappropriate (example: [121] [122] [123]. But the one that I find most disturbing is this one [124], where Calton curtly brushes off the efforts of a young, enthusiastic contributor without any attempt to suggest how her work could fit into a more appropriate article (say, a Simpson discography, or the existing songlist, or the individual articles). Would it have killed him to do something like this? This is behavior that Wikipedia and Wikipedians should be ashamed of. Monicasdude 03:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bormalagurski (talk · contribs)

Involved parties

Kelly Martin (talk • contribs) (not really involved in all this) confirmed it was very likely that WikiMB was the same editor, or at least two editors working in close coordination. I was unsure about which consequences this should have for Bormalagurski (talk • contribs), and started asking for advice on WP:AN/I. However, the discussion quickly centered on the question whether he should be "believed", rather than the evidence.

Besides posting it on WP:AN/I, other steps towards resolution have not been tried. The question at hand is whether Bormalagurski (talk • contribs) can be said to have abused the WikiMB account (whether meat or sock), and whether (and how) this abuse should be sanctioned. To my mind, only a verdict here can resolve those questions.

Confirmation that other parties have been informed

Third parties:

Statement by Bormalagurski

Rather than explaining everything first, I would like to comment on EurowikiJ's "evidence". I am aware that the following text (which includes parts of EurowikiJ's statement) is longer than 500 words, but I feel it is neccessary for me to exactly explain all of the accusations, and I feel I've made it easier for everyone to understand my side of the story. The following is a EurowikiJ statement, and in between, my comments:

User:WikiMB has been created with the sole purpose of eventually obtaining adminship. Hence, ambitious goals, edit count link on user-page, spreading of good-will across Wikipedia, PR remarks on his and other user-pages. And a complete wall of silence between him and Bormalagurski. Otherwise, User:WikiMB's prospects of obtaining adminship are irrevocably gone.

User:Bormalagurski will later insist the second account belongs to his school-friend and that he ...also felt good having someone who might support me in a discussion. In fact that was the last thing Bormalagurski intended for WikiMB. Ever since his alleged school-friend appeared on Wikipedia and though WikiMB had contacted a number of other contributors, he NEVER, NOT ONCE, left a message on User:Bormalagurski's page. Conversely, User:Bormalagurski never left a message on his alleged school-friend's user page. In fact, prior to April 2 there is only one "close-call" incident on a highly-controversial Kosovo page:

    • Too bad EurowikiJ didn't quote the rest of my comment. I did say that I was happy when WikiMB joined Wikipedia, I felt I had someone who might support me in a duscussion. However, he has explicitly told me that he has no intentions in discussing controversial articles, and I have said this several times. I even asked him to help me out with some articles, and he only did very little, like in the article about Kosovo. --    Boris Malagurski ₪ 00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have asked WikiMB to look at the article, simply because I think he could look at it from a more NPOV. He told me that he has no interest in articles such as that one, and only made a minor change, which I quickly noticed, since Kosovo is on my watchlist. --    Boris Malagurski ₪ 00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [03:31, 1 April 2006 Bormalagurski] - Bormalagurski, who is a frequent visitor on the page, edits the same table only 11 minutes afterwards. In the meantime, probably realizing his mistake of logging under WikiMB's account, WikiMB compiles a message of good-will that he leaves on the talk-page and then disappears:
Bormalagurski edits 8 minutes later the same table as it is shown above.
    • As I've said, I noticed what WikiMB edited very quickly, and divided the column to make it look better. Kosovo is on my watchlist, the 11 or 8 minutes (or whatever time interval it was) should've been shorter, I noticed the change ever earlier, but was trying to figure out how to divide the column. --    Boris Malagurski ₪ 00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, on April 2 something even stranger happened on WikiMB's user page.
  • [|16:08, 2 April 2006 Luka Jačov] Luka Jacov, Bormalagurski-friendly contributor, leaves a message in Serbo-Croatian: "Boris, why do you have two accounts. Interesting that you also have the same goal - writting about all the places in Croatia. See you."
    • Yes, he did leave that message, WikiMB informed me of the message, and since I knew Luka better, he maybe thought that I would know why he did that. I deleted the message, and asked Luka why he left that message there, and he thought that WikiMB was a sockpuppet, solely for being in Vancouver, speaking Serbo-Croatian and having the letters MB, which someone might interpret as Malagurski Boris. He changed the message when I assured him that WikiMB is not a sockpuppet. --    Boris Malagurski ₪ 00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • [19:24, 2 April 2006 WikiMB] WikiMB appears 5 minutes afterwards and translates the second phrase as if nothing had happened. Bormalagurski disappears until this morning April 5 when he leaves his first post ever on WikiMB's page. In fact they "both" stage a little show. Apparently they both leave a message declaring their innocence at the same time. Then these two proficient editors start publicly wondering if this coincidence might further improve their chances of proving that they are not the same editor. I must admit it is hilarious.
    • OK, I admit that was a stupid idea, and I guess the stupidity is softened by EurowikiJ's comment below that I'm intelligent. My idea to click at the same moment was stupid, and I quickly realised that it proves nothing, so I commented on that on WikiMB's talk page. He wanted to talk more, so we went online, where he has said that he is very disappointed by Wikipedia. --    Boris Malagurski ₪ 00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In conclusion, User:Bormalagurski is an intelligent, but extremely disruptive and manipulative contributor. Any chance of him gaining adminship via proxy must be nipped in the bud. Therefore, block User:WikiMB who has been shown to be User:Bormalagurski's sock-puppet. EurowikiJ 09:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my closing statement, I'd like to thank EurowikiJ for his concern on keeping Wikipedia a nice place to edit, and I understand why he is pushing this so far, since I've offered to cooperate with him long ago, long before WikiMB joined Wikipedia, and he just denied my peace offer, and made it his goal to rid Wikipedia of a harmless Bormalagurski and his friend (who has done nothing but hard, honest work on this Wikipedia). Therefore, this is not about sockpuppetry, this is absolutely not about WikiMB, this is about EurowikiJ hating my guts and trying to get rid of me for making a few Serbian nationalist remarks in the past, which I have apologized for. Is it not the goal of Wikipedia to forgive users like me, who were brainwashed by their governments, who came here to believe that an encyclopedia should reflect only the opinion of one person, and eventually learned a whole different way of looking at things? Yes, I did make a few mistakes, but I've since made peace with a lot of users, and even started working with Dr.Gonzo, a Croat, on an article about human rights in Croatia. Sockpuppets? I have enough trouble with my own account, not alone handling another one and writing articles about small Croatian villages. I ask everyone to look at this problem from a reasonable perspective, and look at the explinations I have given. Also, if you decide not to forgive my mistakes, block me, but don't block WikiMB, he doesn't deserve this. --    Boris Malagurski ₪ 00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aditional comment on the photos

  • One of the "main evidences" of this trial are the photos which WikiMB sent to Wikipedia. The photos are mine. Yes, I took them on my many travels throughout the world. I have sent them to Serbian Wikipedia (I am an administrator there) and have never shown much interest in sending them to English Wikipedia, since my main focus is the Serbian Wikipedia (where I have 10 times more edits than on this one). WikiMB has always liked those photos and asked me if I could let him send it to Wikipedia. I thought it might be a good excercise and made him a sub-page, send the first photo so he can se how its done, and he sent the rest. He is even planing on sending them to Commons. When Kelly heard the explination, a comment was posted where it says that thats not allowed, the photos were sent with false licences (WikiMB selected "self-made"), and I commented that I thought it was OK, if I, the creator of the photos, said it was OK. There was no reply. My point, once again, it that this is not about sockpuppetry, this is not about WikiMB, this is only about others who might not share my opinion, and who want to get rid of me by all means. --    Boris Malagurski ₪ 00:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WikiMB

I have to protest, WikiMB would like to comment, but he was blocked indefinately. --    Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Minister of War

Although I have had no dispute with Bormalagurski, I am the one who has collected most of the evidence on the sockpuppetry. After having presented it at her talk page, Kelly Martin agreed that they are probably indeed the same. Whether or not she also performed an IP check, I do not know.

The evidence supporting this is a vast array of small coincidences and inconsistencies, and the behaviour of WikiMB suggesting he is not a newbie as he claims. Although it is hard to convey such an impression in 500 words or less, I will try.

First of all, it certainly is a great coincidence to see both users, both hailing from Vancouver, both speaking Serbo-Croatian (whereas most people call it either Serbian or Croatian). However, they did not seem to interact at all. The suspicions only began when, user:Luka Jačov (perhaps also involved) leaves a message on WikiMBs talk page (in Serbo-Croatian) asking: "Boris, why do you have two accounts ;)?[130]. This message is promptly removed by BorMalagurski[131] (why would he want to remove a friendly comment from somebody elses talk page?), only to be replaced later by the same message without the reference to a double account[132]. Although the coincidences are already piling up, WikiMB responds to these edits by defending Boris Malagurski, saying "It is true that Luka left a message on my page saying that my name is Boris and that I have two accounts and it is true that Boris Malagurski erased it. He has been accused several times of having sockpuppets (even of being a sockpuppet) and we have talked about it extensively in school, he got angry that someone would attack me of being a sockpuppet and he erased it" [133]. Apparently they also go to the same school?!

This prompts me to do some digging in both of their contributions, uncovering several interesting facts:

  • WikiMBs first three edits [134] were to his user page, creating a subpage of photo's he had made (wow, how many newbies know how to create a subpage this fast?). Also, no photos were yet uploaded.
  • Immediately afterwards, he starts uploading his photos (how many new users know how to do that?), which do not seem to contribute to any article save his user page.
  • During this time, User:Bormalagurski is dormant (by the way, note the initials). WikiMB amasses a ton of edits in a short time, and posts his last message on 03:28, and lo and behold, BorisMalagurski posts his first message at 03:33 and continues to edit from that point onwards.
  • The day after (30 March), Bormalagurski is editing away until 05:31. At 05:38, WikiMB pops up and starts editing fervently, racking up several edits per minute, until 06:31. Sure enough, Bormalagurski starts editing at 06:39 (enough time to reboot). This taking turns in editing is a frequently recurring theme.
  • Most interestingly, Bormalagurski is an admin (!) on the Serbian wiki (his profile), and a review of his contributions [135] shows that the pictures WikiMB uploaded have all been made by Bormalagurski (A full list of this overlap is listed here.

The reaction of Bormalagurski has been telling. Every time he has been accused of something, it is always unjustly, and there is always a good reason. They went to school together, he had taught him how to edit Wikipedia, he had given the pictures to WikiMB [136] (though WikiMBs photo page mentions he made them himself). At one point, he even tried to edit simultaneously with WikiMB on his talk page to prove his point [137]. This is doubly strange as WikiMB has been blocked since yesterday [138].

Still, if anything, this simultaneous edit underlines the fact that WikiMB will turn out to be, at best, a meatpuppet and at worst, a sock.

Greets, The Minister of War (Peace) 09:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional note. I am not involved in any of the disputes over content. I just happened to come across the sockpuppet, and investigated it. That is the extent of my role. It may well be that the Administrative action is obvious, but after having asked in WP:AN/I and after reviewing WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK, I couldnt find anything. The only admin to react was User:JoshuaZ, who suggested an RFAr [139]. I came here, in good faith, believing that an RFAr was appropriate. The Minister of War (Peace) 12:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional note 2. Given the fact that most people seem to think this question is more suited for an RFC, I see no need to push forward with this RFAr. I'd retract the request myself, but as other involved parties have already posted statements and defences, I will leave it to the ArbCom to delist. Thanks & greets, The Minister of War (Peace) 08:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

My report is 522 words long.

As it has been already established that Bormalagurski and WikiMB are either the same user or - and this is in my opinion unlikely for the reasons I will submit below - two users working in concert, I will state why it is essential that User:WikiMB be blocked.

User:WikiMB has been created with the sole purpose of eventually obtaining adminship. Hence, ambitious goals, edit count link on user-page, spreading of good-will across Wikipedia, PR remarks on his and other user-pages. And a complete wall of silence between him and Bormalagurski. Otherwise, User:WikiMB's prospects of obtaining adminship are irrevocably gone.

User:Bormalagurski will later insist the second account belongs to his school-friend and that he ...also felt good having someone who might support me in a discussion. In fact that was the last thing Bormalagurski intended for WikiMB. Ever since his alleged school-friend appeared on Wikipedia and though WikiMB had contacted a number of other contributors, he NEVER, NOT ONCE, left a message on User:Bormalagurski's page. Conversely, User:Bormalagurski never left a message on his alleged school-friend's user page. In fact, prior to April 2 there is only one "close-call" incident on a highly-controversial Kosovo page:

  • [03:31, 1 April 2006 Bormalagurski] - Bormalagurski, who is a frequent visitor on the page, edits the same table only 11 minutes afterwards. In the meantime, probably realizing his mistake of logging under WikiMB's account, WikiMB compiles a message of good-will that he leaves on the talk-page and then disappears:
Bormalagurski edits 8 minutes later the same table as shown above.

On April 2, however, there is the first contact on WikiMB's user page, albeit in a most unusual fashion.

  • [|16:08, 2 April 2006 Luka Jačov] Luka Jacov, Bormalagurski-friendly contributor, leaves a message in Serbo-Croatian: "Boris, why do you have two accounts. Interesting that you also have the same goal - writing about all the places in Croatia. See you."
  • [|19:14, 2 April 2006 Bormalagurski] Three hours later Bormalagurski erases the comment. This is his FIRST edit at his school-friend's user page!!! And it is a deletion of a comment that someone else has left for User:WikiMB
  • [19:19, 2 April 2006 Luka Jačov] 5 minutes after the deletion Luka Jacov leaves the same comment without the first phrase about the identity of User:WikiMB
  • [19:24, 2 April 2006 WikiMB] WikiMB appears 5 minutes afterwards and translates the second phrase as if nothing had happened.

Bormalagurski then disappears until morning April 5 when he leaves his first post ever on WikiMB's page. In fact they "both" stage a little show by leaving a message declaring their innocence at the same time (see my comment here for more details).

In conclusion, User:Bormalagurski is a very intelligent contributor that has shown impressive knowledge about the mechanisms behind Wikipedia. However, he is also an extremely disruptive and manipulative contributor. Any chance of him gaining adminship via proxy must be nipped in the bud. Therefore, block User:WikiMB.

EurowikiJ 11:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 3

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries.)

Statement by Kelly Martin

There is no need for this matter to be arbitrated. Bormalagurski was caught sockpuppeting, and like many sockmasters, denies it. The evidence prior to using CheckUser was pretty clear (interleaved contributions, apparently orchestrated interaction to make the two accounts appear to be separate people, images uploaded by both editors on different projects both claiming to have been uploaded by the creator), and the CheckUser evidence itself merely served as the final nail in the coffin. Given that the evidence is quite clear, arbitration is not required because the appropriate administrative action is obvious. I am also concerned that parties opposed to Bormalagurski (and more importantly, to Bormalagurksi's point of view) are attempting to leverage his misconduct into a larger victory in their personal point-of-view war. I urge the Committee to reject this case. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JoshuaZ

Two points. First, Minister of War's statement has a minor error in it; I am not an admin. Second, one of my main reasons for thinking this should go to Arb Com was that I was uncertain that WIkiMB was a sockpuppet. However, the evidence given above erases any doubts I had in this matter. There is a residual concern that Bormalagurski will try something like this again, but that can be handled by keeping a close eye on him and doesn't at this time need Arb Com. My advice therefore was premature. I urge rejection of the matter without prejudice. JoshuaZ 13:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

SqueakBox and Zapatancas

I, User:Zapatancas, first posted this request on April 3, (here) and SqueakBox deleted it some hours later (here).

Given User:Zapatancas record of vandalising my talk page here and here and my user page here and here and his false claims opf vandalism against perfectly reasonable edits and given his use of 2 sockpuppets, SquealingPig and SquealingPig AttacksAgain to ahrrass me and make death threats I assumed it was part of the same treatment, ie not a serious request, but I now welcome the chance to have Zapatancas' abundance of attacks on me analysed by the arbcom, SqueakBox 18:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

  1. User:Zapatancas
  2. User:Zapatero (former Zapatancas account)
  3. User:SquealingPig (blocked sockpuppet, Zapatancas according to SqueakBox, SqueakBox according to SquealingPig and Zapatancas though attacked SqueakBox and defended Zapatancas)
  4. User:SquealingPigAttacksAgain (blocked sockpuppet of squealingPig)
  5. User:SqueakBox
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  1. User:Zapatancas (initiated request)
  2. User:SqueakBox Message in SqueakBox' talk page
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

(this should be a part of zapatancas' statement as this is what it is, Zapatancas idea of mediation can be found here)

False. Zapatancas rejected mediation unilaterally without giving it a go. (SB)

(SqueakBox was chased away by Zapatancas' continued harrassment SB)

(By attacks he means reminding him of his sockpuppet accounts and his behaviour while using them, that is not a persobnnal attack, SB)

Statement by Zapatancas

User SqueakBox has harassed me since May 2005. His harassment has consisted in:

  • Personal attacks and insults against me (example).
  • Throwing false accusations that I had created sockpuppets to vandalize his user page or about my behavior towards other users or towards him. An example can be found here.
  • Vandalizing my user page inserting false accusations (here).
  • Destroying my efforts and making it almost impossible for me to work on the Wikipedia and in deteriorating the quality of articles on which I have worked. (For example, here he has mixed the spelling of the article. It was demonstrated in an RfC that, in the present circumstances, the article had to use American spelling (an explanation given on the time can be found here). SqueakBox accepted the decision here). The article has used American English consistently for year.

I have no much time to spend on the Wikipedia so I have concentrated 98% of my efforts on the articles about José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (that is, that article and others related to it such as Zapatero's early years (1960-2000), Zapatero's years as an opposition leader, Zapatero and the Local and Regional Elections of 2003, Zapatero and the 2004 General Election, Zapatero's foreign policy and Zapatero's domestic policy). That has allowed SqueakBox to disguise his aggressive behavior towards me like a "normal" dispute between users in relation to a specific article. That is not the case.

The case is that this problem has nothing to do with content. A look at Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and at the archived talk shows immediately that SqueakBox’s interest in the articles content is minimum. He rarely refers to the information present in the articles. He reserves the talk page mostly for general statements such as “this article is not neutral”, “this article is very bad”, “this article is a disgrace”, “this article is a piece of cr**p”, “this article needs to be cleaned up”, “the English of the article is very bad”, “Zapatancas vandalized my user page” or “there is a troll here,” referring to me, of course. Furthermore, he has never contributed anything new to the article and has rarely improved its format or its wording, as far as I remember.

That this conflict has nothing to do with content is proved by SqueakBox’s recent statement in the mediation process by which he claimed that there were not pending issues (here), but he has insulted me from then (example).

To defend himself, SqueakBox will claim that I have vandalized his user page. It is completely false and he has no evidence. I have never been blocked. He will claim that I have said he suffers a mental disease. I have said I believe he suffers from a mental disorder because I think his behavior is only explained with that. I have never intended to offend him, only to explain the unfair abuse I have suffered.Zapatancas 16:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SqueakBox

This concerns the behaviour of Zapatancas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is still amking absurd anf false accusations of vandalism, who vandalised my user page here and here, and my talk page here and here and his or her sockpuppets SquealingPig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and SquealingPigAttacksAgain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). S/he has accused me of being SquealingPig, an idea that began here and here. His or her false characterisation of me as having a mental problem in his or her statement is a clear sign of his or continuous hostility towards me as are the accussations that SquealingPig first made that I am SquealingPig, ie the harrassment of SquealingPig continues in the current behaviour of Zapatancas. S/he made a death threat and repeatedly vandalised my user page and talk page using all 3 accounts, Zapatancas, SquealingPig and SquealingPigAttacksAgain. S/he has accused me of having affairs and of having a psychiatric problem and here etc. S/he refuses to debate the issues on Zapatero. I went to mediation because s/he demanded that I sort mediation (s/he didn't actualy set upm the mediation him or her self, s/he said it wass my responsibility and if I didn't sort s/he would take me staright to arbitrationto. S/he then unilaterally rejected mediation when s/he discovered it wasn't another forum where s/he could humiliate me, ie that I wouldn't be forced to "apologise" to him or her, having earlier stated his or her reluctance to rake over the past S/he is now claiming *this edit is blatant vandalism and was made only to destroy his or her works.

He was then blocked and has now been permanently blocked. If he is not SquealingPig please can he explain these edits here and *here straight after vandalising my talk page here and here. It simply is not credible that this person was not Zapatancas, who already had 2 accounts (Zapatero and Zapatancas, though Zapatancas is not a sock of Zapatero), the language used is the same and he has kept up the virulenmt hatred towards me ever since. It is not credible given the timing and *this that Zapatancas is not SquealingPig. Look at the edit comments. Zapatancas says *[140] "When you are a person who uses Wikipedia to attack other people and hurt their feelings, what is your right to include an absurb medal?", Squealing Pig *[141] says "Please tell me: why are you accessing the personal page of this bad person?" Here s/he accuses me of regularly destroying articles while also claiming I have no interest in the subject. The fact that I have also extensively edited Javier Solana, José María Aznar, Rodrigo Rato and a vast number of Latin American politicians puts the lie to this claim, something SquealinPig and thus Zapatancas realised here. Here he accuses me of harrassing him, yet in the edit the only change is legalise to legalize, how is changing legalize to legalise an act of harrassment.

Zapatancas is now [142] he vandalsied my user page to enforce WP:NPA after just accusing me of using devious arguments. How exactly does one enforce WP:NPA by vandalisng user pages? He vandalised it five days after SP vandalised it, as he did my talk page.

here] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Luis_Rodr%C3%ADguez_Zapatero&diff=prev&oldid=29139689 here] *here *here *here

  • here *here
  • here
  • Here in the lower paragraph he makes a vicious attack. *Here s/he uses his user page purely to harass me by launching an uncalled for personal attack and *here again. Here s/he shows an obsessiopn with me which has characterised Zapatancas contributions for more than a year now, optherwise why mention my name in the edit. Here s/he accuses me of being SquealingPig, like yeah I would just go and vandalise my user page rather than his user page if I were angry at him and deviant enough to dop such an immoral action, that is not a reasonable assumption, especially given that Zapatancas him or her self has also vandalised my user page, talking in exactly the same style as SquealingPig and SquealingPigAttacksAgain.

Here s/he vandalises my user page]. Here s/he attacks me on the Za[patero talk page, asking if I need psychiatric assistance and suggesting I only edit wikipedia to destroy it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jos%C3%A9_Luis_Rodr%C3%ADguez_Zapatero/Archive_2&diff=prev&oldid=13549874 Here he makes the first accusation that SB is SP but that cannot be true as if I had created SP it would have been to attack Zapatancas not myself. This fits in with his or her trying to label me as mad, ie if s/he can convince people I am mad s/he can convince that it was he and not him or her who attacked me. And yet I was able to edit freely [143] less than 2 hours afterv SPAA was blocked and also [edit immediately after SP was blocked whereas ZapatancasThis strategy continues to the present day. This, though, is a typical Zapatancas accusation that I spend all day on wikipedia (see his or her statement above) from SquealingPigAttacksAgain. Here, while repairing Zapatancas vandalism of my user page here User:Boothy443 describes Zapatancas as being engaged in sockpuppetry. To summarise, on May 5th my user page gets vandalised by SqwuelaingPig whose first edit was to the Zapatero talk page very angry at me here, then on May 10 Zapatancas vandalises both my user page and my user talk page. Now he accuses me of being insane and of having concocted the whole episode, a theme begun by SquealingPig here and then unashamedly taken up by Zapatancas. Here s/he accuses my wife of two-timing me, ie dragging a non-user and their repuatation inoto a public forum solely in order to harrass me. S/he has refused to engage in discussion on the Zapatero talk page. This taking me to arbcom is clearly part of his or her attempt to erase me from wikipedia, as promised. My offence seems to be not allowing Zapatancas to forget his sockpuppet outbursts, or perhaps it was editing in a way s/he didn't like in the first place that caused this hatred of me, SqueakBox 04:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator Abuse

Involved parties

Summary: User:69.194.137.183 feels that Jpgordon has abused his administrator powers by blocking him under the Three revert rule while involved with him in a dispute on the article Gunpowder.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
On Jpgordon's talk page: "Because you have abused your admin powers and violated 3RR laws I have referred you to Arbitration. 69.194.137.183 19:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)"
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Other steps have not been pursued because Jpgordon's malicious actions are not simply a dispute - a dispute is among equals and Jpgordon has used his admin powers to prey on others. Jpgordon's actions are an abuse of admin powers and I fear that I and other are at risk of further abuse at the hands of the admin Jpgordon.

Statement by party 1

I have always used Wikipedia as a reference source and considered it to be an informative and good resource. Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined that adminstrators such as Jpgordon roam behind the scenes and manipulate information to their whims through abuse of admin powers. Yet this is exactly what has happened as can be seen on the history page of the gunpowder article. Jpgordon disliked the information I had added to the article and continually reverted my edits. With no choice, I was forced to revert Jpgordon's vandalism. Frighteningly, instead of entering into discussions about differences, Jpgordon immediately banned me based on a groundless claim of the 3RR. Jpgordon reverted my edits more than 3 times himself and then proceeded to ban me to further his edit war. I am a victim of monster admin Jpgordon's malicious abuse and I request that justice be served. Thank you.

Sincerely, 69.194.137.183 19:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jpgordon

See the history of Gunpowder, and the repeated requests and warnings regarding this editor's contributions. I was one of at least a half-dozen editors trying to get through to the anon to understand why his changes were not acceptable; eventually, I gave him the formal {{3RR}} warning; he persisted and received a 24-hour ban, upon return from which he started again with the same reversions, and initiated this case. I'll 3RR him again when he gets to 4 reverts again, probably in the next hour -- he's at three as I'm typing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

  1. The 24-hour block expired and the anon piled right back in with precisely the same reverts. I have blocked again. Just zis Guy you know? 21:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is a garden-variety content dispute. Plus there has been no realistic attempt to use other methods of resolutions. The wrong process, and much too early. Just zis Guy you know? 13:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stifle

I agree with JzG - this is a content dispute and should be at RFC. Previous steps of dispute resolution have been unjustifiably skipped. Stifle 19:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arbusto, Just zis Guy you know?, David D.

Involved parties

  1. Pooua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Arbustoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  4. Daycd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Brief Summary: Dispute over what material should be included and how it should be included in an article regarding a controversial public figure.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  1. User:Pooua (initiated request)
  2. User:Arbustoo Message in his Talk Page User talk:Arbustoo
  3. Just zis Guy you know? Message in his Talk Page User talk:JzG
  4. User:Daycd Message in his Talk Page User talk:Daycd
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Extensive discussions regarding this dispute are documented on the talk page: Talk:Jack Hyles

This argument involves many more people than just the participants of Wikipedia, and has been ongoing since 1988. Each side has jockied for public attention. This entry in Wikipedia is the latest round. Considering that neither side has been able to convince the other of what the facts are in the case, it is unlikely that the matter will be resolved by discussion between sides on Wikipedia. Evidence of this is the edit war that has been ongoing on the page for several months. It is likely this edit war will continue for several more years, if permitted.

Statement by Pooua

Several people have accused Dr. Jack Hyles (the subject of the Wiki article) or his associates of various unsavory or illegal behavior, as reported by various news organizations and special interest publications. However, only this 3rd-hand hearsay has been presented in the Wikipedia article. I have demonstrated that the editors who are submitting this information do not know even basic facts about Jack Hyles, but are simply repeating what they have read in various publications. I, however, have some familiarity with the subject. I realize that if I edit the page to just that material of which the accuracy of the accusations can be substantiated, my edits will be reverted, as this has happened several times to other people. The accused insist on including scandalous material, regardless of source, accuracy, reliability, bias or significance, all on the ground that because the accusations were printed, they count as verifiable source material. As a result, the Wiki page is turned into little more than a gossip column, instead of providing an authoritative, reliable source of accurate information.

Statement by JzG

This is a content dispute, and there is a long history of whitewasing of this article, which has been policed by numeorus admins including me. Subject is deceased, so Siegenthaler concerns are not present (although of course we still have an obligation WP:V and WP:NPOV).

I think my last comment on the stated Talk page was "All non-trivial verifiable facts welcome." Obviously that is adding to the problem in some way not immediately obvious to me. Most of the non-trivial verifiable facts appear not to be especially flattering to the subject, a latterly controversial Southern fundamentalist preacher and founder of an unaccredited college much edit-warred by User:Jason Gastrich and his hosiery drawer. Subject apparently built up quite a reputation, but even people he was close to have been quite scathing about his latter years.

This seems to be a case of excess of enthusiasm. Pooua (talk · contribs) has only been actively editing WP for a couple of weeks (amazing that they should find their way here so fast, really). Just zis Guy you know? 21:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arbusto

Pooua is upset that established sources post criticism about a person he is admitted to having a personal and emotional relationship with.[144] This user does not understand NPOV, in that, wikipedia does not have to be "nice" to characters they have to balance and report all opinions. That includes maintaining established and well-sourced criticism.

As Pooua admits, he wants the criticism removed. Now to get his way he has filed this RfA. This is a misued of RfA because this is a content dispute. Yet, this misuse was not intentional. Rather like NPOV, this user has not taken the time to read the wikipedia policies he is trying to use.

The sources he wants removed include the Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, Christianity Today and the associated press. You can't just take someone to Arcom because they put in sources from the AP that criticize someone you personally knew.

Arbusto 23:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 3

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries.)

Comment by uninvolved party TML1988

IMO, this is yet another content dispute, and the ArbCom has rejected many similar requests in the past. The above statement contains only accusations with no diffs and/or evidence of Wikietiquette violations. I urge rejection without prejudice. --TML1988 19:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved party JoshuaZ

Note that not only is TML1988 correct that this is solely a content dispute, but that no other forms of dipute resolution have been attempted. Even if this were not a content dispute, it would be premature to bring it to the Arb Com. I would also like to register disturbance with Pooua's declaration that "It is likely this edit war will continue for several more years, if permitted" which sounds very close to "I and my compatriots will keep edit warring until we get a version acceptable to us." JoshuaZ 20:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved party AvB

The statement by Pooua argues that the "accused" are guilty of abiding by WP:NPOV/WP:NOR, and of keeping Pooua from violating same. After removing irrelevant stuff, it reads: (...) as reported by various news organizations and special interest publications (...) 3rd-hand hearsay has been presented in the Wikipedia article (...) repeating what they have read in various publications (...) if I edit the page to just that material of which the accuracy of the accusations can be substantiated, my edits will be reverted (...) insist on including scandalous material (...) on the ground that because the accusations were printed, they count as verifiable source material.

Of course abitrators don't need me to point this out, but I just couldn't help myself. AvB ÷ talk 20:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by not invited to the party party Sam Blanning

Given the number of RfArbs that get filed which involve these three (JzG, Arbusto/o and David), they're either very good editors or very bad. I think I know which ;-)

Statement by semi-involved party Thatcher131

This is a fairly typical content dispute. I worked on the page for a couple of weeks, and because many of the allegations were pre-internet, I posted some newspaper articles from Lexis/Nexis to the talk page that supported the allegations, or at least showed that the allegations were printed in reliable sources. The content dispute can be broken down into two questions. Should the article discuss allegations of infidelity and doctrinal irregularities that were made in a reliable source but which by their nature are matters of opinion or unrpovable as actual fact. And, should criminal wrongdoing (including convictions) by persons closely associated with Hyles be included in the article on him. My own view was that there needed to be a close nexus between another individual and Hyles, which would bar some but not all of the disputed content. Unfortunately there were editors on both extremes, and I left the article, thinking I could be more productive elsewhere. I suspect that other forms of DR will ultimately fail due to the strong opinions of some editors, but we should AGF and give it a try. Thatcher131 14:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requests for Clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process.

EK appeal

Five months have now passed since the end of EK3. In previous cases, I was granted an appeal option after a reasonable length of time; in EK2, the time span was only two months before the ArbCom softened my restrictions significantly (and four months after that dropped them altogether). Therefore I ask the ArbCom to consider at least softening my current restrictions, if not dropping them altogether. I'm not eager to write any lengthy arguments in my defense, as the ArbCom and I have some diametrically opposed theoretical views and I no longer realistically hope to be able to persuade them of anything; rather I would simply ask that we try to live with each other and be reasonable. Everyking 04:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has only been 22 days since you were last blocked for a violation [145] and only six days since you commented extensively on a block of mine. The comments were on my talk page and so weren't a strict violation, but they violated the spirit of the ruling. If you'd stop commenting on admins' actions and also stop asking for the ruling to be relaxed, you'd probably find that it would end up being relaxed or even cancelled completely. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is commenting on your talk page against the spirit? There was a special exemption made for that, so it seems to me that I was following the spirit, not violating it. If the spirit of the ruling frowned on that, why was an exemption made? And that block 22 days ago was considered very iffy and I was unblocked within hours. Everyking 04:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The length of the block may have been iffy, but not the edit that caused it in my book. Add to that boundary-testing at RFA and elsewhere, as well as violating the spirit of the ruling by posting such comments off-wiki, and I see no reason to entertain an appeal until there's evidence you've changed your ways. Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Boundary-testing? A big part of the problem, in my opinion, is these silly assumptions you make about me. And I don't see how you can reasonably condemn me for posting comments off-wiki when you prohibit me from making them on-wiki. Does the spirit of the ruling also prohibit me from discussing my Wikipedia views in real life? Everyking 05:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be blunt: it doesn't matter if I characterize it as boundary-testing or incorrigibility or repeated mistakes or whatever. Don't make anything resembling the controversial comments and violations you have continued to make since the ruling; don't continue to instill doubt that you have the capacity or judgment to change by continually asserting that the ruling was flawed; and don't go off-wiki to call people dickheads and encourage banned users to start editing with sockpuppets and disparage others with the same kind of sniping and harassing remarks reminiscent of your actions on the Administrators' Noticeboard, and then ask to be let back onto the Administrators' Noticeboard. And don't come here asking for another appeal until you've satisfied all of these for months, not weeks. Dmcdevit·t 06:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before I'm prepared to consider lifting the remedies, I still want to see that convincing evidence I requested, the evidence that shows EK won't go back to his pre-arbcom behavior (e.g, constantly second-guessing other admins based on a flimsy understanding - if any - of the case). Slimvirgin's evidence is certainly convincing, but not in a way that's good for Everyking. Raul654 05:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of evidence could I present? You know it's hard to present an example to demonstrate the absence of something. Everyking 05:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that just before EK's March 21 block, he violated the ruling by posting criticism of Karada, an admin, to User talk:IAMthatIAM, because Karada had blocked IAMthatIAM for an inappropriate user name. [146] When I told him on his talk page that the comment violated the ruling and removed it, he got into a revert war with me over it. [147] [148] [149] After being blocked by Will the next day for a different violation, EK spent so long on IRC asking other admins to unblock him that he was kicked off the channel. That kind of behavior indicates that he'll go straight back to the old habits if the ruling is relaxed. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After SV complained about my initial comment, I revised it so that there was no criticism of an admin, just general commentary on the situation. I feel I had every right to restore my revised comment, as it was clearly within the limits of the ruling. (There was also a question here of the user's talk page being protected; I said that I thought it should be unprotected so that the user could discuss his block.) Also, I don't see how me wanting to be unblocked has anything to do with these "old habits". I felt the block was wrong and I wanted to edit, so I was trying to explain the situation to people—anyway, IRC is supposed to be irrevelant to on-wiki. Everyking 06:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ruling doesn't say you're not allowed to criticize an admin. It says you're "prohibited from making comments on non-editorial actions taken by other administrators other than on the administrator's talk page, a Request for comment, or a Request for arbitration." Karada, an admin, was engaged in a non-editorial action. You commented on it on the talk page of the user he was acting against. All your comments were therefore clearly violations of the ruling, yet you argued with me, reverted me, and even now insist they weren't, while asking for the ruling to be relaxed. As for IRC, if it's irrelevant to Wikipedia, don't go there looking for admins to undo Wikipedia blocks. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary on a general situation is different from commenting on a non-editorial action by an admin. I revised my comment with that in mind. Everyking 06:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ek - I'm going to ask you a question and I want an honest answer. We've made it clear your behaviors that we do and do not find acceptable. And yet, it seems obvious to me (and, I suspect, pretty much anyone else paying attention) that rather than make an honest effort at reform, you have done the very best you can to persist in those behaviors, skating as close to that line without quite crossing it. You are, in fact, constantly apologizing for those incidents where you happen to go a bit too far and stray into verbotten territory. How, then, are we to believe that if we remove that line, that you'll behave properly? (when, in point of fact, even with the remedies, you have continued to misbehave). Raul654 06:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ruling prohibits me from discussing admin actions; I want the ruling gone so that I can discuss them again. Logically, if you simply want me to refrain from expressing my personal opinions as an administrator in any way, then it would be stupid to remove the ruling. If, on the other hand, you want me to alter the expression of my opinions to take a different form, then it's simple: as far as civility goes, I feel I've been much better about civility since before the case was even accepted last year. I have also recently been trying very hard to avoid continually asserting the correctness of my position in these arguments (as you arbs continue to do nevertheless), instead trying to strike a more pragmatic, compromising tone. Everyking 06:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On my talk page just a few days ago (User_talk:SlimVirgin/archive28#HK), you were precisely "continually asserting the correctness of [your] position" against the four admins who were arguing against you, and this was once again a situation you knew little or nothing about. You only stopped arguing because people stopped responding to you. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. EK, you seem to think that the restrictions placed on you are totally spurious, but then you persistently infringe them, point to your said infringements and decry the restrictions as overly burdensome and unnecessary; conversely, we look at your, err, "indiscretions" with disappointment and dismay that you are persistently and consistently are unable to live up to even the restrictions' poor aspirations for your behaviour. That you keep asking for us to remove these restrictions is bordering on laughable.
James F. (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And he's still at it. Here Everyking inserts himself into a discussion about a checkuser finding by David Gerard, saying "I suppose the claim is that your IPs match. Of course, we have no way of knowing whether this is actually true, or even if so if this is something that cannot be explained by other factors". Perhaps not a breach of the letter of his ban on discussing the non-editorial actions of administrators, but certainly pushing the envelope. --Tony Sidaway 11:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just can't win. I try to be careful and not violate the ruling, but then when I say something like that, which seems safe, somebody will claim it's a breach of the spirit of the ruling. The spirit of the ruling is very strict, I note, much more so than the letter. If only it didn't keep changing, so I could keep from falling afoul of it. Everyking 14:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood3

'nood hasn't changed his behavior one bit. He's still coming to Wikipedia each day, reverting a revolving set of 10-30 articles, not using edit summaries, and not using talk pages until people beg him to. The most problematic is the revert warring. Can he be placed on 0RR? SchmuckyTheCat 15:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remind myself to assume good faith, but contrary to what user:SchmuckyTheCat has claimed, I don't come to Wikipedia everyday, I restore articles according to what they were before the POV-pushing edits, and I'm the one begging other people to discuss. I've also left messages at user talk:SchmuckyTheCat, but he rarely replies. The case was not properly opened, and user:SchmuckyTheCat (and probably user:Alanmak as well) should have been part of it. — Instantnood 16:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't come to Wikipedia everyday - but you come to Wikipedia most days, and your edit history is mostly reverts, still, after two arbcom cases.
I restore articles according to what they were before the POV-pushing edits - to be honest, I no longer even care if I agree with you about content. You're a revert warrior, reverting warring is bad for the project. Justification is irrelevant.
I'm the one begging other people to discuss. -- Did you discuss your two week long revert war on Mainland China before I begged you to? When I did beg you, out comes pointers to a conversation that happened one year ago. How about list of bridges - talk page is a redlink.
The case was not properly opened - please.
user:SchmuckyTheCat (and probably user:Alanmak as well) should have been part of it. - If you believe I've violated my probation, you're welcome to ask an administrator to enforce it. If you think Alanmak needs an arbcom case, the place to file it is above. You've managed to drive Huaiwei away. Is your next group of those conspiring against you going to include Chen Zen [150], ran [151], and enochlau [152]? The common denominator in your revert wars is Instantnood. You have the ability to stop reverting, but like a junkie, you just can't stop. No matter how many arbcom cases. No matter how many pleadings from those who agree with you. No matter how much begging from those that disagree. No matter the call from Alanmak for a stop, you demanded he self-revert himself before you'd stop your reverts with him. SchmuckyTheCat 17:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did request user:Alanmak and user:Chen Zhen to talk, and I talk to user:Enochlau and user:Ran too. I requested user:Chen Zhen to explain why he keeps revert mainland China without any edit summary, but the effort was in vain. If justification of reverts is irrelevant then Wikipedia would turn chaotic. I don't revert warring, I simply restore them according to what they were like, and request the people to discuss. I never demanded anybody to self-revert, all I want the articles to be restore according to what they were like, no matter it favours my position or theirs or anybody else's. Comparing to your edit history, I don't think mine's proportion of revert edits is siginificantly different. It's user:Huaiwei's own choice to leave, no matter there was a case or not. Nobody can drive him away. I did not present any evidence regarding your activities to the latest case since it was not properly opened. That doesn't mean you're all correct. — Instantnood 18:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If "He's still coming to Wikipedia each day, reverting a revolving set of 10-30 articles, not using edit summaries, and not using talk pages until people beg him to" is true, then this is just an enforcement problem. Post to the administrators' noticeboard with evidence and see if they deem it serious enough to enforce against. He's currently on article probation and genral probation. Dmcdevit·t 19:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leyasu 1RR

In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu, the Arbcom put Leyasu under a one revert per day limitation, except in cases of "clear vandalism". What exactly is "clear vandalism"? Leyasu reverted edits to Children of Bodom twice today, saying that they were vandalism (this was, again, something that inspired some of the principles in their case) because the user who made them was a "serial vandal", when the two edits in question probably weren't. [153] [154] Does this merit a block on Leyasu? Further, am I allowed to block people with whom I was previously (or, for that matter, currently) in an ArbCom case, or is this a conflict of interest? --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the user just got blocked for it by User:R.Koot as part of a serial vandalism across various articles, including user pages and admin user pages (including my own) [155], then yes, im pretty sure it was clear vandalism. Ley Shade 23:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was changing the genre description of a band. WP:-( isn't clear about whether or not that is vandalism. At any rate, I read the rulings from the arbcom case again, and the revert parole is a limitation to one content revert per day, vandalism or not. So the parole has been violated; I do want the arbitrators to answer my other question, though. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If something is done to disrupt Wikipedia, personally attack the content/subject of the article, and is dont maliciously, it counts as Vandalism. After trying to engage the user on the talk page, alls i got was a stream of abuse about both the band and myself, and the blatant threats of further vandalism, which was then adeered to. Ive been selective in when to breach the arbcom, and have only done so in cases of notable problems. Most of the time, ive had other editors who are part of the WP:HMM do reverts, me being the look out guy for vandals. Ley Shade 23:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you can block me, as long as its for a good reason and its not because of baiting, which you havent done. I will however tell you to check the talk page and ANI board on the user who made the edits, as they are responsible for a series of malicious edits which i was first made aware of during an Article CleanUp Strategy on the WP:HMM. Ley Shade 23:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not clear vandalism. Clear vandalism is "I JUST HACKED UR SIGHT LOL". Maybe it was vandalism. It wasn't clear vandalism, though. If it's arguable that it's not vandalism, it isn't. Sam Korn (smoddy) 10:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. If Leyasu wishes to stay within the spirit of the ruling, he should avoid these situations like the plague. Anything but the most obvious is vandalism is not a good idea. And yes, you should always find an uninvolved admin for circumstances like these; it shouldn't be that hard. Dmcdevit·t 07:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it has been very difficult. User:Leyasu continually involves himself in my edits and calls them "vandalism" when they are not(One example:[156])I posted a formal complaint on the Admins Noticeboard (No resp) and warned two Admins (No help). He has also falsely accused me (no evidence - just a libelous character attack) of being a "sockpuppet" of another user he has had problems with. If anything, this ArbCase has given him much more liberty. --Danteferno 12:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from myself, other members of the WP:HMM who i have devoted my Wikipedia time to working with have also been having to deal with Danteferno. If Danteferno's edits are checked, his only edits in the last month have been reverts of my own edits. A no evidence claim apparantly is the case of Deathrocker and Danteferno being the same person, even though a Check User confirmed they were both blocking their IP's since the check user was authored. The reason that the ANI Board and the admins didnt help Dantefernoe, is because both times Danteferno had bragged about using an anon to vandalise a page, and then reverted what i had done when i reverted the vandalism, thus when i reverted his edit from a notification from WP:HMM of vandalised articles, he went to the ANI Board to tittle tattle, and when refused there, went to other admins to try to 'force' them into banning me so he could 'revert my edits'. I have only broken my parole, has noted, during vandalism, and only done so when other members of the WP:HMM have asked me to do the reverts. I fail to see how this is me causing problems.
Also, in the case of this Diff [157], Danteferno was warned several times by user Spearhead about vandalisng articles in regard to this and other articles, and continued to do so. Not paticularly in the spirit of his parole itself, is it? Ley Shade 04:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked, it wasn't me, but you who was placed on Wikipedia:Probation for a year. The only penalty I was given was revert parole, which I have not broken - you, on the other hand, have violated it several times since your parole.
Your claim of me being the same person as another user is false. If you look back, the Admin who did the check said your evidence was "Inconclusive" -that's because there was no real evidence!
There's also nothing in that diff above about Spearhead warning me of anything, or that I was vandalizing any article - unless you this posted this diff by mistake, this never happened. Please stop lying about me and others!!!!
ARBITRATORS and/or ADMINS - Under the agreement of User:Leyasu's probation there was concensus that he could be banned from any article for any good reason. I ask that this enforcement be given on the Gothic Metal article to start. If you take a look at the revision history User:Leyasu has claimed complete ownership of the article, reverting out almost any edit not his and even removing a rewrite tag that was supported by other users on the Talk page. As User:Idont Havaname mentioned, User:Leyasu has been repeatedly warned about his behavior.--Danteferno 12:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taken from Dante's Above statement:
  • Last I checked, it wasn't me, but you who was placed on Wikipedia:Probation for a year. The only penalty I was given was revert parole.
Dante has done this several times, and boasted that he can use his extra reverts as a means to revert any of my edits he pleases. Ironically, his only edits in the last month have been reverts of my own edits.
Taken from Dante's above statement:
  • There's also nothing in that diff above about Spearhead warning me of anything, or that I was vandalizing any article - unless you this posted this diff by mistake, this never happened. Please stop lying about me and others!!!!
Dante here claims he was never warned by Spearhead, but ironically, here is a diff of Danteferno deleting the warning from his talk page [158].
Taken from Dante's above statement:

If you take a look at the revision history User:Leyasu has claimed complete ownership of the article, reverting out almost any edit not his and even removing a rewrite tag that was supported by other users on the Talk page.

Please provide a diff for me claiming the article was mine, also please provide any diff showing me being warned for MPOV like you was by both Me, Snowflake and Parasti.
Taken from Dante's above statement:
  • and even removing a rewrite tag that was supported by other users on the Talk page.
Dante placed the rewrite tag and claimed that he was the consensus. After 2 RFC's, and a intervention from the WP:HMM and numerous admins, only 2 users still supported a rewrite, Danteferno and a user with edits only on the Gothic Metal talk page. This, is not a consensus by right, when several uses, a Wikiproject and 2 RFC's all deem the article fine.
Until Danteferno provides diffs for his claims, i suggest he stops making up things that can easily be disproved. Ley Shade 12:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice at the top of Bogdanov Affair

The ArbCom case Regarding The Bogdanov Affair ordered

A notice shall be placed at the top of the article Bogdanov Affair which links to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair which briefly explains that the Wikipedia article has, in part, been conflated with the external event, the Bogdanov Affair, due to participation in editing of the article by participants in the event. The notice shall include an apology for our inability to control this phenomenon and a warning that any editor which is determined to be a participant in the external event may be subject to being banned from editing.

The ArbCom case closed in November 2005 - four months ago. The notice is obtrusive, and I innocently commented it out, on the basis that someone clicking 'edit' would still see it, without realising that it had been ArbCom-mandated.

The ArbCom did not appear to specify when the notice would be taken down. How long will the notice remain there? --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until it is unnecessary. Are there still puppets reincarnating violating the ruling and is the article still semi-protected? If so, I think it still serves a purpose. Dmcdevit·t 19:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think so - the most recent one appears to be Hourcas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - made two edits late last month, both to the Bogdanov article, with no edits elsewhere. --TML1988 20:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A couple weeks ago, I received an irritated e-mail from one of the pro-Bogdanov partisans whom the ArbCom had specifically named in their ban. They're still out there, watching the article, waiting for their chance to spring (cue ominous music). . . Anville 13:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Jason Gastrich

Could you all take a boo at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Jason_Gastrich#confused_by_remedies ? Should the ban be concurrent with the rest of the remedies? Is that what you guys meant to do? Is it more of a drowned AND hung remedy, or did you mean all the other stuff to start after the ban lapses? Thanks! (moved the substance of this from Mindspillage's talk page) ++Lar: t/c 03:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion would be that the ban puts everything else on the back-burner for a year. I would say that they come in force after the year's ban is completed. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Mindspillage about this and got a slightly different answer. (it's all concurrent) I need to refactor the three(!!!) differnent partial threads started all back to one place, I guess... probably here? ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with James' assessment here. The confusion stems from the fact that I made all of those proposals, and then Mindspillage came along and proposaed a general ban, which passed as well. In most cases if it hadn't worked out that way we would have just proposed the ban and left it there. In any case, there's not much use worrying about something that's a year down the line, as (to my knowledge) no one has ever withstood a yearlong ban without resetting it, and then returned to editing, except for Plautus who was swiftly rebanned. And Jason ranks among those I least expect not to cause the ban to be reset. Dmcdevit·t 03:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of resetting, there have been confirmed socks since the ban started. Category:Wikipedia:Sock_puppets_of_Jason_Gastrich is larger than it was at the time of the RfAr. Harvestdancer 14:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've duly reset the block to one year from the last verified sock usage, although because I can't spell it took three tries. Stifle 18:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crotalus horridus

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway

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]

Hmm, we (I?) didn't do that too well. The options are to remove the enforcement from Remedy 1 or to specify that the enforcement only applies to Remedies 2 and 3. I support the former. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<ping>. I guess it's not especially important since Ch appears to be abiding by it, but it's at least untidy to let it lie. -Splashtalk 23:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=47956306"