Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CJCurrie (talk | contribs) at 19:11, 27 October 2006 (→Motion in prior case related to 'Homey'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

A 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 (ArbCom).

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area   6 November 2024 0/5/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Yasuke 13 Nov 2024

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details. "Recuse" means that an Arbitrator has excused themselves from a case because of a possible, or perceived, conflict of interest. Cases which have not met the acceptance criteria after 10 days will be removed from this page.

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.

See also



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

Fox News

Initiated by Cbuhl79 at 17:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Principal disputants have been notified: Blaxthos - [1] AuburnPilot - [2] Ramsquire - [3]

Other editors involved have been notified: Trebor_Rowntree - [4] Aaron - [5] Kevin Baas - [6]

Editors or RfC respondants involved but not notified by complaintant (now notified): USER:Isarig USER:Gamaliel - A primary disputant. USER:Doldrums USER:Akhilleus

I did not notify every single participant ever involved in the entire discussion (should I have?), but note that I was not trying to exclude or hide this RfA [7]. Cbuhl79 03:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

There have been two RfC's related to this dispute [8] [9] And over a week of discussion in talk during which little progress has been made.

Statement by Cbuhl79

The current introduction to Fox News includes the following statement:

I feel that this statement violates both the spirit and letter of WP:NPOV, specifically:

I believe that the statement should be changed to something more like the following (I am not opposed to changing the specific critic or observers cited).

My attempts to discuss this change were met with repeated hostility centering around arguments that consensus had already been reached. The user Blaxthos decreed here[10] that consensus had been reached on his version. AuburnPilot then removed the RfC[11]. despite my continued objection.

I opened a new RfC in good faith hoping that we could discuss the content of the sentence[12]. Subsequently Blaxthos and to a lesser extent AuburnPilot have been openly hostile to any continued discussion of the matter on the basis that consensus has been reached, and that I am only trying to keep the sentence out of the introduction (despite my EARLIER statement here[13]). They have accused me of not acting in good faith, of "sour grapes", of trying to make a WP:POINT, etc..[14][15]. There has also been hostility shown to other editors who have come in to the discussion (note the edit summary here - [16]).

The user Ramsquire has consistently strongly agreed with the other editors that consensus has been reached, and that the consensus is correct, but has not been hostile and has admirably continued to act in good faith, and to assume good faith.

Other editors who have participated to some extent since the second RfC are Aaron, Kevin Baas, Derex, and Trebor Rowntree. I do not feel comfortable in asserting what positions they hold. Cbuhl79 17:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ramsquire

I am against this arbitration. I request that the Committee do the right thing and ignore this request. Through the RfC process, editors on the relevant article have reached a consensus on the content and wording and introduction of the Foxnews article, that complies with WP:LEAD. The user who started this arbitration flat out refuses to accept the consensus, and refuses to accept how he is misreading Wikipedia policy. First the user objected under WP:WEASEL, when he was informed that this guideline does allow exception, he now goes to WP:NPOV. After repeated attempts to explain why WP:NPOV is not violated, user still refuses to accept the consensus. Consensus has been reached and the intro in question complies with relevant pillars of Wikipedia. Ramsquire 18:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary Statement by Blaxthos

I also believe this is serious abuse of the Wikipedia dispute-resolution process. Over the course of several weeks, several editors (not including complaintant) worked together to agree if a discussion of perceived bias was appropriate in the article introduction, and then what depth of discussion was necessary. After the entire process was almost closed, the complaintant began objecting to the presence of the statement, and then the wording of the statement. He has now employed several tactics to effect the same end, with little success. With the exception of one editor, who never responded once complaintant started posting, I believe every editor he has engaged has told him he is mistaken about the purpose and interpretation of wikipedia policy. Complaintant has solicited uninvolved parties to "weigh in", complaintant has repeatedly ignored opinions contrary to his own (on the article talk page, on personal talk pages, and on policy talk pages). Complaintant has acted in bad faith on several occasions
  • Calling a second RfC when the WP:CONSENSUS on the first RfC was not what he wished.
  • Calling a RfA when the WP:CONSENSUS on the second RfC was not what he wished.
  • Unilateral renegade changes (with every other editor in agreement to use the existing/agreed upon wording)
  • Violation of WP:3RR when his change was removed.
  • Wikilawyering and trying multiple policies to effect the same change (when one doesn't work, try another).
  • Claims of personal attacks and persecution, when none occured. Repeated requests for examples have gone unfulfilled.
  • Repeating the same phrase over and over, seemingly ignoring the multiple explainations from multiple editors as to why his position is incorrect.
I was absolutely stunned to find this RfA this afternoon. I do not currently have references and a concise presentation, and apologize for any repetition or missed facts. It is my sincere hope that the committee will decline to hear this RfA, as it is a case of one editor absolutely refusing to listen to any opinion but his own. I'm sorry your time has been wasted with such.
If the RfA does move forward, I request time to compile a fully referenced, concise and logical presentation for the committee that references the actual issue at hand, as well as complaintant's behavior.
Thank you. /Blaxthos 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Trebor

I only came to this issue after responding to the second RfC and then added my preliminary views (which later changed to being neutral on the content matter). I left it for a few days but kept up with the discussion and then suggested a way to clearly show consensus via a straw poll. The idea was rejected strongly by Blaxthos. Cbuhl79 did not respond to the suggestion. I was very surprised by this RfA and think mediation should be tried first. Other than that, I am stepping back from the matter and will no longer comment on it.Trebor 20:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Uninvolved User Wizardry Dragon

I find it confusing that this case is even brought before Arbitration. The RfC was quite clear about the fact that consensus was against the user's idea. Arbitration is not a way to go against the consensus when it comes to content dispute; not unless there is a good reason, and there surely isn't one here, in my opinion: it just seems to be one user that doesn't like something and no one else has a problem with it. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AuburnPilot

I must agree with the other editors involved in this dispute, namely Ramsquire, Blaxthos, and to the extent that this should not have been brought here, Trebor. I initiated an RfC to determine whether or not a disputed section of the intro should be included. During that time, many aspects of the introduction were discussed, including WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL, as well as the general requirements of the introduction. During that time, several editors compromised and agreed to a solution that ended the debate. The only exception is the editor who filed this arbitration request. I stand by my statement that the 2nd RfC was created in bad faith and that this arbitration is even worse. As a content dispute that reached a consensus weeks ago, this matter should not have been brought here. Now that it has, I urge the committee to swiftly reject this request. As always, I'm open to answering any questions left on my talk page, but I believe to participate here would be against Wikipedia policies that are already being bent by the continued discussion of this issue. Respectfully, AuburnPilotTalk 00:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Reject Fred Bauder 22:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. This would be content. What is more, since critics talking about Fox and Fox replying should be somewhere in the article, it is the most soul-destroying of content disputes, based on trying to get favoured material prominence in the intro or trying to get it moved elsewhere. Those disputes need to be referred to 'summary style'; and to be resolved by discussion. If that has been gone through, don't ask us to second-guess. Charles Matthews 12:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Gaither Senior High School

Initiated by Rhythmnation2004 at 00:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

sakaki has been notified [17].

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Mediation requested [18], sakaki refused to accept.

Statement by Rhythmnation2004

I added information to the page Vivian Gaither High School, which the user sakaki has repeatedly reverted without giving a legitimate reason. I have attempted mediation, but sakaki refused. He then warned me that if I continued to vandalize Vivian Gaither High School, I would be blocked from Wikipedia. However, sakaki is not an administrator, and I have not, to my knowledge, violated any Wikipedia policy for which I should be blocked. I am requesting arbitration to prevent him from reverting other users' edits without valid reasons.

  • I too am a student at the school and can testify to the fact that there is indeed a swimming pool on the roof. I have seen it with my own eyes. Since it appears that it is his word against mine, perhaps it would be best to keep the information on the page, but notate it as a theory? Just a thought. Rhythmnation2004 01:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by sakaki

Against arbitration. I have given legitimate reason for my reverts in the article's talk page. Excerpt: On Sun 22 Oct 2006 I noticed an edit (11:10, 22 October 2006) made to Vivian Gaither High School by Rhythmnation2004 which consisted solely of nonsense. I reverted it and felt justified in my skipping the first warning template and going straight to test2 (Rhythmnation2004 undoubtedly is aware of basic Wikipedia policy and behaviour as of the 19:52, 19 September 2006 revision of his user page, subsequently all but blanked by him). There is indisputably not a swimming pool at the school I've attended for a little over three years now.

  1. Google Maps backs me up on this.
  2. The image of said swimming pool is an obvious forgery based on its misalignment with the rest of the building.

sakaki 01:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved user Newyorkbrad

This request is at best premature and possibly frivolous. Rhythmnation2004 contends that there is a swimming pool on the roof of this high school building and added an image to the article depicting a pool on the roof. Sakaki, who self-identifies as a student at the school, states that there is no swimming pool and the photograph is a forgery. The truth should be easily verifiable, perhaps by an admin from Florida where the school is located, and matters proceed accordingly. No need for arbitration. Newyorkbrad 01:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the other comments, this is pretty obviously a joke/prank/hoax (in the photo, there is no way to gain access to the so-called swimming pool, plus the Google Maps evidence), as was pretty clear all along. I suggest that Rhythmnation2004 withdraw this "case" promptly, and reconsider your approach to this project. Off-topic for the arbitration, but I also strongly suggest that given your user history, you may want to delete the real-life identifying information on your userpage so your youthful indiscretions don't follow you around for longer than you'd think. Meanwhile, for meta-issues fans, I don't see this case as presenting a verifiability issue - there either is or is not a swimming pool there - but we can debate those nuances another time. Newyorkbrad 04:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved user Moe Epsilon

Wow, this may go down as the lamest arbitration case I have ever heard of.. a swimming pool on a roof of a school?? Not only does this sound like the most made up story ever, but it's unverifiable and unencyclopedic. Even if there was, it's not going on this encyclopedia anytime soon. This school alone only had 60 or so Google hits, much less anything about these strange claims. Rhythmnation2004, please don't insert original research into Wikipedia anymore, and please use other methods of dispute resolution before coming to the ArbCom.

Comment by uninvolved user TenOfAllTrades

The image uploaded by Rhythmnation2004 – Image:GAITHER AERIAL PHOTO.JPG – is a pretty obvious fake. It appears to be part of a school prank of some sort. If Rhythmnation doesn't desist and stop wasting our time here, he's asking for a block. This doesn't need arbitration, though. Any admin can handle it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved user Renesis13

Obvious abuse of process by Rhythmnation2004. Don't give this more thought than it deserves. -- Renesis (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Splash

Initiated by  ALKIVAR™ ☢ at 21:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

User:Splash has been notified

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Splash has repeatedly wheel warred with multiple admins over block lengths, protection lengths, and in general made a real nuisance of himself. Previous RFAr nomination here

Statement by Alkivar

Personally I've run across Splash's un-semi-protection warring in at least 1 article List of warez groups This was most important to me because the protection was to stop a vandal from repeatedly posting my real name, address, and phone number, as well as other article content vandalism. His behavior towards other admins regarding vandal blocking is terrible [19]. He repeatedly wheel wars on block lengths [20]. The evidence of his rude behavior is everywhere, even in PROMINENT media-covered articles like Tony Blair, warring with Slim Virgin: [21], and Steve Irwin, [22] where we received NEGATIVE MEDIA ATTENTION AS A DIRECT RESULT. He repeatedly violates WP:AGF, WP:STALK, WP:DICK, WP:TROLL, WP:WHEEL etc.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To ElC: numerous attempts at asking splash to please stop unprotecting articles that are still under heavy vandalism has gone unheeded, and its come from MANY different sources. I felt as Splash had been brought before arbcom before for this reason (and been rejected), and still had not learned anything from that experience, that being brought to arbcom (and reviewed) might actually get through to him. It is not a random behaviour, but a behaviour he has been asked numerous times to modify and refused to do so.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 14:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Charles Matthews: I've gotten along fine with splash since my personal run in with his overzealous unprotecting, its his more recent behaviour towards CSCWEM (rudeness and wheel warring over block lengths) and other signs of lack of rational thought before an action (Steve Irwin unprotection). I freely admit splash and I have had our differences in the past, and I would have let them be had he not continued the same behaviour. Requests from numerous other admins have gone unheeded as well, I feel its arbcom's time to take a look at the matter and evaluate whether or not splash needs some form of censure. If this is thrown out so be it.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 14:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Splash

I tried for a long time to talk to CSCWEM, ([23], [24], [25], [26]) but he wouldn't reply, so I applied standard block lengths in place of very wacky ones. Another editor also left him plural messages [27], [28], which CSCWEM is still ignoring. 75 hours, 99 hours, 199 hours, 299 hours and 8.625 fortnights are more-or-less without meaning in the standard vocabulary of escalating block lengths. The length helps other admins work out where things are; comedy lengths don't. The lengths I applied were close (usually) to the number of hours CSCWEM chose. I unblocked no users apart from accounts with single edits [29], [30], [31], [32], [33](which just does not warrant a block in most cases). I did not unblock any repeatedly vandalising user. Do note in the context of Alkivar's over-optimistic block war diff that each unblock takes 2 actions with the recent modifications to Mediawiki's 'block conflict' handling.

We've been over the semi-protection stuff here already; we can try it over again if you really like, or if you're still smarting a year after I reversed some of your protections; incidentally your warez thing wasn't wheel warring, my unsprotects were days, weeks and months apart. It seems weird that Alkivar should turn up out of the blue; we haven't had anything to do with each other for months and there is nothing in Alkivar's contribs abou this, nor on his talk page. I guess IRC people were looking for someone to take on the filing of an Arbitration case after last time round.

DICK and TROLL is the other half of sticks and stones. -Splash - tk 22:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved party Voice of All

I don't usually comment on ArbCom cases, but since I actively patrol WP:PP (which my bot maintains), unprotecting 30-60 pages at a time some days, and this issue has come up before with this user, I'd like to point out a few observations. When you look at the pages unprotected, from the evidence above as of this time, you notice that a)they are far between and b)the pages were protected for very long time periods (2 weeks+ for some). As for the block times, using numbers like 299 repeatedly is not funny and does present a slowdown to most people in interpreting the duration. If they are just jokes then it should probably stop, if they are an attempt to make "block log stalking" harder, then it is the wrong way to go about it.

I'd agree that his general conduct is often lacking, and his concern for OTRS and media attention is perhaps "too low"; note that no standards on that have been established, though OFFICE at least lays out that "it matters when its legal". Personally, I do care about OTRS, and am much more sensitive to a page's status when considering unprotecting it if OTRS or WP:LIVING is involved, but I'd rather not put people hear over disagreeing with me on that. What I'd recommend is a different medium, OTRS discussion here, the mailing list (foundation-l), and perhaps casual IRC discussions. What arbcom can do here is consider his summary conduct, that is, the way he approaches problems, not as much his actions. I don't yet see the pattern of disruptive unprotections; what I see are a few incidents, along the need for a good policy discussion.Voice-of-All 01:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Freak

The inconsistant nature of Splash's replacement blocks -- 1 week isntead of 99 hours (an increase of roughly 3 days, a bit more as it was done a day into the block), or 48 hours instead of 99 (a 50% reprieve) -- suggest that Splash is less concerned with the actual effects of the block (preventing vandalism) and more focused on doing things his own way, making his fellow admins look like dipshits, and ensuring that every time-wasting vandal knows exactly when his block is going to expire, as if that were a god-given right, and that one can plan the rest of his week around it.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of flesh, but preventative measures achieve fuck-all when accompanied by precise instructions for their circumvention. The project will soon reach a point where there are no more bona fide newbies, just reincarnations of the same malfactors we banned last week, and the week before, but they're still quite willing to waste a four days (or whatever the magic number is) of their own time to waste an hour of ours.

Standard durations are a logical fallacy. Discretion is everything, spontaneity is the rest. If the penalties are harder to read, they're harder to game. Until Brion lets us withdraw block logs from public view, deliberate obfuscation may be our best recourse, but even so, the Special:Ipblocklist states exactly when each block would end. Thank god for timezone confusion.

Chewbacca says "it's a wiki", and there's no place for cloak-and-dagger tactics. Wiki, yes, to a point. Beyond that, we owe it to ourselves (and to all the writers out there of whom most of us will be forever envious) not to let product collapse under the weight of principle.

You are not the Maître d'. Vandals are not tipping you fifteen percent. So please, Splash, show some loyalty to the project, or request deadminship. Thanks. —freak(talk) 07:13, Oct. 25, 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you reconsider your tone here, and perhaps maybe even offer a shred of evidence. This is an arbitration request. Act like it. Dmcdevit·t 17:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long diatribe by ElC

Here we go again. While Splash appears more aggressive and less understated than the last time around, there is no reason why the filer of this RfAr should forgoe any pressing attempts at communication. And I'd hardly characterize sloppy hour/day/fortnight(!) conversions as wheelwarring. I'm becoming increasingly weary of seeing failed arbitration requests cited as the attempt at dispute resolution. I suspect the Committee feels the same. What else. Freak's "loyalty to the project" strikes me as rather over-the-top and disproportional to the issues he cites. Significantly, we have to remember that Anons are an integral part of the project and that a sizable portion of whom do not wish to actively participate in the community (as is their right — let say, those editors who may now and then, uncontroversially, add the odd paragraph but otherwise do not become further involved as Wikipedians). For those editors, then, who find their dynamic ip was blocked due to no fault of their own (i.e. prior, a vandal using that ip), a clear duration is helpful/polite, as they may not bother with {{unblock}} requests. This particular group of editors may be more sizable than some think. That said, if an ip/account earns any xfortnight block duration, let them use a calculator and/or read the fortnight entry on Wikipedia (it'll do em good). Finally, CSCWE's block entries are of comic value. Yes, yes, we're building an encyclopedia and all, but we need some smiles and laughs along the way. That is not a mere aside, but an important cost-benefit factor all on its own! Thus, this case should be rejected and the respective parties should attempt to talk the matter through (outside AN/I). Then RfC, or possibly attempt admiиmediation; if formal MedCom proves too slow, there's always the Mediation Cabal (I thought Ideogram was available, but I don't see him/her listed *sniff* :( — what's up with that, Mediation Cabal coordinator Kylu?!) But I digress! El_C 12:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the unprotections, Alkivar? Is there anything new on that front? Did you attempt to raise the issue on his talk page, recently? El_C 15:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • What's the point here? Is this a wheel-warring case, and/or a retread of the cited September case that was thrown out? That was about page protections, this seems to be about blocking. If the assertion is that Splash wheel-wars and is a non-collegiate admin, we may have to look at it. If this is some unresolved gripes around the edges, I'd say this is for knocking heads together. Charles Matthews 13:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given Alkivar's reply on this, I'm not inclined to accept. If there is no RfC on this, and yet there are some running-sore issues that cut broadly across a number of editors, I'm asking why not. I think censures may have less effect than pointing out that people here have to get on with each other. This may be worse than appears to me right now, but we ask for prior attempts to resolve disputes. They may resolve the dispute, or they may clarify it. In this case either of those would be a good result. Charles Matthews 15:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Charles Matthews 12:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Accusations of whel warring seem unfounded. No attempts at dispute resolution at all. Dmcdevit·t 17:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject Fred Bauder 21:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Presley (User Onefortyone)

Initiated by Lochdaleat 23:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

  • Lochdale
  • Onefortyone
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This matter (and this user) has been subject to several [blocks],[arbitration] (which was reopened several times) and [and banning] before.

Statement by Lochdale

This request for arbitration is as a result of one User's obsession with the Presley article. He continues to add questionable materials to the article and backs it up by either obscure or selective quotations. This matter has been going on for more than a year and has involved User Onefortyone in numerous edit wars. He has created other pages simply to continue to push his agenda (See here] and his numerous edits to this [article]). He has been roundly criticzed by his own [mentor] and by another editor [here]. Whenever he is backed into a corner he routinely accuses the other contributor of being a sockpuppet (See [here] and [here]. They are the actions of a quintisential bully. His current edits to the Presley article include a section called [The Elvis Cult and its critics"] which is ladden with POV and original research or selective quotation of obscure articles that very few people other than Onefortyone has read. When compared to other articles of a similar vein such as John Lennon the Presley article lacks credibility and lends weight to criticisms of Wikipedia itself. I don't see how this issue can go away (as it has gone of for so long) unless this user is curtailed from pushing his agenda. Thanks. Lochdale 23:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Onefortyone

User:Lochdale seems to be an Elvis Presley fan (see this contribution or this discussion) whose primary aim is to harass me from the beginning of his appearance on Wikipedia. The majority of his edits deal with Presley and my contributions to the Elvis Presley page. He is frequently deleting my edits, although they are well sourced. See, for instance, [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. [39], etc. etc. I don't think that this is O.K.

I do not understand what should be wrong with my edits, as I contributed to many different sections of the article (Elvis's youth, his parents, his music, his manager Colonel Tom Parker, his movies, his relationships, his consumption of drugs, the allegations of racism, the FBI files on Elvis, the Elvis cult and its critics, etc.) and all of my contributions are supported by many independent sources. I have quoted from mainstream biographies, books on the rock 'n' roll era and university studies. Other users are also of the opinion that the critical section on the 'The Elvis cult and its critics', which was recently created by me but frequently deleted by Lochdale (see [40], [41]), includes "a lot of great information " but needs some rewording. See this discussion and this one, in which another user says, "I still think removing it was a little bit extreme. It was filled with facts, lots of it. Both about those who liked elvis and those who did not like him." However, Lochdale repeatedly deleted the whole paragraph.

Significantly, Lochdale has not yet contributed a single paragraph of some significance to the Elvis article. Instead, his first edits were attacks against me. See his first contribution here, and other early contributions.

Lochdale frequently, and intentionally, makes false declarations. In his very first contribution, for instance, he falsely claimed that Albert Goldman, who has written a critical biography on Elvis, "made no reference or inference that Elvis was gay or bi-sexual. Indeed, no credible source has ever made that sort of assertion." The facts clearly prove that Lochdale is wrong. In his Elvis book of 1981, Goldman indeed suggests that Elvis's promiscuity masked latent homosexuality. Some other published books on Elvis and a recent article by Elvis expert Alanna Nash say that the singer may have had a homosexual relationship/affair with his close friend Nick Adams. However, as these claims are controversial, some months ago I refrained, as a compromise, from re-including them in the Elvis article.

What is more, Lochdale is frequently, and without evidence, questioning the sources I have used and has also falsely claimed on the Elvis talk page that Guralnick "NEVER suggests Adams and Presley were together". See [42]. Indeed, Guralnick describes their close friendship in his book which is also proved by many photographs. See [43], [44], [45], etc. Guralnick writes that the singer "was hanging out more and more with Nick and his friends" and that Elvis was glad Colonel Tom Parker "liked Nick." (Last Train to Memphis: The Rise of Elvis Presley, p.336, 339) The same author also says that during the first year of their friendship, Presley showed Adams Memphis and other places which were important to the singer, for instance, Humes and "the Tiplers at Crown Electric" (Guralnick, Last Train to Memphis, p.339-340). And he emphasizes that in Hollywood, it "was good running around with Nick ... – there was always something happening, and the hotel suite was like a private clubhouse where you needed to know the secret password to get in and he got to change the password every day" (Last Train to Memphis, p.410). Elaine Dundy, also a reputable Elvis biographer, writes that Adams was Elvis's closest friend, but Lochdale is frequently removing the well-sourced quote from the article, falsely claiming that it is POV, although the direct source (Dundy), is given. See [46], [47], [48], etc.

Lochdale has also falsely claimed that Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley, "never lived with Presley", although it is a historical fact that Presley's father, his new wife Dee and Elvis lived together for a period of time at Graceland. In her book Elvis and Gladys (2004), Elaine Dundy writes (p.329-330) "that Vernon had settled down with Dee where Gladys [Elvis's mother] had once reigned, while Dee herself - when Elvis was away - had taken over the role of mistress of Graceland so thoroughly as to rearrange the furniture and replace the very curtains that Gladys had approved of." On page 213 of his book, Hero Myths: A Reader (Blackwell Publishing, 2000), Robert Segal says, "Soon after Dee Presley became part of the family, Elvis showed her a picture of Priscilla, commenting that Priscilla was special to him."

So much for the reliability of this user who has the audacity to take me to arbitration and to claim that my contributions are POV and original research and that I am pushing an agenda. Lochdale is the person who is pushing an agenda by frequently removing paragraphs he doesn't like from the Elvis article.

To sum up: As everybody can see, I am a frequent contributor to the Elvis article, dealing with many different topics. On the other hand, Lochdale's history, as a whole, shows that his primary aim is to remove well-sourced passages I have written. He is constantly, and falsely, claiming that my edits are filled with POV and original research, which is not true as all of my sources are cited. Significantly, he himself seems to support the Trivia section of the article which primarily includes fan stuff. See this discussion.

As there is such a long-time edit war between us two, there was some suspicion that Lochdale may be identical or somehow related to multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes, my opponent in former edit wars. See [49]. The arbcom knows that Ted Wilkes was frequently engaged in deleting or rewriting passages concerning the homosexuality of personalities. Therefore, this user was banned from any article related to homo- or bisexuality by the arbcom, but his sockpuppets continued editing on the topic. Therefore, he is now banned for one year. Interestingly, Lochdale also removed paragraphs from Wikipedia articles that dealt with gay-related topics, as Wilkes repeatedly did in the past. See [50], [51], [52], [53]. And he frequently removed well-sourced paragraphs which proved that Elvis had problems with heterosexual relationships. See, for instance, [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]. Indeed, Lochdale's very first edits were on the question whether Elvis may have had homosexual leanings, very astonishing for a new user who apparently appeared on the Wikipedia scene for the first time and claimed not to be an Elvis fan. See [59], [60], [61], [62].

Interestingly, some IPs used by Wilkes in the past have claimed similar things as Lochdale. For instance, IP 66.61.69.65 admits to be in close contact with many of Elvis's friends, former employees and family, and claims that Elvis, while married, slept with hundreds of other women, that his step-mother Dee is mentally unstable, etc. (see [63]). IP 24.165.212.202 similarly admits to be "someone who knew Elvis all of his life" and says, "There have been over 2,000 books written about Elvis, and only 2 (two) of them mention him being gay": [64]. IP 66.61.69.65 also says that "there have been over 2000 books published on Elvis and they most factual and honest of them were penned by the MM." See [65]. Significantly, User:Lochdale was also constantly talking about "over 2,000 books written on Elvis".

Lochdale even said on 19 December 2005, "I thought we already had this discussion before with onefortyone and I believe the consensus was that you should stop posting on this issue." See [66]. How should a new user know all this, if he was not deeply involved in this kind of discussion months or years before under a different user identity?

To my mind, it could well be that Lochdale is somehow related to Ted Wilkes or, alternatively, part of an Elvis fan group of which Wilkes is also a member. It may be no coincidence that he is using the same strategy as Wilkes alias DW did in the past over and over again: deliberately claiming things that are not true but support his own view, attacking other users who do not agree with him, and removing content which is not in line with his personal opinion. It should also be noted that Wilkes repeatedly took other users and even administrators to arbitraton. Is this just mere coincidence? However, a request for checkuser about the matter didn't provide evidence that Lochdale's and Wilkes's IPs are identical. Notwithstanding, I am not yet convinced that there is really no connection between Lochdale and Wilkes. Administrator Jtdirl admitted that the edit histories of both users are "strikingly similar". To my mind, there are far too many coincidences in this case that still suggest a link between Lochdale and Wilkes. It should be noted that DW alias Ted Wilkes operated under many different IPs and, in order to disguise his real identity, seems to have used lots of different PCs.

However, Lochdale may not be identical with this user, but there is the possibility that Lochdale may be a meatpuppet. To my mind, it could well be that there is a small circle of Elvis fans who are part of the world-wide Elvis industry which has already been criticized by Professor David S. Wall. These fans may know each other and, alternately, are deliberately harassing me by repeatedly deleting my contributions and accusing me of pushing an agenda, simply because some of my critical edits, which are supported by many independent sources and help to get a balanced view of Elvis, are not in line with their all too positive view of the megastar, although I am very carefully, and frequently, citing my sources, because I am under probation. Indeed, all of my contributions are well sourced. Among these many independent sources are reputable Elvis biographies, books on the rock 'n' roll era and critical university studies. What should be wrong with this? On the other hand, I have not yet seen a single contribution by Lochdale that includes a direct quote from a reputable published source concerning Elvis Presley. All he can do is removing my contributions. That's the difference between us two.

Shorter statement by User:Onefortyone

User:Lochdale's primary aim is to harass me from the beginning of his appearance. The majority of his edits deal with Presley and my contributions to the Elvis Presley page. He frequently deletes my edits, although they are supported by mainstream biographies, books on the rock 'n' roll era and university studies. See [67], [68], [69], [70], [71]. [72], etc. Other users also think that the section on the 'The Elvis cult and its critics', which was frequently deleted by Lochdale (see [73], [74]), includes "a lot of great information", is "filled with facts" etc. See [75], [76].

Lochdale has not yet contributed a single paragraph of some significance to the Elvis article. Instead, he frequently questions the sources I have used. His first edits were attacks against me. See [77], [78].

Lochdale repeatedly, and intentionally, made false declarations. He claimed that Albert Goldman "made no reference or inference that Elvis was gay or bi-sexual." In fact, Goldman suggests that Elvis's promiscuity masked latent homosexuality. Lochdale claimed that Guralnick "NEVER suggests Adams and Presley were together". See [79]. Indeed, Guralnick describes their close friendship in Last Train to Memphis, p.336, 339-340, 410 etc. See also [80], [81], [82]. Elaine Dundy, another reputable Elvis biographer, writes that Adams was Elvis's closest friend, but Lochdale frequently removes the quote from the article. See [83], [84], [85]. Lochdale also falsely claimed that Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley, "never lived with Presley", although they lived together at Graceland. See Dundy, Elvis and Gladys, p.329-330; Robert Segal, Hero Myths: A Reader (2000), p.213. So much for the reliability of this user.

Lochdale is the person who is pushing an agenda by frequently removing paragraphs he doesn't like. Lochdale's history shows that his primary aim is to remove my texts, claiming that they are filled with POV and original research, although all of my sources are cited.

There was some suspicion that Lochdale may be identical or somehow related to multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes, my opponent in former edit wars. See [86]. Like Wilkes, Lochdale removed paragraphs that dealt with gay-related topics (see [87], [88], [89], [90], [91]) and Elvis's problems with heterosexual relationships (see [92], [93], [94], [95], [96]). Lochdale's first edits were on Elvis's possible homosexual leanings, very astonishing for a user who apparently appeared on Wikipedia for the first time. See [97], [98], [99], [100]. Some IPs used by Wilkes claimed similar things as Lochdale, for instance, that "over 2,000 books written on Elvis" allegedly contradict my edits (see [101]). IP 24.165.212.202 said, "There have been over 2,000 books written about Elvis, and only 2 (two) of them mention him being gay": [102]. See also IP 66.61.69.65.

Lochdale even said on 19 December 2005, "I thought we already had this discussion before with onefortyone and I believe the consensus was that you should stop posting on this issue." See [103]. How should a new user know all this, if he was not deeply involved in this kind of discussion months or years before under a different user identity?

To my mind, it could well be that Lochdale is somehow related to Wilkes or, alternatively, part of an Elvis fan group of which Wilkes is also a member. Wilkes repeatedly took other users and administrators to arbitration. However, checkuser said that Lochdale and Wilkes have different IPs. Notwithstanding, Administrator Jtdirl admitted that the edit histories of both users are "strikingly similar". However, Lochdale may not be Wilkes, but he may be a meatpuppet.

Observations by uninvolved editor User:Wizardry_Dragon

At first, I was unsure why this case is being brought forth to the Abitration Comittee. The user in question has been barred from editting the topic, they persisted, and their ban should be renewed. Their behaviour has been conistently destructive to the community and they have been subject to administrative action for it. [104] [105]. The prior arbitration is balanced, and still relevant. I feel the remedies there should be enforced.

That said, User:Lochdale's conduct has not been exemplary either. He has been edit-warring against the reversions and additions of Onefourtyone, and that editor's probationary status is not a ticket to bypass the Three Revert Rule and other rules of Wikipedia. (S)He has been removing content that (s)he does not agree with, which is against the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View guidelines. The edits of Onefourtyone are not the only case where he has done this.

In short, I find there's enough misconduct on both sides to warrant a case - however that descision is not mine to make :)

I did some mining in the edit history of the article. The following edits may be of use to the ArbCom should they accept this case:

Edits by Onefortyone

Possible POV-Pushing:

Some edit-warring:

Edits by Lochdale

Possible POV-Pushing:

Definetely POV-Pushing:

Some edit-warring:

This only goes back 150 edits. I didn't want to mine too far in case the case is not heard.

Statement by totally uninvolved editor User:JBKramer

Onefourtyone is on probabtion regarding his conduct on bios of celebrities from his prior arbcomm remidy (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone#Onefortyone_placed_on_Probation). He was, in fact, banned from the Elvis article by Jkelly from 27 July to 27 September. [120]. Is this issue ripe for ArbCom, or does the prior remidy suffice? JBKramer 20:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, I am on probation since 2005 for including one or two passages in the Elvis Presley article which were not well sourced, and significantly, it was my old opponent User:Ted Wilkes who took me to arbitration. This user was banned for one year in March, and from that time on all of my contributions were, and are, well sourced. Second, this year I was banned from the Elvis article for some time by an administrator who was part of the edit war. Very interesting indeed, but I didn't take this case to arbitraton. See [121], [122]. Third, after that ban expired, as a compromise, I did no longer add the controversial material to the article which supports the view that Elvis may have had an affair with Nick Adams, although some sources say that this was the case. Indeed, the last few months I have only contributed well-sourced material to Wikipedia, frequently citing every source I have used. Other users do support these contributions. User:Lochdale seems to be the only user who frequently deletes what I have written. He is the driving force in the edit war. So why should this issue be ripe for arbcom? Because an Elvis fan does not like critical material contributed to the article? Onefortyone 20:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I believe that this issue is ripe again given Onefortyone's obsession with the Presley article. For example, he just misquoted me (which goes to selective quotation/editing) when he says that I misquoted Guralnik (considered the best Presley biographer) when I said Guralnik never placed Adams and Presley together. Sure he put them together but in no way, shape or form does he suggest they were anything but friends. A minor quibble but it goes to the general issue that this user misquotes or cleverly uses quotes from reputable sources to buttress less than questionable sources. Lastly, he once again resorts to the bullying tactics of calling someone a sockpupper or a meat puppet or part of a non-existent Presley 'cabal'. [Here]is another example of what is, in effect, an attempt to bully other usersI think it is telling that a number of editors have banned this user before. I may be guilty of careless editing but at least my motives are sanguine. Lochdale 21:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I think I did it again above! Lochdale 21:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved editor Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo

I’m not involved directly in this dispute or have even edited on the articles in question, though I came across it when voting in the deletion of Laurens Johannes Griessel-Landau and also the FA nomination for elvis presley. Unfortunately, my opinion on both resulted in me being accused of being a suckpuppet by this user onefortyone [123]. In light of the FA nomination I decided to have a look at some of the edits that were being made to the elvis article, and it appears (correct me if I’m wrong) that Onefortyone has recently violated his/her previous arbiration ruling which I’ve just had a look at[124]. The following statement was added to the elvis article by user onefortyone [125] (followed by others also relating to Elvis' sex-life): “Elvis, according to his own words, didn't make love to [Anita Wood].”, which was claimed to be cited from a book called ‘Elvis and Me’. I checked out the source, and found that not only does the statement in question not exist, but it is directly contradicted by this excerpt from the book itself (p.98) (you can find it using amazon [126]):

(Priscilla) "You mean you didn't make love to [Anita Wood] the whole four years you went with her?" (elvis) "Just to a point. Then I stopped. It was difficult for her too, but that's just how I feel”.

Maybe instead of starting a new arbitration, the previous one could be properly enforced first. I don’t have time to check and verify – nor do I really want to either – all the other supposedly well sourced information that has been added to articles by this user, but someone should because I suspect that, like the edit I just mentioned, there is some more fabrication going on. Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 11:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Community Ban for User:Brya

Initiated by --Berton 00:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Request for comments, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Brya Attempt at mediation refused. The facts occurred in this here and in this page here compare with this here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive18#Community_ban_of_Brya.3F

Statement by Berton

I request an arbitration against Users Pschemp, InShaneee and Moe Epsilon, based on the fact that these users abused of the sysops power and they had a behavior frankly hostile, threatening me several times of block and blocking User:Brya without previous consultation to the community to see if would be consensus for an indefinite community ban, what clearly demonstrates a violation of WP:Blocking policy. User: InShaneee tried to be frightened threatening of blockade, well that is a total outrage, besides being an insane attitude, because I think we are civilized people and that are not in a jungle, where a wild animal bites the other unaware! We have to solve the differences in a civilized way and not this stupid way. I believe that a punishment for this type of hostile and abusive behavior on the part of sysops should be exemplary. Besides User:Moe Epsilon removed my comments of the page and deleted them.

After reflecting too much, I withdrawn my accusations against the users InShaneee and Moe Epsilon. -Berton 23:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pschemp

Not sure what Berton is playing at here, or why he's started arbitration after statements like "The fact is this Wikipedia is no doubt an example of DIGITAL MAOISM and I will not contribute anymore. Berton 22:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)." There is a perfectly rational discussion about User:Brya going on at the moment on ANI and the project page with the rest of the community, but since Berton disagrees with the rest of the community (and he is the only one) he seems to think that arbitration is needed. It isn't, there is nothing to arbitrate here. Its been made clear that Brya's block is preventative while his subtle vandalism and POV pushing is sorted out. This filing is nothing more than more disruption by a user who isn't getting his way. Certainly that's obvious if you read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive141#Is_a_community_ban_appropriate_in_this_case.3F and especially the AN thread. Also, contrary to his claims, Berton has never requested mediation with me. pschemp | talk 00:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note that Improv has a couple facts wrong down there. One, McDarwin started the poll on TOL, not Petaholmes, and the original discussion was started in a very public forum on ANI, and during that discussion the poll was created and linked ot get some more people (who don't read ANI) and are more familiar with the editor to look at it. Calling it obscure and non-public in his closing is thus not quite true. Also, in reply to CBD, at the time I posted my statement, there was no one else who agreed with Berton. I have said all along, the current block is preventative while the community sorts out what is going on only. Again, I'd like to state that the community is handling this just fine, and no one else is up in arms and ranting about Digital Maoism as Berton is. Certainly there is no administrator misconduct such as Berton claims going on. pschemp | talk 21:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reblocked Brya since he added arguments to the Tree of Life page after he was unblocked by CBD and specifically asked not to edit any page but this and his talk. pschemp | talk 14:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moe Epsilon

  1. If I wasn't rolling on the floor laughing at the this poorly misguided user and this sorry excuse of an RFAr, I would try to be more serious
  2. I am not a sysop, so you cannot desysop me, which sort of proves you don't have your facts straight.
  3. Your statement saying that I deleted comments is technically incorrect. I cannot delete something, again, I'm not an admin. I redirected the conversation to one point so it could stay in one place.
  4. pschemp and InShaneee were in the right to block a disruptive user how has committed vandalism, engaged in non-NPOV discussions, and inserted original research into Wikipedia. Sysops don't need approval for some things and this is one of them. They are now conducting a Straw Poll to determine what the length of the block should be.
  5. The only purpose of this RFAr is cause more attention to Berton and the banned user and goes against WP:POINT.
  6. The only thing this RFAr could serve as is evidence of how disruptive Berton has been on WP:AN/I, WP:AN and now WP:RFAr. He has completely blown a tiny issue out of proportion and is causing unneeded stress to the community.

Update: Berton has dropped any accusations against me and InShaneee. [127] Regards — Moe 00:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Petaholmes

I started the discussion about a community ban for Brya since he has, and continues to violate several key wikipedia policies like OWN, NOR, CIVIL; I thought it was an obvious case that did not need ArbCom intervention and previous attempts at mediation have been refused. Everyone who commented on AN/I, with the exception of the party asking for arbitration, supported a ban. I think this is clear case of the community enforcing accepted standards of behaviour; nothing has occured out of process; I urge the ArbCom to refuse this case.--Peta 02:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by InShaneee

I don't see that there's much that I can say here; the above users are completely in the right that this is a big, loud, noisy WP:POINT violation. I exchanged I think two comments with this user, I haven't blocked anyone related to this case, I never recieved any request for mediation, this all happened, what, yesterday? And frankly, I hope this user IS blocked following this case as he is wasting everyone's time by demanding that we 'be made an example of'. Yes, I did warn Berton he was on his way to a block, mostly because he showed up on AN:I making wild accusations relating to the 'digital maoism' essay he'd recently posted to his userpage. No community consensus to block? I could have sworn that's precisely what the entire AN:I thread that started this was about! In summary, I can't have abused my sysop powers when I haven't applied any, and Berton has no idea whether I live in a jungle or not. --InShaneee 16:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Update As Moe pointed out above, accusations against him and myself have now been dropped. However, I'd like to reiterate that, whether the block is correct or not, I do not believe there was any administrative wrongdoing here. --InShaneee 14:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CBDunkerson

This is an odd case. A user who had never before been blocked or even, so far as I can see, warned of a possible block is placed under an indefinite community ban... normally I'd be crying foul, but given some legitimate concerns of possible 'sneaky vandalism' involving arcane details of botanical taxonomy and widespread strong animus towards the user I think pschemp made the right call in blocking until it could get sorted out. That said, upon review I do think the charges of 'vandalism' have been overblown and that Brya has likely been 'acting in good faith', if in a contentious way. Berton's strong objections to the block, some incivil comments (e.g. "monster") around it, and threats of himself being blocked are thus also somewhat understandable. Less threats / intimidation / hostility on all sides would be a good thing. Brya seems willing to discuss the issues relatively calmly and I think that is the best course for resolving this. Contrary to some of the statements above, Brya does seem to have a few supporters (e.g. Berton, JoJans, TeunSpaans) and several people who support the block, but are less than happy about it. I don't think any of the incivility in this case has risen to the level of requiring ArbCom attention, but there may be some value in reviewing Brya's conduct and coming up with a more 'official' remedy. There was a RfC back in June which covered some of the issues involved. --CBD 18:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I have unblocked Brya so that he may respond to this request and because after review I have concluded that the charges of 'subtle vandalism' were unfounded. This would not be readily apparent to someone without a careful review and/or some understanding of taxonomy, but I note that it also seems to be the consensus even amongst Brya's critics in that sub-community (except for KP Botany). As there are significant disputes apart from the 'vandalism' charge which might lead to a community ban in their own right I have told Brya not to edit pages other than this one and his own talk for the time being. --CBD 11:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Improv

My involvement in this is minimal and nonpartisan. Petaholmes started a vote on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life for a community ban on Brya. I closed the discussion using templates, noting that this resembled QuickPolls (a very old, now-abandoned way users once were banned through simple community votes) too strongly, and was problematic for many of the same reasons QuickPolls were - that Brya did not have ample opportunity to defend himself (being blocked), that bans should come from careful arguments by policy or trusted judgement (admins in some cases, ArbCom, etc). I hope that closing that poll that way was appropriate, but if it was not, I am open to correction by the Arbitration Committee. --Improv 19:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I started a discussion on AN/I. Someone else made a poll on ToL. --Peta 12:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrDarwin

I believe the accusations of vandalism against Brya are inaccurate and unfair. What was interpreted as vandalism is, in my opinion, just some sloppy editing and the addition of poorly worded (and occasionally erroneous) material combined with a very aggressive editing style. However I do support at least a temporary block of Brya for other reasons: Brya's unwillingness to cooperate or compromise with other editors, incivility towards other editors, POV pushing, assertion of ownership of numerous articles and refusal to allow other editors to touch those articles. Berton may have a very small point, that the block may have been done for the wrong reasons, but in my opinion was the right thing to do anyway. If the block is lifted, I would expect to see some indication that Brya understands some of the most basic Wikipedia policies. I have had serious conflicts of my own with Brya, so I am hardly an uninvolved third party, but would note that numerous other editors have had similar conflicts and have similar reservations about Brya (as the now-closed poll I initiated--and BTW advertised, and linked to, in 3 different places--demonstrated). MrDarwin 15:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Curtis Clark

In my estimation, the original actions that precipitated all this were Brya's incivility toward other editors, and Brya's unwillingness to accept edits to articles or sections of articles that he felt he had perfected, effectively causing edit wars. I have seen cases where similar actions from a new user resulted rather immediately in warnings about being blocked; it is a tribute to Brya's standing in the community at that time that no one chose to add a template warning to his user page.

The effect of Brya's incivility and POV-pushing has been to polarize a community that generally functioned smoothly before, and to discourage other editors from approaching entire classes of articles that Brya was actively editing and reverting. This is independent of the "correctness" of Brya's edits: (1) the disruption has diminished botany in Wikipedia overall, (2) the controversies and resulting polarization have detracted from reasoned interchange about accuracy and verifiability, and (3) entire articles (Paleodicots) have been "tainted".

Admittedly, many other editors have not reacted well or appropriately to Brya's (or Berton's) incivility. Nevertheless, it is Brya's actions that began the conflict. It is my philosophy on Wikipedia to avoid doing anything that would not be tolerated from an anon or new user. Were Brya an anon, or even a new user, he would have been blocked long before.--Curtis Clark 16:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KP Botany 18:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Even while being blocked from edits, Brya has posted a personal attack about me on her talk page:

"The block, in a middle of a discussion, on a false (not to say fabricated) pretext, of a user who made some forty edits in the past six weeks (mostly on Talk pages) because he is such an immediate danger, is telling. Some people are very afraid of the facts, indeed. Brya 15:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)"

Brya referenced "paleodicots" to APG II, but implied the accusation was about her creating the page. Mine was neither a false nor fabricated pretext, Brya simply attempted to make it appear so.

A check of my contributions shows that I have made substantially more than 40 edits--Brya's attempt to disparage my number of edits "forty ... in the past six weeks" is simply a nagative personal comment, a personal attack on me, and a false one, to put me down as a newcomer to Wikipedia.

"Some people are very afraid of the facts, indeed," is the type of personal attack by Brya that keeps editors away from the botany pages at Wikipedia and allows Brya's incorrect references to APG II, Brya's italics edit wars, and Brya's creation, "APG III," to be spread through Cyberspace with Wikipedia's stamp on it.

KP Botany 18:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brya 13:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to start by repeating that I never "pushed" anything except NPoV, solid references and internal consistency." For the sake of demonstrating my non-aggressive behaviour two examples where I addressed a clear and demonstrable error: here (with a simultaneous note here) and here. In both cases I made only the single edit. Note that what I inserted in the second case is exactly lifted from Art 16 of the ICBN which covers forming these names. The phrase in this article is as wrong as can be, and is still there even now. No pushing. Most of the cases that got everybody so excited are pages I maintain, mostly pages I created. In most cases no serious edits were made on these pages, that is additions of content or perspective. In general these were drive-by insertions. For a more detailed discussion see user:Brya/Arbitration.

It was mentioned that I feel that "my" pages are perfected. This is not so. I do regard them as of being well above the average article on plants. Any examination of such a page will show my going back to correct errors expand content, etc. Basically I have no objection to other editors adding material, etc, but this should not entail too bad a drop in standards.

Another issue mentioned is that of edit summaries. As many of my edits are of a minimalistic nature, dealing with basic facts, an edit summary is no more than a heads-up. In my book, any competent editor will go back to an authoritative source, preferably more than one, and verify things personally, before making an edit himself. Editing on the basis of an edit summary is no better than acting on hearsay. Thus, an attempt-to-convince-by-an-edit-summary in my book is an insult, suggesting that other editors are incompetent to look up the facts for themselves (or to lazy to do so).

I cannot say I know user:InShaneee, user:Moe Epsilon or user:pschemp and do not see they went wildly out of line. But neither was this an exemplary action. I am not well versed in wikipedia procedures, so I will not comment beyond the fact that precipitous action against a user who is not particularly active, based on a single edit (the supposed creation of the palaeodicot page) even after it is shown that this edit did not take place (this supposition being based on a misreading), does look sloppy to me.

I do wish to thank user:Berton, who made an appeal above and beyond the call of duty. Of course it is true that Berton's awareness of things botanical exceeds his ability to express himself with due care. Knowing Berton, at least a little, I am sure any unpleasant expression he made was motivated more by his awareness of the state of affairs surrounding plant articles in wikipedia than by any personal animosity towards the people mentioned. Brya 13:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: for a comment on KP Botany's Statement see here Brya 13:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Accept. Seems to be just enough disagreement about this that a more binding decision by arbcom after considering the evidence may be helpful. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Charles Matthews 20:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are these acceptances to review the community ban? If so, I see consensus on the matter and no one has pointed out any of rya's promises to reform if allowed back. Are they about the supposed administrative misconduct Berton started this request for? Those claims seem preposterous based on the case presented. Are they, most reasonably, about incivility from Berton? Even in that case, I think it would be premature (at least, that hasn't been the focus of evidence presented so far). Reject until something sensibly arbitrable is brought forth. Dmcdevit·t 01:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept to consider manual of style issues and consensus regarding style Fred Bauder 18:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

There is no prior case from which a motion can proceed therefore this motion is out of process. The case that was proposed but not proceeded with dealt with admin abilities only ("This is a request for review of admin status" and "This is a request that his administrative status be reviewed."[128]) which is no longer an issue, nor is there a community ban against me as that proposal was defeated. This is therefore a request for probation for a case where there has never been a "trial" and is therefore inappropriate. If and when there is some sort of disruptive editing it would be in order to pursue an RFA through normal channels but this sort of a priori action is out of order. However, this request has been prompted not by "disruptive editing" but by content dispute and is an attempt by the person who prompted it to gain advantage in a content dispute through administrative means. I suggest that ArbComm members who wish to support this talk to Jimbo *first*. At the very least no action should be taken without a full and fresh RFA being undertaken. 74.98.234.104 12:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Homey' is Homeontherange (talk · contribs), who has been a party to three Arbitration requests - most recently, Israeli apartheid which closed last month. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 15:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A "full and fresh" RFA would involve many extraneous issues. The purpose of the motion is to clarify the conditions Homey may edit under. Fred Bauder 15:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current motion against Homey is, in fact, out of process and inappropriate.

Certain editors seem to be under the impression that the user formerly known as "Homey" is (i) forbidden from editing under a different name, and (ii) forbidden from engaging in content disputes on certain subjects. Neither assertion is accurate.

Many of these same editors have themselves been conducting a campaign of harrassment against "Homey" over a period of several months. Tactics have included dubious 3RR blocks, unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry, threats of de-sysoping and attempts to resolve content disputes through the administrative process. These actions were always unjustified, and remain so now.

I would encourage Fred Bauder to reconsider his support for the present measure.

I will also note that HotR's having been a party to three arbitration requests is irrelevant (perhaps prejudicial) to the present discussion. The Israeli apartheid case involved several administrators, and was primarily focused on the actions of SlimVirgin and JayJG. No credible charges of misconduct were made against him in the other cases, both of which were resolved in his favour. CJCurrie 19:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways - request reexamination of probation ruling

I'm told this is the appropriate place to come for this appeal. In July, I was placed on probation as part of the decision in this RfA. I do not believe this decision was just, and I have chosen not to participate as an editor at Wikipedia rather than continue editing while subject to an unjust probation. In the nearly four months since that decision, I believe, subsequent events have demonstrated rather starkly that arbitrator Fred Bauder's initial assessment of the cause of the dispute was correct, and that JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and I should never have been placed on probation in relation to this matter. In addition, the underlying dispute has been harmoniously resolved, which suggests that the need for probation, assuming such need ever existed in the first place, has now ended. Accordingly, I request that this probation be formally lifted. Thank you. —phh (t/c) 01:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motion made at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FHighways.23Probation. Fred Bauder 20:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Androids in Dragon Ball

discussion removed

Folks, this is the section of the page for clarification of prior arbitration rulings. The dispute resolution process may be found here. Thatcher131 02:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndon LaRouche

User:SlimVirgin reverted this edit by 172.194.169.47, with no editing memo explanation. I didn't see the need to do that, so I put the external link back in this edit. SlimVirgin then left a message on my talk page implying that I could be blocked for doing so. I asked for clarification as to whether she was threatening me with a block, and she replied with these words.

I don't plan to replace the external link on the Lyndon LaRouche article, but I would like to know whether SlimVirgin is accurately describing the Arbitration Committee ruling, and whether it really applies to an external link on the Lyndon LaRouche article. There are about 19 footnotes and external links to LaRouche websites on the Lyndon LaRouche article. Are they all forbidden by the Arbitration ruling as well? If not, what makes this particular link different? Please post your answer at Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Policy_Question so that other editors will be aware of it. Thanks in advance for your time. --ManEatingDonut 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin may have been confused. The relevant ArbCom ruling, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche, states:
  • Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.
Thus, LaRouche sources may be used for LaRouche articles. However the link that was added was not relevant to the biography of Lyndon LaRouche, and should haev been remoevd for that reason, not for violating this ruling. -Will Beback 03:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, for the benefit of the ArbCom, the issue is that the LaRouche publication ManEatingDonut wanted to link to was about a living person.
Will, I would interpret the ArbCom rulings as meaning that LaRouche publications may not be used as sources about third parties, regardless of whether it's in articles about LaRouche or elsewhere. (There's the ruling you quoted, and there was mention of the issue during a case involving Chip and again in relation to Cognition, but I'd have to search for them.) ArbCom apart, the content policies indicate that LaRouche publications may only be used in articles about the LaRouche movement to make points about that movement, and may not be used as third-party sources, whether in articles about LaRouche or anywhere else. The relevant policies are WP:BLP and WP:V. The latter says that sources of dubious reliability — defined as "sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight" — may be used in articles about themselves so long as the material "does not involve claims about third parties ..." SlimVirgin (talk) 07:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SlimVirgin is correct here. The ban on LaRouche publications being used for any other subject than LaRouche and related subjects includes attempts to get around it by talking about other people on the LaRouche articles. LaRouche publications are useful sources about LaRouche's views about LaRouche himself and his organisations / affiliated parties, but are not acceptable sources about anyone or anything else. Will Beback is also correct that in any case the link given was not on topic for the article and thus deletable anyway. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I have looked over the article in question (the one that was the target of the external link) and it appears to me that it is entirely "relevant to the biography of Lyndon LaRouche." It discusses many of LaRouche's various campaigns and issues. It is mainly a rebuttal of the theories of Berlet, theories which dominate most of the Wikipedia articles on LaRouche. But I am mainly interested in a precise clarification of what the Arbitration ruling means, because I have seen Berlet threaten other editors with this ruling as well (see Talk:National_Caucus_of_Labor_Committees#Disputed.) Perhaps there should be clarification on this example as well. The edit that appears to have provoked the threat is here. --ManEatingDonut 15:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The material on the external link mainly concerned Chip Berlet, not LaRouche, thus removal was appropriate. Fred Bauder 20:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there are some allowable circumstances under which links to ED should be allowed? See here for full list of links. Among the hundreds of locations there are links to ED from various arbitration pages, signposts (I think the signposts links are all related to arbitration cases anyway), and numerous archives including AfDs. Could you clarify under which circumstances should these exceptions be made.--Konst.ableTalk 04:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox: clarification on what to do for other user/ Extraordinary Machine

I'm having a major ongoing issue regarding an inappropriate block and a massive misuse of sysop abilities, and I wouldn't be surprised if one thinks I'm simply placing this here because Veltan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User talk:Velten was protected not long ago. I am editing from an IP address because the original operator of Eternal_Equinox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wants to return to Wikipedia, but does not want to use the same account as I (Hollow_Wilerding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) currently am. I'll understand if this is removed, but there's no other way to ask this as of now.

While I'm here, I'd like to request something of the arbitration committee. In the past few weeks, I've been receiving increasingly abusive blocks from Extraordinary_Machine (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) which range from reasons such as "removed a template that I think should have stayed there" to assuming that I've edited from an IP address when it can't be proven. Again, I'm sure this will be ignored and removed altogether, but his abuse has got to stop. I'd provide diffs, but most are currently on User talk:Velten and I'm not up to it since this is likely not going to stay here. If I'm going to be placed on an ArbCom decision, there are going to be circumstances under which I can become blocked, because EM has so far abused it to his likening, which is evident through the following:

  • First I made two edits to Loose (album) and Promiscuous (song) where we held a debate. Extraordinary Machine kept reminding me that I'm not supposed to engage in edit wars, but I was trying to express my view on the matter. He then went ahead and blocked me for a week because of this and called it "harassment".
  • He gives me three-weeks worth of a ban for this and this. How in the world does this warrant a block?
  • Because an IP address (74.117.11.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) edited Cool (song) with a similar edit summary to mine (which I do admit, find somewhat peculiar, and wonder if someone's out to get me), I'm positive Extraordinary Machine used this as an excuse to restart the three-week ban over again. I don't even know who this person is!

I've already waited two a half weeks based on his original ridiculous block. I'm not waiting again for something I didn't do. Can the ArbCom please do something? Thatcher131 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) said that he was concerned about this block and that it wasn't within the ArbCom's scope, which if I look at WP:RFAR/Eternal Equinox, is over two weeks the original punishment. This user is now deliberately trying to keep me away.

Could something be done? 64.231.64.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would comment that it is not a good idea for admins to block in the case of disputes in which they are involved. Stifle (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is permitted, but obviously this is becoming a personal dispute. Another problem is that Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eternal_Equinox#Eternal_Equinox_placed_on_Probation provides that Veltan may only be blocked for the maximum of a week and Extraordinary Machine is passing out 3 week blocks. It is very hard to say if the ip is Veltan, but it does seem likely. The dispute seems remarkably petty. I just don't get it. Fred Bauder 16:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, I don't have any opinion about the dispute between Extraordinary Machine and Eternal Equinox, but we're getting somewhat contradictory clarifications about the maximum block thing. When I requested permission to pageban EE for more than the maximum week back in September[129], Tony Sidaway (clerk) replied, with every appearance of relaying arbcom policy, that there was no maximum: "Arbitration probations are permissive with respect to administrator action; they are not intended to limit administrator action."[130] I assume that's what Extraordinary Machine has been going by. However, Tony also recommended consultation on WP:AN. Perhaps that would be Extraordinary Machine's best policy? The problem with him leaving blocking to other admins is that there are only a few admins who care to, or dare, act in this complicated ArbCom case (see recent posts on User talk:Velten for expressions of this sentiment) and some of us (=me) have no comprehension of the intricacies of pop music articles. You could easily run out of remedy-enforcing admins altogether. Bishonen | talk 17:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
This is a rather long response, so please bear with me. I agree with Bishonen here, with the exception that I wouldn't really say there is a content dispute (if that's what is meant by "dispute"), because a) I'd stopped edit-warring with Velten before the three-week block, or the one-week block for that matter, for reasons I have outlined below, and b) disagreements over article content certainly wasn't Velten's main reason for initiating the dispute:
  1. Firstly, it's already been established (at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox and the evidence subpage) that Eternal Equinox (talk · contribs) and Hollow Wilerding (talk · contribs) are one and the same. Already, alarm bells should be ringing that maybe her comments should be taken with not so much as a grain of salt, but several boxes of Morton's.
  2. The main reason for the week-long block wasn't that she was edit-warring in a manner similar to her conduct on Cool (song) article (over which she attempted to claim ownership), but that she had edited the Promiscuous (song) and Loose (album) articles (and sneakily reverted one of my changes to the former in the process) just hours after I had done so. She has a long history of stalking and harassing other users, including myself; see the RFAr evidence subpage, [131] and [132]. (Velten has said that my evidence can be explained by the fact that we both edit pop music-related articles, which does absolutely nothing to explain her "stalking" edits to my own userspace or articles watchlisted by user:Bishonen and user:Giano, who never edit pop music articles.)
  3. At Talk:Cool (song), user:Velten (Eternal Equinox's new username) removed a link to an old AFD discussion that had been initiated in good faith. She has a history of tampering with other people's comments and attempting to conceal discussions on that talk page that contain comments with which she disagrees; see, for example, [133], [134] (note the edit summary here) and [135]. She also continued to harass me on the Promiscuous (song) and Loose (album) articles, the latter of which I hadn't been edit-warring with her on (partly in an attempt to get her to stop stalking me there, and on other pages, and partly to demonstrate that the blocks had nothing to do with me trying to gain the upper hand in a content dispute). Because of this behaviour, I blocked her for three weeks.
  4. Now Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eternal_Equinox#Remedies says that EE/Velten can be blocked for disruption "up to a week in the event of repeat offenses". If a user is blocked for doing something and then, after removing the relevant messages from their talk page, does the same thing again as soon as they're unblocked, I'd think it would be appropriate to place a longer block. With regard to EE/Velten specifically, user:Bishonen (as he mentioned above) said on this page "I request permission to ban her for more than a week from pages she disrupts. "Up to a week" is a feeble remedy for this editor" [136], to which user:Tony Sidaway replied "[you] can block a disruptive editor for as long as seems reasonable. Arbitration probations are permissive with respect to administrator action; they are not intended to limit administrator action." [137] The next option after one week on the block page dropdown menu was one month, which I thought was unreasonable, so I placed a three week block instead.
  5. Tony Sidaway also said to consult on WP:AN, which I forgot to do initially but did after Velten submitted a request for unblock and user:Thatcher131 expressed concerns to me about the block. I said in my message that if anybody believed the block should be shortened to one week, they could feel free to do so and I wouldn't undo it. No-one undid the block; indeed, no-one other than Thatcher replied to the message. [138] Soon after, JzG (talk · contribs) declined the unblock request (citing Velten's attempts to game the system) [139], after which Velten accused him of not actually reviewing it at all [140].
  6. Later, the 74.117.11.247 (talk · contribs) IP edited Cool (song). The IP originates from the Toronto area [141] [142]; the edit summary was very similar to Velten's, but that wasn't the main tip-off for me. Velten's claims that a Toronto-based IP user editing a Gwen Stefani article, who not only edits it but reverts an edit made the day before, is not her, simply beggars belief. In accordance with Wikipedia:Blocking policy, I reset the block. Velten posted a second request for unblock, including a demand to have my sysop powers suspended [143]; Redvers (talk · contribs) declined it and protected Velten's talk page because of abuse of the {{unblock}} template. [144]
I understand why this may appear "petty", but that's the problem: aside from irritating other users, her disruptive behaviour seems to be designed purely to establish how much she can get away with. "[S]he constantly attacks, trolls, teases, provokes, tries to get a rise, pecks away", Bishonen once said, and I think this sums it up perfectly. Her recent behaviour and comments such as [145] and [146] demonstrate pretty conclusively that her behaviour has changed little (if at all) since she started editing in mid-2005, and that she refuses to acknowledge community concerns. As she's made clear on her talk page and in her editing elsewhere, her view is that she needs (not just wants) to get her way, those who disagree with her are wrong (and haven't read into it, or are misusing their powers and must have them removed immediately, or are making up stories or excuses, or something else), and that's all that needs to be said.
I won't pretend to know what the long term solution is, but I do know that the problem she poses here is extremely serious. Extraordinary Machine 20:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I mean when Extraordinary Machine is simply silly. Here's a long post from me too.

  1. He says it's been established that Eternal Equinox (talk · contribs) and Hollow Wilerding (talk · contribs) are the same editor. That is a rather bold statement since all the editors who participated in the RFAr are under no obligation to assume who is who; they have not met Adam or me and if that indeed was concluded there, it would be out of nothing more than ensuring that only one account be used to edit Wikipedia, even if they felt that there really were more than one person. What alarm bells should be ringing? You need to get your facts straight.
  2. Extraordinary Machine claims that he first blocked Velten because I harrassed him on Loose (album) and Promiscuous (song). There are no signs whatsoever in the past month that indicate I harrassed him — here, here and here. If this is considered "harrassment", I'd hate to see what he considers "personal attacks". We had a disagreement over the inclusion of a chart at Promiscuous (song), and I found it peculiar. On the talk page, he posted this claiming "As well as harassing other users, you should be warned about disrupting articles by edit warring, which your ArbCom case prevents you from doing". The only logical assumption is that he posted the link to the ArbCom case in order to break my defense down in case others read the talk page. They would see that I am a "disruptive user" and agree with his view. He's also done this on Talk:Cool (song), Talk:Mariah Carey and Talk:Pieces of Me.
  3. That request for deletion was not initiated in good faith. You didn't have the right to use that as one of your "reasons" for blocking me. You "considered" it to have been issued properly, but I didn't. Also, could you please provide links within the last four weeks that clearly show I've been "harrassing" you?
  4. So you're saying that you'd place me on a three-week block for making this edit and this edit? Really?
  5. After Thatcher131 (talk · contribs) did not respond to his initial backlash of the three-week block, I assumed he had forgotten about it or was not interested in becoming tangled in the web. I placed an unblock message on my user talk page and was declined by JzG (talk · contribs). He said I was "gaming the system". Immediately I was taken back and absolutely disgusted with this user's response. Gaming the system? What does that mean? This is gaming the system? I posted a statement here claiming that the user was full of nonsense and didn't review my block at all for that very reason. Gaming the system made no sense in this case of a block. Interestingly, one user claimed that my block was indeed overlooked.
  6. 74.117.11.247 (talk · contribs) edited Cool (song) recently with an edit summary that I found very striking because it was written in a style that I typically use; this worried me a great deal because I figured Extraordinary Machine would assume that it was me, which seemed like the only logical case. It was, and he reblocked and told me to stop evading my bans. I said that it was not me and that it was someone out to get me here; I also said in that same edit that if I was going to evade my ban, I wouldn't be stupid enough to make it obvious that it was me by writing a fairly similar edit summary. And today, though I already know this will be overlooked as make believe, I found out it was indeed someone who strongly dislikes me who made those "Velten-like" edits.
  7. Extraordinary Machine claims he reset the three-week Velten ban because of something I said here, which was posted well after he already initiated the block. If anything, he reset the ban upon noticing that the edit summary was similar to mine. Administrators are not supposed to lie to the Wikipedian government.
  8. I request that Extraordinary Machine be banned from blocking me altogether and editing User talk:Velten. At first I accepted his one-week ban because I felt I had abused my ruling, but after that, it was becoming nothing more than a game to him: his power and my weakness. He claims that I'm editing articles that he's edited and even though they are music articles, I have done this to Bishonen and Giano before. That was long ago and I have no intention on interacting with them again. If I am continuously blocked for editing a music article around the same time he does, I'll always be blocked. This is abuse of the ArbCom ruling and he is too involved in the case to be permitted to come to such conclusions.
  9. What am I to do about Adam wanting to edit from an account?
64.231.70.117 01:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, I am concerned that a three wekk ban exceeds the proscribed remedy, and I am also concerned that Extraodinary Machine may be too "involved" at this point to be making the blocks himself. However, I do not know enough about the situation to be comfortable unilaterally overturning the ban. Also, while I understand EM's comment about arbitration remedies being permissive, not limiting, I do note that the remedy is quite specific about allowing Velten to be blocked for a week; after 5 offenses, the maximum block time increases to a year. I personally would perfer to follow that schedule; if Velten is as disruptive as EM says then it won't be long before she reaches the 6th block, which could easily be 3 weeks or a month with no disagreement. Thatcher131 02:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We did not include a block up to a year in this case. Maximum block is a week. Fred Bauder 05:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my mistake for not checking again. Thatcher131 06:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a really obvious problem with the logic being exerted here. This user (a school boy in Canada who uses new account names when blocked, evades blocks routinely, and does this by using his school library's computers, whatever name you want to settle on for him) has consistently gone to assert his will over all others and childishly followed those who have prevented his ownership. Since the user's interest is confined to pop idols, he's going to go into all of them and exert the same basic habits and personality. So, if EM is one of our best pop idol editors who does not engage in hostile editing and doesn't get injunctions laid on him, sooner or later HW/EE/V will show up (not to mention the vindictive element left over from EM's evidence in the rfar) and begin doing the same things he has done consistently. At that point, EM is not an involved editor: EM is an editor who has been involved. I.e. he did not initiate a conflict with EE/HW/V, but had V/EE/HW attach himself to EM's ongoing edits. The block is consistent with trying to prevent continual disruption of editing on these subjects. The RFAR demonstrated that the problem user had been remarkably consistent and unchanged in a year of activity. He has been virtually monomaniacal. We have no past evidence of EM behaving in such a manner, so it's strange to think that he is suddenly "picking on" a user who has demonstrated a deep commitment to violating editing courtesy. Geogre 17:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The theory is that, at some point, he will grow up. Fred Bauder 17:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll drink to that. I just wonder that we're taking his martyrdom seriously at this particular point. He's not really complaining that newbie editor X blocked him, but that one of the people who has managed to work consensually and moderately on pop music has. EM might have been inappropriate, but it's just not as likely as that EE/HE/V has been picking at the article to try to get the last word, over and over and over. Geogre 19:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is little practical difference between a series of one-week blocks and a longer block, except that other editors will have to put up with a small number of disruptive edits to trigger each successive one week block. Without an amendment from Arbcom, it seems that longer blocks are disfavored at this time. I suggest unblocking Velten, and Geogre and I can make ourselves available as uninvolved administrators to reblock, assuming Velten does not "grow up." I already watchlist arbitration enforcement. Will this balance the desire to protect a nice editing environment for productive long-term editors with Arbcom's intent to give Velten a chance to grow up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatcher131 (talk • contribs)
That sounds like a fine idea to me. But I have one problem still: how about EE? He is in fact not a boy, but a 21-year-old (...okay, fine, you can call him a boy if you want) and I'm a 24-year-old female. As long as EM is not involved in these blocks (because they've been questionable), I'm happy. Also, don't be fooled by Geogre's assertion that EM is the better pop music editor of us; that's a ridiculous statement and while he's definitely brought more music-related articles to GA status or a specific standard, this doesn't justify our — that being Adam's and mine — contributions. 64.231.75.70 23:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, while it may be redundant to announce now, I've completed EM's original three-week block and think I've entered the fourth week. I'm not positive though. 64.231.75.70 23:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Probation

Moved that JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and PHenry be removed from the probation imposed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Probation. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Log_of_blocks_and_bans shows that only SPUI continues disruption with respect to highway names. Fred Bauder 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

The user known as Homey

Moved that the user known as Homey shall designate a particular account to edit under and edit only under that account. Homey shall be placed on probation and may be briefly blocked, up to a month in extreme cases, should he engage in disruptive editing. All edits by Homey under other accounts or using an ip may be removed. Repeated efforts to edit under other accounts may result in an indefinite community ban. Fred Bauder 12:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=84099142"