Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Albamuth (talk | contribs) at 20:19, 16 July 2005 (→Involved Parties: added sockpuppet IP of Hogeye). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

The last step of dispute resolution is a request for 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.

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arb Com member votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

This is not a page for discussion, and arbitrators may summarily remove discussion without comment.

Current requests

Template

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

Melissadolbeer, Ril, Wetman, 81.156.177.21, Slrubenstein, Doc glasgow, Capitalistroadster, Jamesgibbon, Numerous Obvious Sockpuppets.

Involved parties

Party 1

Mel Etitis (talk • contribs) has acted as an aide to Party 1, although is not properly part of it

Party 2

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Aside from -Ril- and Melissadolbeer, who have both posted here, the remaining parties have been notified - [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

~~~~ 09:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

No confirmation can be given, as virtually nothing has been done in the way of dispute resolution; three days ago there was an improper, unsupported, and incomplete RfC brought by -Ril- (talk • contribs) on Melissadolbeer (talk • contribs), and that's it. I suspect that other forms of dispute resolution would be as likely to succeed in this as in other cases, and should at least be given a chance. In short, this is at best premature. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced after deletion by User:-Ril-. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

N.b. I deleted it as it caused a bizarre bug - [21] - that duplicated my entire user page into the article. I also invited Mel to re-add the comment. ~~~~ 09:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • RFC : Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer - no second party signed, RFC failed
  • Request for discussion, and more appropriate behaviour - [22]
  • above was deleted by yet another sockpuppet [23]
  • edit history of one sockpuppet, as an example, [24], indicates Melissadolbeer is out of control, and would not respond to normal dispute resolution.

~~~~ 09:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Ril has been causing problems at Authentic Matthew. Please help us to resolve.


RIL - M.O.

1) Sock Puppet redirects and hopes nobody notices - Article Gone.

2) SP starts edit war-victim gives up - Article Gone.

3) Later new SP 'merges' and redirects - Article Gone

4) New SP starts edit war - Article Gone

5) If all fails, SP puts up Vfd and makes false statements against his victim often getting THE VICTIM BLOCKED.

PLEASE STUDY THE 'EDIT HISTORY' OF THIS ARTICLE, RIL and 81.156.177.21 for the facts speak for themselves. --Mikefar 05:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa's response to sock-puppet allegations

Ril's M.O.

1) Sock-puppet redirects and hopes nobody notices - Article Gone.

2) SP starts edit war - victim gives up - Article Gone.

3) Later new SP 'merges' and redirects - Article Gone.

4) New SP starts edit war - Article Gone.

5) If all else fails, SP puts up Vfd and makes false statements against his victim, often getting THE VICTIM BLOCKED.


I am new to Wikipedia this year and have never used a sock-puppet. I know that sock-puppets are legal but not in the way they were used in the article on Authentic Matthew (see above, and compare to edit history of Authentic Matthew). In addition, the following may be sock-puppets acting improperly:

I specifically deny any wrongdoing and put Ril to the strictist proof thereof. If you read the contributions of the above, you will see that they have deleted some good articles, been rude on occasion and some have even been blocked. This is why I am refusing to walk away from Wikipedia as so many others have. Please note, that Poorman is not my sock-puppet but my husband who has "tried" to be helpful. The only thing I may be guilty of is forgetting to log on before editing. (But that was mostly in the first few months.) Finally, the help I have received from the "Angels" has been unsolicited.

No original research

As the original writer of this article, I specifically deny all the allegations made by Ril and put him to the strictest proof thereof.

1. A large source text: Although the article is short, I cited a large number of published works to facilitate other editors' work in this controversial area.

2. Eusebius: Some published scholars like Eusebius, particularly his catalogue. Even those who do not appreciate Eusebius' work rarely critcize his catalogue. However, it is not our place to do original research regarding Eusebius. I would welcome use of any published source that challenges his catalogue.

3. Jerome, a published scholar who did the original research on Authentic Matthew wrote,

Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. (On Illustrious Men 3)

He further wrote,

In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call The Authentic Gospel of Matthew

(Commentary on Matthew 2)

Many of the published authors cited also did primary and secondary research in this area. It is their work that I have used in this article from a neutral point of view. I did not agree with all that was published, but what I wrote was in good faith based on published books - NOT MY ORIGINAL RESEARCH. What Ril does not seem to understand is that he can't dismiss Jerome in a Wikipedia article. What he can do, and what we all welcome, is Ril using published sources that show how some of Jerome's research may be faulty.

Wikipedia:No original research Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate).

The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication.

-- Melissa --Melissadolbeer 08:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by party 2

Essentially Party 1 accuses Party 2 of all being sockpuppets of 1 user. Party 2 (or rather, -Ril-) accuses Party 1 of all being sockpuppets of 1 user (except Mel Etitis).

This is a matter concerning what I (-Ril-) allege to be original research (and a badly written article) at Authentic Matthew. Party 1 has gone to extreme lengths (including creating the sockpuppets to revert war, mass-spamming user's talk pages (merely because they commented on my (-Ril-) talk page), and this RFAR) to preserve the article when others want it deleted, with the small salvagable content merged elsewhere.

This RFAR by Melissadolbeer is a direct result of my having put the article up for VFD.

There is a more detailed description of what I allege to be Melissadolbeer's behaviour at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer. ~~~~ 09:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This statement by ~~~~ reflects my feelings. All I have done is cast a vote on Authentic Matthew when it was put up for deletion. I have now been called a sockpuppet despite 16 months as a contributor. Capitalistroadster 09:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is plain ridiculous. I voted for the deletion of Authentic Matthew supporting (-Ril-)'s contention that it was 'original research'. I was not aware that there was any other dispute - I have had no complaints from Melissadolbeer. (-Ril-) and I have (civilly) disagreed on quite a few issues - the allegation that I am his sockpuppet is just crazy. (My edit history speaks for itself). I somewhat resent being dragged into a personal dispute between these parties. This seems like a bad faith RfA. --Doc (?) 10:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, although it should be noted that the other members of "party 2" may not agree, I think the behaviour of Melissadolbeer + sockpuppets needs an arbitration ruling, as the it is, in my opinion, highly inappropriate. ~~~~ 10:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I was very surprised to find a note in my talk page this morning accusing me of being a 'sockpuppet'. I am an entirely independent Wikipedian, I have no relationship with ANY of the parties mentioned on this page, and have never colluded with anyone in a voting decision or any other edit of any kind. I am a real person, living in Derby, England. I have a website at jamesgibbon.com, and I would hope that any objective observer would consider that this would represent an extraordinarily sophisticated level of deception for "sockpuppetry". I am quite happy to supply a telephone number, privately, should an admin wish to contact me by telephone to discuss this, and verify my identity as a real person. jamesgibbon 13:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Slrubenstein

I am writing only out of respect to the ArbCom. I have no idea why I am named as a party to this dispute. If someone wants to tell me what exactly I have done wrong, or what my role is in this conflict, I will do my best to respond. If I am simply being accused of being a sockpuppet, well, such an allegation doesn't even merit a response; I'd interpret it as someone (and I am so confused I literally cannot name who) trying to waste the ArbCom's time. And with all due respect to the ArbCom, the arbitration process, and the community as a whole, I simply do not have time to waste these days. Best of luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

Time Cube Guy

Involved parties

Summary: Time Cube and other time-related articles have disputed edits by an anonymous user. A consensus has been reached that this user should be banned, but the user's changing IP makes this impossible.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Party 2 is bringing the complaint, and party 1 was alerted to an RfC concerning him[25] and this RfAr[26]. Since the user changes his IP, we left these comments on the Time Cube talk page.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

  1. Talk:Time Cube/Archive has a discussion where Time Cube Guy attempts to convince another user that -1*-1=-1. The conversation takes up nearly 100KB.
  2. Talk:Time_Cube/Archive_3 illustrates User:Kosebamse trying to get Time Cube Guy to clarify his proofs.
  3. A proposed compromise was created to develop the article, but soon abandoned[27] due to strong differences of opinion between Time Cube Guy and other editors. Currently, Time Cube Guy is the only one who has voiced approval of the compromise.
  4. After these and other confrontations, an RfC was posted about the content dispute[28]. This brought in a few third-parties. Discussion with Time Cube Guy continued briefly, but soon ended due to stark differences of opinion.
  5. After the content dispute continued, a second RfC was created to show a concensus opinion that Time Cuby Guy should not be allowed to edit the pages in question. An attempt was made[29] to contact Time Cube Guy, but he has not yet defended himself on the RfC.

Statement by party 1

Dr. Ray has stated: "YOU pitiful mindless fools, YOU are educated stupid. YOU worship cubeless word. YOU are your own poison. YOU create your own hell. YOU must seek Time Cube."

Hope is not absent here. Users such as Kosebamse are undoubtedly capable of Cubic acceptance, and of adept custody of the wisdom that it brings. But they have forsaken their intelligence, and fed it to the savage dogs of the greatest human affliction. The dogs of Word; the Word of God.

Why was Jesus sent to the cross? Because he ate a slice of bread on the Sabbath? Or for no reason at all? Quite simply, he was hated by a horde of rabid Jews—stupid, intransigent, and blinded to momentous prophecies of the modern age. History repeats itself; the 4-corner Cubic cycle progresses, unchanged even by the greatest powers of human civilisation. Such powers have always been mere hollow WordViruses; and by such a power am I now accosted.

No reason has presented itself in support of suppression of Time Cube. Suppression, as it were, of the ineffable Cubic Truth of the Universe; for this is what Time Cube is, and has been proven to be. It is proven fact, evident from such sites as TimeCube and CubicAO. Dr. Gene Ray is the greatest thinker and the wisest human of all time; his scriptures are compelling and sound. Ultimately, their truth is undeniable.

But the throng of crusading users persist in their irrational crusade to suppress the Truth. Why? Not for any reason; but rather, lack thereof. They have been brainwashed with nihilism; brainwashed by a singularity. This 1-corner Cubeless entity exists in monotheistic religion, and has been propagated throughout Academia and the government. It exerts mind-control, and will lead us to Cubeless doom.

At least, humanity's fate will thus result should Time Cube not be accepted. The past is the future and the future is the past; nowhere in this eternal cycle can an almighty singularity exist. The evil in this world is finite, and can be overcome; indeed, in doing so, we would achieve an evolutionary solution to theodicy, by defining evil as a pathway to a greater good. On the other hand, there is the possibility that evil singularity will prevail; the possibility that we will poison Nature, resort to cannibalism, incur the wrath of Time Cube, and be destroyed.

Actions in the present define the future. And the future folds into the past and back, eventually, to the present; thus, upon all Time shall our mistakes be inflicted. The singularity, unfortunately, has blinded Wikipedia users to this fact. All they can see is what they have been taught—crucifixion, and the burning flames of Hell, for all who speak the truth. To thus believe is a curse and a sin; a wrong that we should right. Crucify, instead, the preachers of doom; fight against your slavemaster, the singularity of God. He is not dead, but reanimated, with an intent to kill; he should be vehemently opposed, with even the smallest of available measures.

This small measure is indeed an opportunity. Allow the Cubic Truth to magnificently prevail. 211.28.77.11 9 July 2005 04:16 (UTC)

I realise that I should not comment here, but am concerned that Time Cube guy is part of a cult and would love to see him/her become involved in exit counseling. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)
I doubt there are enough Time Cubists to constitute a cult, really. Everyking 9 July 2005 04:53 (UTC)
It's predicated on a belief in rationality, Ta bu shi da yu. Maybe you could "exit counsel" me by rationally disproving Time Cube.

Statement by party 2

User:Sean Kelly

Normally, I wouldn't think of bringing this matter to arbitration, but this is a special circumstance. Time Cube Guy has been editing the Time Cube article since it started in January, 2004. In the past two months, he has been in a revert war with party 2, making a total of 28 reverts since May 6[30]. We don't really expect him to stop since he has been doing it for over a year. All we would like to see is the Arbitration committee to condone our RfC, which shows unanimous consensus for banning Time Cube Guy from time-related articles.

timecube.com is a popular and humorous website which basically contains a nonsensical and incoherent philosophy. Time Cube Guy seems to believe in it, and wants the Time Cube article to go into deep explanations of its philosophy. However, what he doesn't seem to realize is 1) He is only contributing original research, since nothing on timecube.com is logical, or even grammatically sound, and 2) Despite the fact that he believes NPOV is on his side, it is not, since it explicitly does not protect viewpoints in the extreme minority, let alone viewpoints shared by only two people. —Sean κ. + 7 July 2005 06:20 (UTC)

Also, you can take the comments of party 1, directly above, of evidence of how Time Cube Guy baits users into pointless arguments. —Sean κ. + 02:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hogeye, Albamuth, Kevehs

  • Hogeye continues to edit-war on anarchism despite a month of discussion and dispute resolution attempts.

Involved Parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[31] - warned Hogeye on his user talk of impending ArbReq filing. [32] - notified Hogeye on relevant article talk page [33] - notified Hogeye on user talk of request made, asked for his/her comments.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Albamuth

I accuse User:Hogeye of being condescending, belligerant, editing in bad faith, and intellectually dishonest. Though not technically violations of policy, it hardly shows any Wikilove to do so. Hogeye readily admits his/her biases, and is quick to accuse others of theirs, which is fair. The matter of contention is that Hogeye makes no attempt at honest discussion -- s/he will not acknowlege valid points that others make-- a lot of this is written up in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Hogeye.

  • Hogeye archives the talk pages, including an ongoing survey: Talk:Anarchism/Archive20 which was supposed to get 3rd party opinions, from an RFC I listed WP:RFC#Politics. Hogeye's cabal, being ever so watchful, fills the survey with their answers, then as other opinions start to make a strong showing, the survey is "mysteriously" archived.
  • Hogeye is trying to sidestep the 3RR by copying his article version over in different chunks, as seen by the history. [34] (note that in 3 hours Hogeye has made multiple, substantial edits)

Statement by User:Hogeye

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by User:Kevehs

Hogeye has acted in a very belligerant manner on the talk page, in the last couple days he has now three times merely repeated what I have written back to me rather than actually responding. He mocks or rejects all methods of reaching compromise, insisting that he expected an edit war once the anarchism article was unlocked and instigating one with an immediate cut and paste of his POV fork. He is now merely cutting and pasting selections from a POV fork over and over to avoid the 3RR, despite the fact that several different editors have now reverted him.

He is also going overboard with reverts right now. It is difficult to know how many times he has reverted due to his gaming of the system, but even if one only includes those instances in which he admits reverting in his own edit summaries he has already done 7 reverts in less than 24 hours, as well as encouraging others to revert, and continues to revert despite having been warned. By one users estimate he reverted 35 times in a single day, and went on to make more reverts before he was blocked.
Even after having been blocked Hogeye continues to break the 3RR, having merely grown more sophisticated in his gaming of the system. He is now using multiple IPs (evidence for which is on the 3RR page), in addition to refusing to label his reverts, shuffling them, and making partial reverts with superficial changes.

Comment by User:Snowspinner

The anarchism page has been in a state of edit war for over two years - this is just the latest manifestation, and it seems somewhat more entrenched than others, but I'm not sure arbitration intervention has any real possibility. Snowspinner July 6, 2005 18:34 (UTC)

Comment by User:Sam Spade

I second what User:Snowspinner has said, and would mention that I have requested mediation on this matter repeatedly, to no avail. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 13:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fifelfoo 7 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)

While anarchism is regularly in a state of anarchy, Hogeye acts as an agent-provocateur and troll. Hogeye's edits are in bad faith, and do not conform to a historical, political, sociological, political-economical, or any other major disciplinary methodology or approach to anarchism. His edits constitute, when tendentiously linked to facts, original research. When unlinked to facts they constitute recruitment. Furthermore, Hogeye fails to edit in a collective manner and institutes major revisions without correspondance. Hogeye's attempts to revise, and the density of reverts he produces, makes anarchism uneditable. Page stability, subsection stability and link stability all drop, and the copyediting suffers terribly. By way of example:

Fifelfoo 7 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)

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

Tony Sidaway, Coolcat, Stereotek, Davenbelle

  • Coolcat is still concerned that he is being stalked by two other editors.

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

See also editor comments below.

Stereotek has told me that he's leaving Wikipedia over this. There are no edits from this user since July 4th.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Davenbelle and Stereotek where Coolcat gives extensive evidence of his attempts to resolve this using all other means available to him in the dispute resolution process.

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Coolcat is still concerned, apparently with some justification, that Stereotek and Davenbelle are dogging his footsteps and making it very difficult for him to edit Wikipedia. It looks to me as if this is a deliberate campaign against Coolcat. It seems to be impossible to persuade Davenbelle and Sterotek to cease. I recommended against arbitration earlier, but I think it's reached the point where the case should be examined. Perhaps a mentorship for Coolcat would be a good outcome for this, because it would protect him from abuse while permitting any issues that may be identified in his behavior, which may be contributing to his problems, to be controlled.

I bring this case on my own behalf because, while Coolcat's pleas tend to be wordy and miss the point, I believe there may be a case to answer here.

I have undeleted the earlier RfC which didn't make cert, was userfied and then deleted (by me). It contains comments by other editors expressing very much the same concerns that I have.

Statement by Coolcat

I am on vacation and am in a rather crowded net cafe so theygive me 1 hr to use the internet. My apology for any spelling errors etc...

I would like to firstly point out to the ArbCom Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Davenbelle and Stereotek

  1. One thing that may not be clear in the RfC case is that users assigned me a nationality, even though I want to stay anonymous. I have no reason to advertise any info on the internet since I started using the internet for over a decade. They clearly know this (assuming they bother reading
  2. For all my disputes with them, prior to my edits in all cases neither user had a single edit. Maybe with the exception of Armenian Genocide however I haven't checked.
  3. Please bear in mind the mini revert war in the RfC page of which I misquoted Davenbelle as I was typing/paraphrasing that quote from memory (when typing the rfc case). Such errors in an assume good faith enviorment is fixed without a redundent signature embaded in my section even though regardless of the material one presents no one should be editing each others section spesificaly if the case is filled by/against/for one another anyhow.
  4. I am out of time. That's all I got for now. OK, they gave me more time but I used it elsewhere. I don't think I need to present more evidence. I was told I have more meetings t attend, I intend to take losts of photos. I may vanish from the scenes for a while.

As far as I am concerned, the general flow of the conversation is more than enough evidence I can present. I am coping my points from the RfC case below for your conviniance. I did amend some.

  1. Excuse of dismissing governmental data: "Governments have been known to lie..." [39].
  2. user:Davenbelle definately has a personal issue with me [40] and probably with Turkey as well.
  3. Nanking massacre: Image sizes are a good excuse to start rever war. Standard Thumbnail size (180px) vs 280px [41]. I expect decency in the article. If people want to see full sized corpses they can click on the image. The Holocaust entry uses thumbnail sized images. Reverts should be evaded and things should be discussed. They had no edits on this article prior to my arrival as well. I was trying to mediate this thing in hopes that I learn better ways to mediate, their and User:Fadix's "contribution" made a mediation impossible. They had no edits prior to my arrival as well.
  4. I abuse wikipedia templates: [42]. User did not voice an opinion in articles talk page or in my talk page or in any talk page aside from a 3rd parties. (ammended - RFC)
  5. Davenbelle marked GAP project a copy vio. Material was PD and is used on 11 websites of which two are PD. Copyvio people deleted the page anyway as copy vio people if they are marking pages as a copy vio make sure material is not on a PD source. I rewrote the page from scratch the page still is not there as the "copy vio" issues are still discussed. The page is rewritten from scratch twice so far. It is yet another stressful and unnecessary case which would be easily avoided. I don't enjoy red tape sorry.
  6. Another assume bad faith case in Greco-Turkish_relations. I do not know what the user was trying to prove. Topic stayed locked because of his intervention (trolling). See how the discussion went on (or lack of discussion). [43]. Check the revert war in on going in archived discussion. I am doing spelling corrections. They cannot even tolerate that.
  7. I was asked to mediate Javier Solana (via IRC). Which I accepted but Davenbelle for one removed my mediation guidelines to the users (which I later forced back in). His interference is visible in talk archive 3. I have every right to push a few rules to hopefully force people to discuss the matter rather than them continue their revert war. At least that was my intention which they again made impossible.
  8. For instance I listed Antiwar.com on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 16 ([44]) as Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Antiwar.com at 16/06/2005, 15:39:55, Davenbelle oppsed it on 16/06/2005, 15:41:10 ([45]). In other words 1:15 minutes later of it being listed he opposed it. Granted people can suggest whatever the wish I am not criticising that remotely. But the fact that they are so efficent in oposing any and every suggestion or edit I can this easily and fast bothers me (times were my local time). On many other instances such as recent deletation of Template:CVIP and Template:RWIP they were also in the opposing corner. (ammended - RFC)
  9. Another example will be in Abortion. Article is contraversial yes, my edits were not. My edits (bear in mind I have two blocks of edits and some changes were not my doing): [46] All edits from my last edit till just before Stereotek's first edit (mostly links being removed/added): [47] Stereotek's edits as follows: [48]. From my first edit till the end of Stereotek's first block: [49]. Granted Not every thing I did is gone, but the majority is. Aside from the links (which was not my doing) almost all of my edits are gone. I was doing cleanup duty. Bear in mind that he used no Talk: . I was talking to User:Tznkai on IRC. Infact he invited me to clean the article. While the discussion of which version is better is open to debate, like any edit. I wouldn't be as buged if someone else than the two (Davenbelle and Stereotek) appeared.
I'm not sure where the best place to put this is, but here it goes. I did infact invite coolcat via IRC to help clean up the abortion article, and I think he did a good job of it in some places, and I disagree with others. In the time I worked with him, he made his edits in good faith. While he may have been incorrect in doing somethings, he did his best to do what I asked him: improve the article.--Tznkai 7 July 2005 17:03 (UTC)
10. PKK: Users have not contributed to this article prior to my edit. They just abusively revert. No discussion no talk no assume good faith...
  1. POV delete or is it? PKK's drug ties is well known. So says the Turkish government and so confirms the US government. Bear in mind user posted nothing to talk. just do a google search with this string: pkk drug site:.gov google search. That's a ridiculously simple search. Users however ignore common knowledge, stick to their "governments tend to lie" ideology... [50] rv to last NPoV version by Bobblewik
  2. Example of double standard. Bear in mind that restore of "removed material" removed about 5182 bytes of data. (assume bad faith and discard the work of others out of hand) [51] revert; don't discard the work of others out of hand
  3. Users NPoVise articles by stubisizing: [52]

Statement by Stereotek

Coolcat has disrupted Wikipedia by refusing to follow Wikipedias policies regarding NPOV in many articles, and has been pushing a pro-Turkish government/Genocide denialist PoV in many articles such as Armenian Genocide, PKK and Nanking Massacre.

Coolcat has frequently violated Wikipedias policies regarding No personal attacks, and has exposed several users to extreme personal attack across several pages. Examples include: User:Stereotek and User:Davenbelle just SHUT UP and GO SCREW yourselves. [53] and Stereotek + Fadix = Death [54]

Coolcat has shown complete discontempt for the opinion of other editors and Wikipedias rules regarding concensus. Examples include insisting on redirecting the Abdullah Öcalan article to the PKK article ([55], [56], [57]), disregarding the clear consensus on the talkpage not to merge the mentioned articles.

Coolcat has also been a frequent violator of wikipedias policies regarding civility, and has among other things used edit summaries such as: "Stop being silly, do you have some sort of sick wet dream to stare at a dead naked woman? Or do you enjoy staring at dead chineese?..." [58] and comments such as: "You cant read either, the color format is discussed above" [59]

Coolcat has frequently been violating wikipedias policies regaring copyright. Examples include the GAP Project article which he insisted on recreating unitarily, despite consensus not to do so on the votes for undeletion. Other examples of copyvios that Coolcat has been insisting on including are his now deleted version of the Diagnosis: Murder article. More evidence regarding Coolcats dishonest use of copyrighted material is available here: [60]

Another one of Wikipedias policies that Coolcat has frequently violated is the 3 revert rule, and according to Coolcats own userpage, he has been blocked three times violating 3rr.

Apart from these violations of Wikipedia policies, Coolcat has been disrupting Wikipedia by aggressively promoting a some odd ideas. These include insisting on using a very unusual colorsheme when 'mediating' in articles such as Greco-Turkish relations and Javier Solana see: [61], this often despite other editors clearly rejecting his idea.

More evidence is available here: User:Davenbelle/Evidence re User:Coolcat.

Statement by Davenbelle

I request that the ArbCom accept this case because I feel that User:Coolcat's edits need a review. I don't feel that those who have opposed him have done much wrong. Please see the current RfC Cc has opened against Stereotek and myself and our previous attempt to get Cc before ArbCom. I would support the proposal by Tony of a mentorship for User:Coolcat if previously uninvolved admins will agree to assume the role; if this option is acted upon I would be more than happy to give Cc and most of the articles we've interacted on a wide berth.

I have little time or bandwith to gather much new evidence; I would hope that someone will present diffs of Cc's conduct on the Talk:Armenian Genocide from late March — very telling.

On the subject of assuming good faith I would like to say that I did so until Cc showed ample evidence of bad faith.

I will be off line for the rest of the week as I have a bus to catch to Padangbai (again!); the little beach there has no electricity.

— Davenbelle July 5, 2005 02:37 (UTC)

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

Zen-master, Nectarflowed, Ed Poor, Drummond

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

  • About a dozen editors talked for 2 and 1/2 weeks with Zen-master on Talk:Race_and_intelligence regarding his concerns with the article. Nectarflowed and Zen-master conducted a lengthy discussion on Zen-master's talk page, trying to resolve the concerns in one-on-one discussion.[64]
  • Zen-master has been the subject of an RFA for name-calling on the race and intelligence talk page, 3 votes coming in on June 22 and the 4rth on June 26. Results were (2/2/0/0).[65]
  • Zen-master has been the subject of a proposed policy enforcement ban on June 30 for disruptive personal remarks on Talk:Race_and_intelligence.[66])

Statement by Nectarflowed

Summarizing the context this dispute occurs in, Race and intelligence is an article that has been scrutinized by a recent VFD, which it passed by about 40-6, and by a request for peer-review. The article was written by about a dozen users, many of them professional scientists working in fields that give them expertise. The article was regarded during the VFD as being exceptionally well-referenced, and is in line with published statements of mainstream science on the matter.[67]

Though Zen-master's argument isn't under question here, I should summarize. He believes that framing the racial IQ disparity under question in terms of race presupposes a genetic cause. Users have responded with different arguments, and my summary is that, assuming genetics are not involved, "racial IQ disparity" would still be the appropriate frame, as the difference in average IQ still exists between races. This is analagous to the phrases "gender IQ disparity" and "socioeconomic IQ disparity." Note that these terms aren't actually in use; they just refer to the frame of the article.

Over a period of a couple weeks, Zen-master failed to convince any of the roughly dozen users who engaged with him on the discussion page of the validity of his argument, though they talked with him at length. A number of users have expressed to him that they regard his behavior as being disruptive, and during this time, work on the article has all but ceased. A number of users have complained about his accusations and name-calling, especially calling people - themselves and their actions - "racist," "Nazi," and "evil." Some formerly-regular users have expressed their frustration and have stopped participating on the page or have stopped making contributions to Wikipedia, though this may be temporary. Zen-master has been asked to apologize a number of times by different users, including the mediator, Uncle Ed, both prior and following his proposed policy enforcement ban, but he has yet to do so. At one point, several days after the RFA regarding him, he moved "Race and intelligence" to "race and IQ,"[68] even though consensus had clearly rejected his proposal.

Zen-master has been warned or asked to stop name-calling related to this article maybe 15 times. Following the RFA and proposed policy enforcement ban for disruptive personal remarks, he wrote the following on the race and intelligence discussion page. "Even a random racist would seek a true scientific basis for their beliefs but you've gone way beyond that, you and others have perverted science and language into a racist economic caste system mass propaganda tool. You must have some need for racism and "IQ based classism" to exist in the world."[69]

Discussion having not convinced anybody, Zen-master has lately taken his argument from the discussion page to the article itself, and has attempted to make large changes that he knows are disagreed with by all of the regular editors of this page. Edit wars ensued. On July 2 he reverted 4 times, was warned, and then reverted a 5th time.

Zen-master has demonstrated an unusually strong commitment to POV-pushing and has consistently behaved disruptively in discussion. A number of users on race and intelligence talk have expressed that he has demonstrated a lack of significant experience in both the research areas race, and intelligence. If it's possible, I recommend Zen-master be banned from editing any article on either race or intelligence, as it would be a waste of time to have to go through this again at race or intelligence etc.--Nectarflowed T 3 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)

Statement by User:Zen-master

I think mediation or exposing the issue to a larger number of people might be the best first step at resolving the race and intelligence dispute, though I welcome this space to clear up the many inaccuracies that User:Nectarflowed presented above.

An article surviving VfD is not evidence that the content is neutral, on the contrary, many people errantly nominate articles that instead need a POV clean up rather than deletion. I share the earlier VfD nominator's concerns that the race and intelligence article presents the subject so unfairly as to be uncleanupable, which may be true but I thought I'd give it a shot.

User:Nectarflowed and many other pro "intelligence research" editors fail to acknowledge criticisms against the "intelligence research" field in general and "race and intelligence" in particular. Despite how Nectraflowed characterizes my criticisms above, I have not (yet) disputed the "pro" sources for the article directly (have not advocated their removal), instead, I have tried to clean up neutrality violations that completely ignore the existence of valid criticisms and lack of consensus on multiple levels. These neutrality violations include: exclusive and subtly tricky framing of the issue only in terms of "race", poor or suggestive word choices, and ambiguous or outright misleading sentence construction. [70] Just because a source was in a "peer reviewed" journal is not evidence that other cited criticisms from other reputable sources should be discounted out of hand. "Race" and "intelligence research" does not exist in a vacuum where there are no criticisms on multiple levels, the talk page and archive have numerous citations demonstrating this fact. The "pro" editors of race and intelligence seemingly would revert even a synopsis of the scientific racism article which is very relevant to this dispute as it is a core criticism of the field and the way race and intelligence uses implied conclusions in particular.

These handful of editors allied with User:Nectarflowed seem singularly interested in denying any mention of criticisms of the subject. A majority of editors can not violate Wikipedia's policy of presenting a subject neutrally, especially when there is no consensus in the wider academic community. The neutrality violations in the article are much more serious than what you might see in a run of the mill edit war amongst POV pushers, the language confusion and one sided framing of the issue, combined with repetition, seems to me to be designed to psychologically trick the reader into assuming "race" is the cause for the "IQ disparity" when there is no scientific consensus for that conclusion and no scientific consensus to even present the issue only that way. One test results data correlation pair "race" vs "IQ" is not conclusive or the only way to frame the issue given the many other data correlation pairs from the exact same data such as "wealth" vs "nutrition". In my interpretation, these "pro" editors of race and intelligence intentionally perpetuate and defend intentionally misleading or psychologically tricky presumption inducing language for political rather than objective scientific purposes. Note the suspicious, unscientific use of emphases that I tried to clean up. [71] Also note I and one other editor User:Willmcw were reverted just adding the {TotallyDisputed} header to the article, which is curious given the talk page, the archive, and now a second RfA which I submit as evidence that there is indeed a legitimate neutrality dispute. [72] [73] Even more suspicious was the outright deletion of talk page discussions through a long series of edits described as "archiving" (check the byzantine talk page history for the full story). [74] And finally the readibility of my first list of citations was seemingly intentionally damaged and mischaracterized, certainly not addressed or acknowledge directly. [75] Even more recently the talk page was suspiciously and suddenly archived a second time, with 2 core discussions that were the most critical of the article and active the day before, plus numerous others discussions active within 5 days before [76]. The handful of "pro" editors seems to have a pattern of being unnecessarily verbose generally, and they seem to immediately create tangential or superfluous discussions underneath core criticism discussions perhaps for the purpose of filling up the talk page to hasten the need for archiving and to minimize the exposure and readability of criticisms for third parties.

On a separate note, I am still unclear as to how User:Ed Poor appointed himself "mediator" given the fact that he is directly involved in the dispute and can not be considered neutral on this issue.

I do not understand Nectarflow's point above that many editors of the article are "intelligence researchers" themselves or experts in the field. How is that not "original research"? If some editors of a particular article potentially have a vested financial or political interest in presenting their pet subject doesn't that mean there is a greater chance of neutrality violations? The history and talk page are nothing but attempts at denying valid criticisms, what benefit did these experts add to the article? See Talk:Race and intelligence and [77] Why don't "intelligence researchers" generally seem to follow the scientific method especially as far as just presenting the subject goes? If the "pro" editors are themselves "intelligence researchers" with a training in the scientific method then the lack of language neutrality and choice of presentation method used in the article is exponentially more puzzling. The only thing the "pro" race and intelligence editors seem to be experts in is the psychology of language. zen master T 3 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)

User:PatrickOMoran's statement below is a great example of how repetition and one sided framing of the issue can be used to trick readers into forming presumptive conclusions about the subject. "Skin color vs skin cancer" is a carefully chosen analogy by POM to once again force the reader to only think about "race" and "intelligence" in terms of "race" so description can be confused with cause later on. POM's analogy also happens to be completely inaccurate, skin color is not the cause of skin cancer, sunlight and diet etc are (or is POM arguing/hinting otherwise?). The pro editors of race and intelligence's repetition misdirects away from the fact that the article is not just about description of the issue, the article is also about the cause for the issue. And most suspiciously, the article only discusses the implications of just one cause, "race". The criticisms against the article, area of research and method of presentation are fundamental, a provably one sided presentation of a subject should be disallowed. The very first sentence in the race and intelligence article is problematic on multiple levels: "...and practical consequences of group differences in intelligence" which not only induces readers to presumptively conclude that some sort of "group" based "IQ disparity" exists it also implies "race" is the cause. That sentence and "intelligence research" overall seems to be designed to achieve some sort of political result, divide and conquer, it effectively imposes a fabricated "IQ" based caste system upon society. If nutrition is the cause of the "IQ disparity" then instead of "consequences" the field should be focused on (or at least mention) ways of improving nutrition but most tellingly it does not. POM even says this:

"Ironically, one cannot hope to defeat the proposition that there is an actual causal connection (and not a mere correlation) between [race] and [intelligence] without looking at the evidence, criticisms of the studies, etc. -- which is exactly what the article on [intelligence] and [race] is intended to do."

Which completely misframes criticisms against the "intelligence research" field. Critics, including myself, accuse the intelligence research field of errantly implying, at a fundamental level, that "race" is the cause for the "intelligence" disparity because of the one sided way they present the issue. They ignore all other data correlations that might be causes and they repeatedly only want to present the issue in terms of "race" and "intelligence" when there are many other valid and scientific ways of looking at it (the issue is abstract in fact). Critics of the field are not advocating that "race" and "intelligence" evidence should be discarded, instead, they are precisely accusing the "intelligence research" field itself of, for some apparently political reason, choosing to only look at one set of evidence themselves. The key question is: if the issue can be presented multiple ways is it scientific and neutral to present it only one way? The pro editors do indeed ignore/misdirect away from the fact that the issue can be presented/thought of in multiple ways. Given the meaning of the phrase "sugar and tooth decay" there can be no doubt that "race and intelligence" is at best ambiguous and at worst presumptively conclusive inducing. If the the pro editors of race and intelligence truly valued the scientific method they would not support the use of what is, at the very least, ambiguous language, they would want to expose their issue to the light of day and have conclusions be based on neutrally presented facts, instead of conclusion being induced through psychologically tricky language. zen master T 23:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Ed Poor

I was asked by Patrick to visit the page because of the failure of some parties to avoid personal remarks. That is probably more of an Administrator role than a Mediator role, particularly as there can be no "Mediation" without an argeed-upon Mediator. In any case, I would prefer to edit and and discuss the article. If the arbcom recommends' mediation, I'd prefer to be party to it; I can't be the Mediator.

The part about not being neutral hurt my feelings. The only topic I can't seem to write neutrally on is climate (e.g., global warming) but on all others I have built up an astonishing reputation for unbiased writing. Many times people are unable to detect my personal opinion on controversy, because even my comments on the talk page are so neutral. In this case, it may come as a suprise to some to find out what my actual belief is on the role of genetics and intelligence:

  • I actually believe that genetics plays an insignificant role, i.e., certainly under five percent and possibly less than 0.1 percent. The way one's parents raise a child, as well as the schooling he gets later and the cultural/social influences on him as he grows to adulthood - these factors have been neglected too much.

I almost want to laugh, at how easy it is to find scientific papers (or scholary comment) on the influence of "environmental" factors. I've placed more than one reference at R&I talk, but no one seemed to notice. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 4, 2005 13:06 (UTC)

Comment by User:Drummond (DAD)

I have been a target of Zen-master's behavior. I had been hopeful that, given the relative lull in Zen-master's postings, the behavior indicated by Nectarflowed would not reoccur. Today, Zen-master resumed his behavior. Race and intelligence was recently nominated for featured article status and many productive suggestions have been made on its comments page. Zen-master posted a comment in which he theorized that all authors on the article are "ultra racist" and "insanely politically motived[sic]" [78]. He has continued to push a consistent POV, though results of a recent straw-poll he initiated [79] indicates that no other editor shared his POV [80]. I have lost my cool with him once [81] after being called "evil" and told to "enjoy [my] jail cell"; User:Ed Poor intervened and requested that we (and User:Patrick0Moran) unconditionally apologize to each other, which Patrick and I did [82][83] while Zen-master did not [84]. Zen-master's behavior has been unpleasant and upsetting to me, as I have no way to defend myself (his accusations are enough), and has also been disruptive to community work on a highly controversial issue. As a scientist working in population genetics in a cognitive science degree program, I have some expertise in the subject, but have spent a disproportionate amount of time dealing with Zen-master's attacks and rather naive diatribes. I strongly support Nectarflowed's RFA. --DAD T 04:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Patrick0Moran (P0M)

Zen-master assumes malice and conspiracy where only good will (and sometimes impatience) exists:

The handful of "pro" editors seems to have a pattern of being unnecessarily verbose generally, and they seem to immediately create tangential or superfluous discussions underneath core criticism discussions perhaps for the purpose of filling up the talk page to hasten the need for archiving and to minimize the exposure and readability of criticisms for third parties.

Probably Zen-master is talking about my verbosity. What he describes as tangential discussions are those that try to get at an underlying problem of unclear thinking. They may seem verbose to Zen-master because when a short criticism that would hopefully "clue in" another contributer fails then one is tempted to try to explain things starting from a more fundamental level.

I have steadfastly avoided characterizing the personal attributes of Zen-master. I have also not characterized this contributor's ideological stance.

I have tried, perhaps too strenuously, to move this contributor past one fundamental obstacle to clear thinking. I have outlined a structure for a set of articles that would more clearly contextualize the discussion/debate about [intelligence] and [race]. Zen-master has never responsively commented on any of my attempts, and has never moved beyond the log jam exemplified in his words above:

One test result<s> data correlation pair{,} "race" vs "IQ"{,} is not conclusive or the only way to frame the issue given the many other data correlation pairs from the exact same data such as "wealth" vs "nutrition".

I've tried to clarify the meaning a bit by indicating a deletion (<s>) and two additions {,}

Zen-master makes a fundamental thinking error, apparently believing that one could discover some correlation, e.g., a connection between skin color and skin cancer, through a process of looking at every possible "data correlation pair" except the pair called "skin color and skin cancer." In the passage above, it even seems that Zen-master might be advocating examining every possible data correlation pair that includes neither skin color nor skin cancer. As the tag line in the old joke has it, "You can't get there from here."

Nectarflowed spent hours trying and failing to get Zen-master to look at this issue and similar issues. (See Zen-master's talk page.) Other people have made my point directly to Zen-master in direct answer to his remarks in ways that are more succinct and clear than mine. In all cases Zen-master has successfully defended himself from looking at the fundamental problem. He typically repeats earlier charges that assume that his interlocutors harbor ill will toward him and/or deep-dyed ideological biases. Above, for instance, he speaks of "exclusive and subtly tricky framing of the issue only in terms of 'race'". Ironically, one cannot hope to defeat the proposition that there is an actual causal connection (and not a mere correlation) between [race] and [intelligence] without looking at the evidence, criticisms of the studies, etc. -- which is exactly what the article on [intelligence] and [race] is intended to do.

Without tediously following through hours of old discussion page records it may be difficult to isolate the fundamental sources of trouble.

(1) I asked Ed Poor to have a look at the "Race and Intelligence" discussion page because Zen-master was calling names. False accusations can be very damaging to individuals, and I wanted it stopped. That was the one issue that I thought needed immediate attention from a respected senior member of the Wikipedia community.

(2) The fundamental question of clear thinking will not go away. It is so basic to the way that Zen-master looks at things that it is difficult to see a way forward while it remains unrecognized and unresolved. If someone will not go through a discussion in a logical and consequential manner, and insists on making strongly negative axiological judgments against those who disagree with him/her, then there is no real process of communication and the correct response would seem to be to detach from the encounter.

(3) If Zen-master had not shifted his efforts to editing the article in ways that were not cooperative and ways that were considered unhelpful by the other contributors, then the result would likely have been that nobody would have made new responses to old boiler-plate critiques. However, edit wars ensued in a climate wherein communication had already proven to be thoroughly road-blocked.

So here we are. We can go nowhere until somebody helps Zen-master untie the knot. Six or more of us have tried. So far, anybody who has tried to straighten things out has been viewed as not being neutral. Zen-master seems to see malice behind almost everything. Who would he trust? P0M 16:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:chocolateboy

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Other steps in dispute resolution would fruitless. I believe discussion is stalled and cannot continue between me and chocolateboy.--Ben 1 July 2005 03:31 (UTC)

Statement by party 1

Chocolateboy is a frequent editor of Ann Coulter. The page is very active--it currently has a NPOV tag placed on it (by someone other than me). My dispute with chocolateboy centres on the section Canada and the Vietnam War. It is my position that the section is difficult to understand. Many other users have commented on it. It involves a contentious quote by Ann Coulter where she attempts to contrast US-Canada relations and makes an error, stating that Canada sent troops to Vietnam. In the context of her comparison, this is false (See Canada and the Vietnam War). I believe it is complicated as, in Coulter's response to the intial statement she made, and though she admits her error, she equivocates and tries to redefine the original meaning of her statement in attempt to prove the statement accurate.

Previously in March 2005[85], I reverted another user's edit which I felt added clarity. It was changed back. I then edited another part of the article in an attempt to add clarity.[86]. Again I was rebuffed. I attempted to add the same clarity in another way. Again I was rebuffed, this time by chocolateboy [87]. I left well alone.

Recently I tried to add clarity to the mess again. I submitted multiple different versions of what I felt clarified the event. Chocolateboy said it was POV and reverted each time. In the end, I added a "Clean-Up" tag to the article and left it as it was. Chocolateboy removed this, saying it was a disruption. I reverted and said it wasn't. It has since been removed. I took the dispute onto the talk pages[88] and asked chocolateboy what was wrong with it. There, chocolateboy told me my version was not NPOV. I believe it is NPOV and accurately and fairly represents the facts. For example, Ann Coulter had said "Canada sent troops to Vietnam." Later, she admitted that this was a mistake. In writing, I wrote "Contrary to Coulter's statement, the Canadian government did..." chocolateboy said this was POV. Coulter used that statement in a comparison, intending to contrast US-Canada relations. I used the phrase "However, the comparison breaks down." Chocolate boy said this was POV. I said Coulter "insisted" she was right--she said "I think you're wrong" to the interviewer contradicting her 4 times--Chocolateboy said this was POV. There are other examples of chocolateboy claiming POV in a frivolous manner in the link. I believe this can be summed up as chocolateboy applying Invincible ignorance in order to avoid painting Coulter in a bad light. However, in this case, the "bad light" is the truth, and Coulter herself even admitted her statement was incorrect.

I believe the stubborness chocolateboy exhibits is detrimental to the article and to the community. I believe he is either doing this on purpose either to "drive me up the wall" or is somehow unknowingly ignorant of how ludicrous his claims are. I believe I can unequivocally demonstrate that my statements are fair and accurate.

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

It is likely User:chocolateboy is refusing to make a statement. He has contributed to 12 articles since he has been notified, including the page in question. (Special:Contributions/chocolateboy)--Ben 6 July 2005 02:20 (UTC)

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

User:Sumnakay

Involved parties

Statement by User:Pavel Vozenilek

  • Contributor to Roma people article doesn't agree with my edits on Talk page, rewrites them and calls me Nazi and sectarian [89].
Some quotes: I would recommend to protect the page from Pavel Vozenilek's Nazi-like declarations against Romany scholars. or A sectarian analysis of recent edits, a Nazi-like suggestion how to deal with them.
I prefere not to be insulted and my edits staying intact. Pavel Vozenilek 28 June 2005 22:24 (UTC)

Statement by User:Sumnakay

  • Contributor to Roma people Mr. Pavel Vozenilek has refused to give any reasonable answer to the proposed questions, deleting other editors additions and links to Romany websites. He has refused to show his knowledge on Romany culture, but simply insisted in reproducing speculative assertions of other people of doubtful authority on the subject. His requests to "delete whatever he dislikes" is quite un-democratic. He demonstrated to assert anything without having the slightest certainty, as he said that I am the author of the websites which I linked, which is false. He MUST show a proof before saying anything about other people. I didn't qualify him as a person, but his statements - that is, I didn't say he is a Nazi, but his statements are (Nazi-like suggestions). To conclude, he has shown complete lack of respect for Roma people.

Statement by party 1

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Statement by party 2

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

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


Requests for Clarification

If you need to clarify the precise meaning of a previous decision of the Arbitration Committee, your request should go here.

Iasson and User:Bank of Wikipedia (and reincarnations)

Iasson is currently subject to a ban of 1 year or 1 year and 3 months following an arbitration case, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iasson. At WP:AN/I it has apparently been confirmed that User:Bank of Wikipedia and associated reincarnations are Iasson, if this is true then it is clearly in violation of the ban.

There is no mention in the arbitration pages of whether the ban should be reset (as it does in other arbcom judgments) if it is violated. It is also unclear whether the two bans imposed were to run consecutively or concurrently. Please could you therefore answer the following questions:

  • What is the length of Iasson's ban? 12 months (bans run concurrently) or 15 months (bans run consecutively).
  • If it is proven that he is in violation of the ban, can it be reset or should some other action be taken?

Thanks, Thryduulf 19:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WMC reverts

Could you please clarify how one should read the sanction imposed here?

There are three parts each of which seem to have garnered the requisite 5 votes to pass but seem to be mutually exclusive. 2.1 & 2.3 are identical except for the length of the block and the length of time before being allowed to apply for lifting the sanction. 2.2 seems to be more an official warning than a sanction at all, and it recieved 6 votes rather than 5, so is it the standard to be applied?

Is WMC actually subject to a revert parole or not, and what are it's conditions?

Thanks. Dragons flight 02:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Look at the final decision, not the proposed decision. →Raul654 02:09, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Out of curiousity, shouldn't some of the ArbCom members have indicated that they no longer approved of 2.1/2.2, if 2.3 is the adopted standard? I would assume that since 2.3 was the remedy adopted then it ultimately had the greatest degree of support even if it was never indicated as such in the proposed decision. Dragons flight 02:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
They do when they indicate 'first choice, second choice, 'etc. If an option passes based solely on first choices, then 2nd choice (etc) votes are discounted. If it passes based on second choice votes (which 2.3 did) then 3rd (etc) votes are discounted. →Raul654 02:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, well that seems a fairly slim margin then. If all 1st and 2nd choice votes are counted then both 2.1 & 2.3 seem to have enough votes to pass, though neither has enough 1st choice votes by itself. However, 2.3 does seem to have 1 more 1st choice vote than 2.1. Maybe that broke the tie? Or maybe there were additional rankings known to you, but not indicated there. Regardless, thank you for the clarification. My real interest was WMC's revert status and you have answered that. Dragons flight 02:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic

Kim Bruning has resigned from mentoring Netoholic (he explained his reasoning on RFAr talk). Since that possibility wasn't covered under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2, what should be done in this case? Radiant_>|< July 2, 2005 08:30 (UTC)

I'd like to point the Arbitrators to the conversation on the Talk page. In short, I think that mentorship is still working, though Kim may have had a different idea of what this was supposed to be. -- Netoholic @ July 2, 2005 17:16 (UTC)
  • Kim resigned about a week ago. Since neither User:Grunt nor User:Raul654 has responded to the matter during that week, it seems to me that the mentorship is not particularly active at the moment (unless, of course, it's being conducted over IRC). If the mentors are still active, I would like to have their response to the recent issues that were also mentioned on their talk pages. If the mentors are not active, I believe the ArbCom should decide whether this means that 1) new mentors should be found; 2) Netoholic's restrictions should be lifted entirely since they're not enforced; or 3) Netoholic should be blocked from editing Wikispace as suggested in his Arbcom case. In other words, please clarify. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 12:47 (UTC)
Netoholic is now moving Wikipedia-space pages around in what looks like an attempt to remove a couple of new proposals from the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal vote. This would be annoying behavior, but with Netoholic's past history of warring over stuff it's downright worrying. Is the mentorship dead? If so should I just list stuff like this on WP:ANI? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 7 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)
Mentorship is fine, and one mentor agrees that it is inappropriate to add items to an open vote - see User talk:Raul654#Netoholic revert of CSD proposal page. HTH HAND. -- Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)
I owe you an apology for misjudging you here. See here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 9 July 2005 12:46 (UTC)

Thetruth

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Messages on the talk pages of all involved parties will show that they have been informed of this matter.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The messages on the talk pages of all involved parties will show that other methods have been tried. In addition, please view the following talk pages. We have informed him more than once that his edits are NPOV:

Statement by Vivin Paliath

Thetruth's contributions will show that he contributes exclusively to Punjabi/Sikh pages. His contributions only revolve around this set of topics. In each of these, he tries to put forward his POV on the matter. He states in his user page that he is a "huge fan" of Wikipedia and that he is a "regular contributer". His regular contributions are basically his POV on the issues of Khalistan and Operation Bluestar (to name a few). More than once, I have notified him of his POV additions and have asked him to discuss his changes on the talk page. Instead of discussing them, he would revert my changes and then accuse me of being a "biased hindu" or a "biased indian" who wants to promote the view of the Indian Government. He has made edits that he claimed to be minor, that clearly weren't. He has also more than once (here and here) removed NPOV warnings from articles without discussing them in the talk page. Myself, and Sukh have many times tried to discuss things with him in a rational manner, but he seems disinclined to listen to us - he accuses us of being biased and claims he is adding "neutral" information to the article, when he clearly isn't. I provided him a warning on his talk page, to which he responded by saying that I shouldn't "threaten" him and that I should "stay out of articles" that do not concern me. He doesn't want to seem to listen to reason. Hence, this seems to be the only alternative. --Vivin Paliath (വിവിന് പാലിയത്)

I'd like to present some more evidence of Thetruth's disinclination to have a mature discussion. He has vandalized the Nair page. I believe his reason for doing so is that he knows I wrote the article and wanted to vandalize it out of spite. He has also vandalized the Namboothiri article. --Vivin Paliath (വിവിന് പാലിയത്)

Statement by Sukh

I completely agree with Vivin. Thetruth's edits have been quite controversial, but we were all prepared to have a discussion about the points in disagreement. Thetruth refused to discuss the matter and then proceeded to spread accusations of our own bias.

His edits are quite substantial (some sections look like they may have been copy-pasted) and he provides little in the way of references to back up his claims - something essential on such controversial articles.

Some of his points may well be valid. Indeed many Sikhs (largely expatriates) are distrustful of the Indian government often for valid reasons. But because he is not prepared to engage in dialogue, we cannot justify adding his points (or opinions).

Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thetruth

I find Sukh's contribution to be quite good in some places in the disputed articles. However he sides with vivin on edits, which include the term "sikh terrorist" and other such offensive terms. I asked vivin would he like Hindu's a whole group of people labelled as terrorists because of the actions of Tamil Tigers (who are Hindus fighting against Buddhists Sri Lankans). I suggested the wording to be used as "Sikh seperatists" or "Sikh militants" but vivin does not listen.

Also I find the edits by vivin quite pro-indian govt slanted not his fault as for many years the Indian media has been largly state controlled and he sources of information are very limited. I live in the west I am able to explore all sources of information to come to a reasonable judgemant about a particular issue. I am willing to talk to come to a comprise and reasonable balanced article but why dont they (sukh and vivin) first discuss it in the talk page before making edits and then threatening me not to change the article.

The KPS Gill article, which I started keeps getting editted by vivin with out of date source of information. If he cared to check he would have noticed the BJP party are no longer in power, in India, making his edits out of date compared to mine. --Thetruth 02:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

Archive

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=18974120"