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).

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 accept votes are cast. 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.

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

• Arbitration policy
• Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case - Recommended reading: An (unofficial) guide to presenting effective Arbitration cases.
• Arbitration enforcement - Any user can request help here if it involves the violation of an ArbCom decision
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template

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

Rootology, MONGO

Initiated by rootology (T) at 21:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Rootology (talk · contribs)
• MONGO (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I left a notification here for MONGO. rootology (T) 21:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Please see the below sections, especially the Timeline of Wikistalking Accusations, where I have asked him for clarification (largely unsuccessfully).

My goal in filing this arbitration is for MONGO's actions and constant accusations toward me to be reviewed, especially wikistalking accusations.

(originally drafted here, if it's relevant or helpful)

Statement by Rootology

MONGO (talk · contribs), ever since an extremely bitter AfD in July 2006 (and it's fallout/appeals) has been at times civil toward me, and at other times not, but has over the past month (August 2006) begun to accuse me of Wikistalking himself and "other admins". This is distressing to me as I've been trying hard to make positive contributions toward the growth of the project and the encyclopedia. When asked to define the wikistalking, he would generally refuse to clarify or not reply at all, and I have been nervous about my editing in general due to this for fear of upsetting him, resulting in some sort of unappealable ban, and it has made my experience on Wikipedia since that AfD very stressful. I've tried to be nice to him--I've asked him for help and input twice on his talk page, for example--but he still persists with vague accusations of a bannable offense under WP:STALK.

I have been almost tempted to simply walk away from this username, and start over under a new one after a few months, simply so that MONGO would not know it was me, and so that I would not have to have his shadow looming over me like this. I actually DID close down my user page because of this, but decided to try again after a weekend off--and immediately his accusations and hostile tone began again. I believe this is all due to my being one of the more vocal voices that "stood up" to his stance in that AfD, and because of the fact that I don't think I'm intimidated by him--I respect admins, but I don't think I should have to feel intimidated. I opposed his viewpoint very firmly and stridently, under at the time what I read as policy, and in turn was attacked repeatedly during the process by him and his supporters. I moved ahead, got on with things, and have since then worked non-stop to build an encyclopedia--almost 2000+ edits in the past month alone, trying to do some positive work here. But, regardless, he keeps hounding me with vague accusations, threats, and a needless attempt to have an intimidating tone.

I do not feel I should avoid any articles because he might have/been working on them, if our paths cross, simply because my presence appears to completely displease him--that's silly. He's one of the more prolific editors, and has been at this for YEARS. I have no way of knowing what is or isn't on his watchlist. I just want him to basically leave me completely alone at this point, not be free to try to use intimidation on me, not accuse of me any of these vague policy violations, and to let me work on Wikipedia in peace. As MONGO has in the past (from looking through his logs for the purpose of writing all this up, he's banned people simply for being things like "ED trolls", "sleeper trolls", or any other number of vague appearing things, and also seems to have a habit of locking talk pages so people cannot appeal. I really would rather not have that specter hanging over me, making me think twice or thrice about every edit for the rest of my time here, worrying about displeasing him. I don't think my job should be to please an admin, but to build an encyclopedia. He's making it hard, unenjoyable and stressful to do that at this point.

Enclyclopedia Dramatica article & AfD

I found this mess of a situation after starting to build my first article, Timeline of Internet conflicts. Doing research on WP for this, and outside, I found out about some sort of Internet protest that had to do with something called Habbo Hotel. That made reference to Bantown, which led to an AfD, my first exposure ever to the "back side" of Wikipedia. That led to the the Encylopedia Dramatica article (now deleted), where I found the already underway mess that was unfolding. The short version: apparently this 3rd party Wikisite made an article that made fun of MONGO, and some troll had changed the long-standing image on the Wikipedia article about the same with a screen shot of the "attack article" about MONGO. There was apparently back and forth talk about this in the days before I even found all this, and MONGO ended up locking the article (and it's talk page), and then post-locking began to edit the article, all in apparent violation of WP:FULL. Anyway, I then (in 20/20 hindsight, wish I hadn't) got involved, and tried to source the article after it was unprotected. Then it got nominated for AfD, and was eventually removed from Wikipedia. Feel free to review the AfD--it was a wild mess with everyone on all sides having tremendously hurt feelings, and WP:AGF was basically left at the door for days prior to the AfD by all participants.

• MONGO discussing plan to get 'rid' of article right before protecting it.
• WP:FULL: "How" section: "Admins should not protect pages in which they are involved. Involvement includes making substantive edits to the page (fixing vandalism does not count), or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page before the protection. Admin powers are not editor privileges — admins should only act as servants to the user community at large. If you are an admin and you want a page in an edit war in which you are somehow involved to be protected, you should contact another admin and ask them to protect the page for you. Not only is this the preferable method, it is also considered more ethical to do so as it helps reduce any perceived conflict of interest."
• This edit here basically sums up the crux of why I was upset at the way in which MONGO led to the unfolding of the ED situation, and it's AfD--and this all appears to be the entire root and genesis of this Arbitration Request.

This was the basis, largely, of what was seen by me in my first foray into this side of Wikipedia (the 'back end') as administrative bias and a major conflict of interest. Nearly all of my imploring on the Article talk and the AfD was basically summarized by, "Judge this article on MERIT, not what the outside did or didn't do toward MONGO", and "MONGO should honestly recuse himself from functioning as an admin in this situation, due to the obvious conflict of interest". Nearly all of the massive fighting on the Article, Talk page of the article, the AfD, the AfD Talk, and the later DRV would have been eliminated had MONGO simply stepped back and let someone else handle this. I will readily admit that myself--during the approximately 5-6 days of this mess, was incivil at times, but there has been nothing of the sort like that since. I also was not aware of the 'hows' of many of the policies at the time, as can be sign by my general cluelessness then, and was learning as it all unfolded. I feel that nearly all the later fallout of anger from MONGO toward me is a direct result of my trying (and failing at times) to be a rational voice of non-partisan reason during all of this mess, contrary to his desired wishes to see the "ED" article gone from Wikipedia.

For what it is worth, other admins did agree with the relevant points I was trying (unsuccesfully) to make heard.

Pre and Post-ED mes

Please review my contributions after all of this was a dead issue. I've been trying (hard) in the month-plus since then to be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia since, helping on RC/vandalism patrol, trying to "Wikignome" my way around to help out, have worked generally pleasantly with admins on a policy proposal (WP:RECALL), have created a variety of articles, and have tried to help out on a variety of touchier articles to inject a much more NPOV tone and needed sourcing. I've also taken on a project on my own to "state tag" every community article (like this, but a long, long ways to go, and it's not practically something a bot can do--it's all by hand). Look at the bulk of my contributions, when considering this. My contributions before getting into this, if you review (from about before 7/18/06 or so) had nothing to do with ANY of this.

How I found the 9/11 Scholar related articles

The user User:Morton devonshire had left a message on my talk page, about an issue involving another use. Morton, on his user page, maintains lists of articles he dislikes, has worked to "eliminate", or that "should be" eliminated. I followed some links around from this, which eventually led me to articles like Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Steven E. Jones. The subjects of the articles interested me and I read them, and saw NPOV issues on some, which I endevoured to correct. The fact that the day I found them there was a local connection to me also caught my interest, and led me to begin editing. I didn't bother to look to see if MONGO was involved in these before starting, but I wasn't aware that I should even be concerned with such things (I simply tried to better the articles), or that this administrator was apparently watching out for me and my activities.

I feel I've done nothing wrong in working in good faith to improve the encyclopedia on these articles, and even had been talking quite pleasantly with one of the "regulars" on the articles, and have been praised for being constructive in improving them.

Hipocrite

I placed on outside view on this RfC. I had a great many editorial disagreements with Hipocrite, and this user also (before this RfC) utterly torched/flamed me out of the blue on MONGO's now deleted RfC (diffs available to admins). In spite of this, I gave this user a fair, even Outside View after I found out about this RfC, which (as I stated I would on the talk page) I withdrew if certain evidence came to pass--it did--and apologized. Hipocrite on his flaming of me on MONGO's RfC had called for me to be banned. I gave him at best a figurative slap on the rest in passing, and praised him otherwise. I don't carry grudges or bias, and again, have tried to move past all the previous unpleasantness from last month.

Banned users, Encyclopedia Dramatica

MONGO will likely try to connect me to a variety of banned users (Hardvice, et al), and all sorts of levels of ED. In regards any observations from me about the Encyclopedia Dramatica site or given articles there, anyone can make any observations there in seconds by doing the same thing we do on Wikipedia: look at their article (whatever it is), and look at the History button.

My proposed policy at WP:RECALL

This entire policy proposal had it's genesis in the conversation I had here, largely with Cyde Weys, about how a policy should/could be proposed. After I posted this, I looked around at other (defunct/dead) policy proposals for similar things, and based on the opinions expressed by some users on the RfC, I decided to write up the policy proposal to spark some discussion, and review of the old idea. In fact, numerous admins have participated in the policy work, across different versions.

Timeline of Wikistalking accusations

Starting around the beginning of August, MONGO began accusing me of directly Wikistalking himself and "other administrators". When I'd often (repeatedly) asked him to explain/show me how I was doing this, he would routinely not give me answers, but tell me to 'knock it off'.

8/1/06

1. Implied accusation of stalking/following (apparently the first one), in spite of the fact that I had numerous previous interactions with various users on the RfC--including the subject of the RfC itself. rootology (T) 18:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8/16/06, Kelly Martin RfC

I left an Outside View on what was a very highly "known" RfC, and had a fairly pleasant conversation with Kelly on her talk page during the process.

I made largely the same points that others were also stating. On a couple of instances some tempers did flare, but it was actually directed at me, for apparently asking direct questions that didn't please some of the participants. MONGO here, out of the blue, throws out one of the wikistalking accusations toward me. I'm honestly not sure if he just expects me to stay in the Main name space, away from any subject that might interest him, based on all of this. The other user that MONGO accused here of wikistalking asked him for clarification, to which MONGO did not provide any clear information or guidance, just a curt open ended response. Oddly, he later explained that I was also wikistalking other admins (need to find diff), including Tony Sidaway, which is odd as I had/have been working rather civilly and collegially at that point with Tony on a policy proposal at WP:RECALL, along with a variety of other administrators.

8/18/06

This all apparently came to a head for MONGO when he blocked a user that I have known for several years (before joining Wikipedia) via various Information technology and computer science circles, Weevlos. MONGO had blocked the user in what appeared to be "out of the blue" to me. His talk page was also protected by MONGO, so that the user could not request a review of the block on his own. Knowing this person for several years, I had his page on my watchlist, and when I noticed this all I posted in an already ongoing AN/I discussion here, asking why he was blocked. Ever since then, it's been apparently escalated by MONGO towards his "going after me". I began to compile this page after all this.

1. First removal of personal attack by me.
2. First reversion.
3. Second removal by me, clarifying it as such.
4. Second reversion of my removal.
5. Message threatening to ban me for removal of a perceived WP:NPA violation.
6. My post in AN/I asking for clarification from other admins.
7. My first reply on ANI in regards to this.
8. Additional comments/discussion (it gets completely circular--me asking nicely for clarification/diffs, no responses) on this same AN/I topic and subtopics.

8/19 to 8/21 - break

Took down my page, intending to take long wikibreak from stress due to all this. Decided to just take a couple days off instead, and then immediately was attacked/accused again after doing some good faith edits based on perceived policy.

8/21/06

1. Accuses me of accusing him of being a paid government webspammer, in response to his accusing me of being a "POV pushing 9/11 conspiracy theorist". Attempting to clarify what is being said, and discuss it with MONGO, and trying to defuse this whole confusing mess of my being attacked on the talk page.
2. Another accusation of wikistalking, and apparent basis for his reasoning. My reply, explaining my desire to be left alone to build the encyclopedia in peace. Requested him to either file ArbCom, proove where/how I'm wikistalking, and explaining how I feel it is harassment.
3. Apparent clarification of why he feels it's wikistalking. My very long response to all points. Another reason my first edit to one of these "9/11" articles caught my interest, is that the radio station referenced and in question is a local one to where I am, and actually happens to be one that I actively listen to, and I was mildy annoyed that I missed the interview in question that is being referenced.
4. I make a statement on talk page expressing an opinion of something on one of the sources, which Tom Harrison quoted ("that quotation is an opinion" - my statement), and am apparently attacked over my simple statement.

Statement by party 2

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

Outside comment by User:Badlydrawnjeff

Much further evidence can be found at the deleted talk pages at Encyclopædia Dramatica, the deleted history of Encyclopedia Dramatica, and at the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 2, a deleted RfC that was put out concerning MONGO's behavior. I encourage arbitrators to review the deleted history of the articles in question prior to making any decisions on the matter.

Comment by Cyde Weys

Badlydrawnjeff and Rootology are both people with stronger allegiances to Encyclopedia Dramatica than to Wikipedia. I wouldn't say that either of them is a troll per se, but they have been known to lure the occasional passerby under their bridge and eat him. --Cyde Weys 22:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Appeal by David

Initiated by David | Talk at 20:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Dbiv (talk · contribs)

This is an appeal against the ban on editing Peter Tatchell which the committee purported to impose today. For the avoidance of doubt, no other part of the judgment is being appealed.

Statement by David

The grounds of appeal are eleven in number:

1. My contributions to the article Peter Tatchell have been overwhelmingly positive and have raised the article from near-stub status to a fairly comprehensive one which is sourced and neutral.
2. No evidence has been presented that I have failed to work together with editors other than Irishpunktom on this article.
3. I resigned as sysop on 20th August and there is therefore no longer any reason to believe that I will misuse rollback, as I no longer have access to it.
4. The decision is founded on a factual error (that I used rollback on editors other than Irishpunktom who made good faith contributions). This is untrue.
5. The decision failed to take into account a private agreement between myself and Irishpunktom which prevents disruption. (Text available on request)
6. No evidence has been presented that I have engaged in disruptive editing generally.
7. No temporary injunction was imposed in the case, indicating that the ArbCom knew I was editing the article properly for the period of the case.
8. Factual errors in other parts of the case produced a biased judgment. Among these errors was the claim that I was blocked for a 3RR on 15th February, when the truth is that there was no 3RR.
9. The arbitrators have been unable to justify, when asked, the proposed decision.
10. The proposed decision does not have community support. I am unaware of a single non-arbitrator who has indicated their agreement.
11. The excessive time taken by a relatively small case (a record, so far as I can tell) has produced a faulty finding.

Clerk notes

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

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

MyWikiBiz

Initiated by Cyde Weys at 14:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties and confirmations

MyWikiBiz

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

ArbCom is the only kind of dispute resolution that is liable to work in this instance.

MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been writing and influencing articles on Wikipedia on a contract basis for pay.

Statement by Cyde Weys

MyWikiBiz is admittedly writing articles on a for-pay basis. This was noticed and he was briefly blocked and then unblocked by Jimbo after he promised that he wasn't going to do anything bad. Well, it appears that he has. Here we see him voting delete in an AFD, saying the subject of the article should have employed him if they wanted an article that should be kept. This reeks of a protection racket. He's also nominated a few other articles about businesses for deletion; one wonders if he did so because he offered to improve their articles for pay and they refused? I believe this case needs to be accepted to establish some sort of precedent about whether such an egregious conflict of interest with the core goals of the project should be tolerated. --Cyde Weys 14:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More stuff to look at: Look at the deleted edits on Gregory Kohs and Gregory J. Kohs. I'm not quite sure what's going on here but User:Thekohser is self-admittedly an alternate account of "MyWikiBiz", and appears also to have been doing some suspicious business-related edits. --Cyde Weys 16:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

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

No statement to be expected, see [1]. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside statement by Doc

Jimbo has had some discussion with this editor/firm, and allowed them to edit. That's fine. (I might quibble but his word is final). However, it appears that the editor has breached the guidelines Jimbo set. Further, the conflict of interests means that we shouldn't quite treat this user like any private individual. Since Jimbo is involved, it is difficult for the community to make decisions here. This is new territory. I suggest arbcom accept this case, and confer with Jimbo to firmly establish what is and is not acceptable in these cases. This clearly won't be the last issue like this, so some precedents may be useful here. --Doc 15:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Thatcher131

"You should have used MyWikiBiz" [2] might be an acceptable slogan in commercial advertising but is highly inappropriate on Wikipedia. In additional to the commercial implications, having a paid writer !voting to delete articles about non-clients is an unacceptable conflict of interest. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JChap

Aside from the comments in the diffs in Cyde's statements, what bothers me about this user is a pattern of participation in AfD, always with respect to business articles. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Technologies he really went to the wall to save an article that I can only assume from the redirects in his contribution history he had written. Is he also going to be allowed to advocate for these articles? In his comments in AfD'd for articles he hasn't written he has a pattern of voting delete' and suggesting that the article could be saved when written differently or by someone unconnected to the company (hint, hint) that go even beyond these two diffs. He also nominates articles (once again, on businesses) that he hasn't written. This is a clear conflict of interest and I doubt it was what was intended when he was allowed to edit. The proper party, either ArbCom or Jimbo Wales (or both), should determine whether this user has acted appropriately in this case. JChap2007 16:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Improv

I would like to suggest that arbcom reject the case and allow an admin to simply permablock the account (or alternatively execute summary judgement and do it themselves). The purpose of the account is unacceptable and outrageous to the community -- similarly, the actions are not something that should be tolerated. This is not a troublesome-but-productive user, nor is it something that can or should go through a RFC. I don't believe there's a basis for arbitration. --Improv 16:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Ackoz appeal of community ban

Initiated by Ackoz at 23:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties and confirmations

I request a community ban review for my case, as I think the bans on both accounts and my IP are unfair and over-strict.

• Ackoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Azmoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 85.70.5.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Involved parties are me (usernames and IP above) and the blocking admins. I am unable to notify them about this because I was granted a conditional unblock only to edit ArbCom pages and I don't want to breach this in any way. (I posted notifications for you. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• Geni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [3]
• Mark (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [4]
• Centrx (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [5]

Statement by Ackoz (original username)

I started editing wikipedia like in March 2006. I was quite busy at that time, that's why I actually started contributing more around June, I created some articles (that were well-researched and I spent a lot of time on them), also uploaded some self-made illustrations (which actually ment a lot of work to me), I joined the wikiproject medicine and took part in its collaborations. I was blocked for 3 days as a result of a heated discussion on AfD or something. Whatever lead to this block, I decided I wouldn't contribute to wikipedia anymore, used the right to vanish, as I felt that my efforts here weren't fully appreciated. I came back as an IP editor to check how the vote on Caron goes, and re-registered so that my vote would be counted. I chose a new username, Azmoc, and I admit that I did some trolling on wp talk pages since then. I would, however, like to be unblocked so I can edit articles, especially medicine-related ones from time to time. If I get unblocked, I will not post on WP project talk pages, other than wikiproject medicine. I already said this on IRC to Centrx as I requested unblock for my IP, his reaction was however extending the block from Azmoc to Ackoz, replacing the userpages with "sockpuppet warning" and changing the lenght of the IP block to 6 months. He also warned the other admins about my "clever or annoying" reasons for getting unblocked. But my reasons are clear - I would like to have the access to editing wikipedia articles, not project talk, and I think my contributions or the articles I created (Abdominal_aortic_aneurysm, Antyllus, Transfusion-associated_graft_versus_host_disease etc.) or the other edits I made could convince you that I can be beneficial to the project, if I restrain from discussing the functioning of WP. The last two trolling things I did as the IP was that I posted "I concur" and "I second that" on ANI, that's why I was blocked. I think that 1/2 admins-issued 6 months ban is too much of a punishment for something like this. I would also accept probation or something similar. PS: I would like 1 account, preferably Ackoz, to be unblocked.

Statement by JzG

User is communtiy blocked, this is the logical avenue of appeal. I request that ArbCom accept the case. Just zis Guy you know? 23:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Geni

As long as the user agrees to stop the behaviour that got him blocked and agrees to stick to one account I have no objection to and unblock (would probably have done it myself if contacted).Geni 20:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will stick to 1 account, Ackoz. I didn't feel the need to contact Geni, as only Azmoc was blocked, Ackoz (my original account) wasn't and many admins knew that, for instance Zoe here [6] but they chose not to extend the block to Ackoz, maybe because I was maybe disrupting a little, but not that seriously. Then I posted "I concur" and "I second that" at ANI, was IP blocked for that, and after I requested an unblock over the IRC, User:Centrx actually didn't reply to me (he only asked me if I was Ackoz too), just extended the block to include Ackoz, replaced the pages with sockpuppet warnings and prolonged the IP block to 6 months. It was like I did something to him. However, I admit my fault, I was trolling, and the truth is, even after how Centrx behaved, I don't want to interact so much with the others on WP. I just want to have access to editing the articles that I have interest in, i.e. medical articles, Czech history articles etc. If I see something controversial, I will just back off, I am not keen on interacting with these community members anymore. Ackoz 21:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Image:Nasrallah and khamenei.jpg

Initiated by Patchouli at 11:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• User:Patchouli et al. No explanation suffices for the other party.--Patchouli
• tickle et al.

As first party, you may feel tempted to add a summary here. If you do, make it a single sentence of not more than twenty words. Please make your case in your statement.

Statement by party 1

I and others have given a thorough explanation for the licensing of [[Image:Nasrallah and khamenei.jpg]]. Kaaveh and Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) have elucidated on the copyright of the picture. Yet there are a few editors who can never be appeased with the licensing and wish to delete the picture as soon as possible.

The only solution here is arbitration for issuing a decree. Please see the image page, its talk, and history, and finally give a directive. I will abide by it. Hopefully, there will be a convincing reasoning with the decision.--Patchouli 11:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

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

Statement by Tmorton166

I originally helped with the copyright tagging of this article as fair use - which I believe it is. However there is no specific source from MEHR news (the source) that allows for the image to be used - as has been indicated by the original uploader. Despite the lack of this link I don't believe that the image no longer qualifies for fair use, seeing as the source is noted (although not linked to) I think the disputing of the image sourcing was a little unfair.

Howevewr I also think that this case should be rejected, the involved parties have not tried any other dispute resolution process and have not even tried talking it out on the image talk page. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 11:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

• Reject. Solving every little dispute is not the role of the Committee. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jgp

Initiated by Dionyseus at 09:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• user:Jgp
• user:Dionyseus

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[7]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[8]

Statement by User:Dionyseus

Jgp has continually attacked me personally. I'm not taking anymore of his attacks and I want him banned for an appropiate length of time for his attacks.

It all started on July 9, 2006 when Jgp assumed bad faith by claiming that I had some agenda. On July 12 he personally attacked me by stating that whatever I say cannot be trusted. [9] The next day he attacked me again saying that I have gone off the deep end and that anything I say is suspect. [10] I posted a warning on his talk page asking him to stop personally attacking me, and he responded by attacking me again. [11]

I reported JgP at WP:PAIN, unfortunately the administrator who took the case did not recognize the personal attacks, and basically gave JgP a slap on the wrist for calling me a liar. [[12] Since when is calling me a liar, claiming that anything I say cannot be trusted, claiming that anything I say is suspect, and claiming I've gone off the deep end not considered personal attacks?

JgP then decided to take a break and all was peaceful again for a month. Suddenly he returned tonight and has attacked me yet again by posting a completely ridiculous and unwarranted POV warning on my talk page. [13] He then went on to file a 3RR violation against me, but administrator User:William_M._Connolley correctly deemed it spurious and unwarranted. [14]

Administrator User:Alex_Bakharev intervened and thankfully removed Jgp's unwarranted warning. [15] I believe Jgp's personal attacks and mischaracterizations against me should not go unpunished. Dionyseus 09:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:jgp

First off, there have been insufficient attempts at dispute resolution. The only admin to comment on such so-called personal attacks (over a month ago) said that "it's a bit sensitive of him [Dio] to call your [my] posts personal attacks" [16]. Regarding the whole "you can't be trusted issue": this came after he asserted that a perfectly valid news outlet is an "unreliable" "blog", an assertion that was outright absurd, and made it hard for me to take him seriously. I don't see why this is on RfAr: if my so-called personal attacks were so egregious, then why haven't I been blocked for personal attack yet? Why hasn't he taken it to ANI? Why was he told that my comments weren't personal attacks when he reported me to WP:PAIN? There's been no RfC, no Mediation, etc. He's jumping the gun by making this an ArbCom case. However, regarding Dio's conduct, Dio has pushed his POV on The Inquirer multiple times. He has added text that can be considered defamatory ([17] being the most egregious). In the past, he once re-added unsourced original research that was removed [18] and made accusations of vandalism against the person who removed the unsourced information [19]. Some of his comments were bad enough to draw the attention of the Inquirer's founder, who called his remarks libel [20]. The most recent incident was of him removing relevant, sourced information to a mistake published by the Inquirer: the information shows that the Inquirer's source had misquoted its source, rather than it being a mistake introduced by the Inquirer, which is a very important difference. His removal of that information was POV, and thus he deserved the warning. jgp ^T_C 09:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Danielpi

I would point out, with relevance to my current arbitration case with User:Dionyseus that this is yet more evidence of his pattern of wikilawyering and POV pushing. He has established further history of such conduct since [this] began. I would certainly appreciate another look into his pattern of wiki abuses, as there do exist a substantial number. Thanks. Danny Pi 12:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

• Reject. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Internal spamming/campaigning

There's an ongoing discussion at WP:SPAM about what constitutes acceptable talk page contact between users regarding discussions, votes, polls, etc. Prior rulings that have been pointed to are this prior ruling and this one. Could you offer any more specific information about what is and is not allowed/discouraged, for example: is it the use of mass userbox messaging that is disallowed (if it is), or is internal spamming/campaigning disallowed only if disruptive? Thanks. IronDuke 17:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article. Fred Bauder 16:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq wikistalking and block count

I've been having a difficult time applying arbitration enforcement for Zeq and feel I have since been targetted by him. For example, after I blocked Kelly Martin for her B-list attack page, Zeq just happens to come along so as to caution me from blocking a user with whom you have a dispute" (what dispute? he fails to mention). Or, after removing and protecting the attack page by Sarasto777, Zeq just happens to come along, again. These are not isolated examples. Then today, Zeq questions my administrative compotence and speaks of an "edit[orial] conflict" after I delete his copyvio entry, twice. Many blocks later, how should I proceed with the tendencious edits by the user? Should I implement Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Enforcement_by_block next time — it will be the 6th block. Or will it? I am inclined to count article bans as blocks, and am seeking clarification as to this approach, and Zeq's conduct overall as illustrated above. Thanks in advance. El_C 13:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do take the time to examine this request's threaded dialogue (it was removed without an accompanying diff being cited). Thanks. El_C 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moby Dick's article ban - projectspace?

"Moby Dick is banned from editing articles which concern Turkey or Kurdish issues." [21] Does this include Articles for Deletion discussions related to those issues? Cool Cat believes the diff above is part of a pattern of harrassment on AfDs, according to a post of his on the admins' incidents noticeboard. The simplest way to sort this out in my view would be to confirm whether his article ban does or should cover projectspace pages. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to clarify my reasoning. While one keep vote does not constitute as stalking, Moby Dick's continuing pattern of behaviour does.

The pattern of behaviour presented in the Arbitration cases evidence page is in my view continuing for one and a half years now. Two arbitration cases have been filed over the issue. Now those arbitration hearings need to be enforced.

--Cat out 14:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)