Dispute resolution (Requests)
Tips
Assume good faith Use etiquette Be civil Be open to compromise Discuss on talk pages Failure to discuss Help desk (Request)
Content disputes
Third opinion (Request) Mediation Noticeboards Request comments (Request) Resolution noticeboard (Request)
Conduct disputes
Administrator assistance (Request) Arbitration (Request)

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Initiated by Joaquín Martínez at 07:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Joaquín Martínez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dethme0w (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have informed the user of this proceeding - [1]

I have tried discussing it with the user on his talk page but he has made it quite clear he is not open to mediation - [2]

The issue revolves around comments surrounding the edits I made to the article Conservapedia. I attempted to both correct and clarify the information on the page in order to remove bias in accordance with WP:NPOV, however Dethme0w saw fit to revert this and labeled my edits as vandalism. I approached the user about his use of "vandalism", itself a provocative phrase. He ignored it completely, making a sneaky attack in his edit summary. I continued to attempt to discuss the issue, directing him to WP:Vandalism, which clearly illustrates that my edits were not vandalism and asked only for an apology with the intention of discussing the edits further on the article's talk page. He continued in calling me a "vandal and a troll" and made another sneaky attack on watching people's user pages [3] before finally indicating he had no intention of proceeding in civil discussions.

I am deeply offended by Dethme0w's personal attacks against me as I only attempted to remove a liberal bias against a conservative website. Dethme0w's labeling of my edits as vandalism and his later remarks go against all guidelines of civility on this encyclopedia and he must be brought in check before he continues this behaviour against other editors.

Just to clarify this is not a content dispute but a complaint over the personal attacks made by another editor who has made it quite clear they do not want to attempt mediation.

While patrolling recent changes, I saw blatant, strong, and extensive unsourced POV being re-added to a controversial article after reversion, by a person who has been blocked for edit warring and 3RR in the past. And who has a history of making extensive POV-based edits against consensus. As a result, viewing the diff for his edit I clicked the "Revert Vandal" option offered by Twinkle in order to revert the article to the previous state. The result of this was the very amusing exchange you will find on my Talk Page.

It should be added that another editor reverted the same edits before me, and yet another after. And that this was my first edit to this article in months. All of the other remarks were on my own talk page, not on the article's discussion page.

We are here today because I don't think I owe Mr. Martinez an apology for using "Revert Vandal" under these circumstances. His history and his hubris and hyperbole, even in this Rfa, speak for themselves. If an apology is owed, it is to the admin(s) whose time will be wasted on this.

There is no need for arbitration in this case at this time. This is a content dispute and in any event no forms dispute resolution have been attempted. JoshuaZ 13:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the user in question is simply a troll impersonating someone else. See [4]. I suggest this arbitration request be removed. JoshuaZ 22:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see little in the way of constructive edits from Joaquín Martínez (talk · contribs). If Dethme0w characterized his edits as vandalism, that is not completely inaccurate. [5], [6], and [7] are all extremely unconstructive. --B 15:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user has now been indefblocked (old-school community ban). I don't think anyone anywhere would disagree with that ban and if there are no objections, we can just remove this request as it is moot. --B 19:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquín Martínez is a single-purpose account determined to inject a radical POV into articles such as Conservapedia (where I have run across the user) and right the "rampant liberal deceit" he claims can be found on Wikipedia. Vandalism is defined as "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." There exist no clearer words to describe Joaquín Martínez's edits, and he will very soon be indefinitely blocked as a result. Dethme0w should be commended for his efforts. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Initiated by Ferrylodge at 23:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[8] [9]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[10]

I am unblocked for purposes of appeal.[11] Upon request of KillerChihuahua (KC),[12] FeloniousMonk banned me from Wikipedia on 21 September 2007.[13] Different methods of dispute resolution had been proposed by other editors, such as simmering down or a Request for Comments (RfC).[14][15] [16] However, KC bypassed those other methods. KillerChihuahua stated: "I doubt that an Rfc would be of any help, because in the few previous instances I have seen of community input, Ferrylodge showed himself resistant to the concept that he could possibly have erred at all."[17] Actually, I have often admitted mistakes, including 22 minutes before KillerChihuahua's statement to the contrary,[18] and also the day before.[19]

I have never been to ArbCom. Also, no one has ever brought an RfC on me. I started editing Wikipedia in 2004, and became more active in 2006.[20] I accumulated 5523 edits to Wikipedia articles, and edited 540 pages.[21] I tried to make Wikipedia more informative and neutral, including edits to controversial as well as uncontroversial topics, creating new articles, reverting vandalism, and participating in Featured Article Review.[22] I have been a volunteer Wikipedian, unconnected to any organization. I have been blocked three times. Background about the previous three blocks is important for understanding the present dispute, but I will see if this appeal is accepted before describing that background, which is summarized at my talk page.[23]

KC has often been uncivil. She has asserted that my words are "bullshit" and "pathetic",[24] that my words are "inane,"[25] that my behavior served no purpose "unless your purpose is to convince others that you are congenitally dense,"[26] that I am "naive and disingenuous,"[27] that I am a "spammer,"[28] et cetera. Therefore, at 17:03 on 20 September 2007, I asked KillerChihuahua to stop posting at my talk page,[29] pursuant to Wikipedia policy.[30]

Later that day, KC filed her initial ban proposal on the Community Sanction Noticeboard (CSN), while complaining about my having asked that she stop commenting at my talk page.[31] FeloniousMonk banned me less than 24 hours later, for "attempting to harass other users."[32] I responded to KC's initial ban proposal at the CSN.[33] Other people subsequently showed up at the CSN, but I had no opportunity to answer most of them because a ban was imposed less than a day after my announcement that "I will be travelling on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday (September 21-23) and therefore will not have internet access."[34] The ban discussion --- such as it was --- is archived.[35]

I agree with editors such as Gatoclass that KillerChihuahua failed to demonstrate "harassment" in her ban proposal.[36] I also agree with the other editors and admins who have expressed further concerns about the fairness of these banishment proceedings, including Ali'i,[37] B,[38] JavaTenor,[39] Dean Wormer,[40] Zsero,[41] Agne27,[42] Nick,[43] Banno,[44] and Crockspot.[45]

If this appeal is accepted, I hope someone (e.g. FeloniousMonk) will identify instances of alleged "attempted harassment" that are viewed as most serious. Perhaps we could address them before addressing less serious accusations by KillerChihuahua and others.

I see that Ferrylodge has focused primarily on maligning me, which is at first glance completely irrelevant to whether his ban is appropriate. My character has nothing to do with this. However, it highlights the issues. This is typical Ferrylodge. Rather than address the issue at hand, he engages in character assassination of the person or person he perceives as his enemy, or opposition, by misrepresenting others. He does not attempt to work towards consensus with others, but rather works to attack and undermine those with whom he disagrees - and I have evidence that this is deliberate and malicious. He edit wars across multiple articles, using this technique to castigate or drive away those who disagree, This has been effective. One editor left the project altogether rather than deal with the type of venomous allegations which are Ferrylodge's preferred method of interaction, and others have been driven away from "his" articles. He wages POV wars designed to wear down opposition, even where he is in a minority of one, by sheer unreasonable persistence in the face of consensus, and he maligns those opposing him to make it appear that it is a personal matter on their part, rather than a policy matter on his.

I could easily spend considerable time and effort correcting and defending myself against his various allegations, above. I chose at this time to ignore them completely. Should this case be accepted, I will of course not allow such smears to go unchallenged.

His response to the CSN thread was to post 1867 words, of which over 1500 were attacking and misrepresenting me, and to a lesser extent others. Ferrylodge seems incapable of recognizing that there is anything wrong in his habit of ad hominem attacks, and shows great stamina in pursuing and maligning those who attempt to offer constructive criticism, or with whom he disagrees. It is this to which I refer when I say he seems resistant to the concept that he could possibly have erred. He shows no desire at all to adjust his behavior and work with others, I have no doubt this factored into FeloniousMonk's decision to block. This is his technique also when edit warring - he seems incapable of focusing on the content, not the contributor. His attacks are so outrageous that frequently his trolling works, and editors spend their energies refuting his statements and attempting to correct his interpretation of their views. I do not believe it is a lack of comprehension on Ferrylodge's part; as stated before, I have evidence that this is deliberate and malicious.

This follows the pattern seen in his earlier block for harassment. Having edit warred across multiple articles, he moved to harassing me on my user page, was warned, continued, and was blocked. He took this to ANI, where a thread of 13,412 words with input from multiple editors resulted in a near-unanimous verdict of The block was just, get over it. Getting no joy there, he filed an Rfc against the blocking admin, where some 30 editors supported views which were variations on The block was just, this is a frivolous Rfc. It does not surprise me that in his initial draft for this request for ArbCom, Ferrylodge presented (presumably as an example of how reasonable he is) that he "...dropped the matter rather than going through a time-consuming and disruptive arbitration at ArbCom"[46] Also typical is his initial naming of "Ferrylodge v. FeloniousMonk", indicating his mindset of Me. v Them.

I suggest arbiters read the Statement from Andrew-c, Bishonen's post, and as recommended by Bishonen, the RfC brought by Ferrylodge, most especially its talkpage or at least the last section on the RfC talkpage.

Does CSN have problems? Undoubtedly. Was this case a bit of a train-wreck? Very probably. Will unblocking Ferrylodge "fix" CSN? Nope. Ferrylodge chose to use the CSN board as yet another venue for attacking and escalating rather than treating concerns of others with any hint of serious consideration, and he was blocked. Had I taken this to ANI I have no doubt the result would have been the same, with the exception that the block would not be questioned on the basis of the "lynch mob" or "brokenness" of CSN. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased to see that Ferrylodge is appealing this ban. This is an appalling example of the lynchmob mentality of the community sanction board. The initial ban proposal was made at 23:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC). The block was made at 18:23, 21 September 2007. That's less than 24 hours later and horribly inappropriate.

Ferrylodge had been blocked for an unrelated 3RR when the ban proposal was made and was unable to respond until well into the lynching. As pointed out above, to what extent there is harassment, it is largely mutual and KillerChihuahua is by no means an innocent party in the matter. This diff [47] is over the top and the fact that there was no opportunity for rebuttal and meaningful discussion of KillerChihuahua's assertions before the final course of action was de facto decided makes it difficult to have respect for this process. The person who actually imposed the block, FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs), is himself a participant in the discussion.

To sum it all up, the process was horribly bad. I strongly encourage arbcom to reverse this ban. --B 01:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm a stickler for neatness, I decided to utilize the Party2 section. Ferrylodge is engaging in a pseudo-wiki-lawyering to attempt to reverse his community ban based not on the facts of the case, that is, a long history of edit-warring and tendentious editing, sad attempts to attack varous admins utilizing wiki procedures that wasted the community time, and rude personal attacks. Ferrylodge is trying to show a small procedural issue that is subject to interpretation.

The Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen 2 is the one action by Ferrylodge is that clouds any attempt to give him good faith and to even consider that he should be a part of this community. Specifically, his comments about closing the RfC were at best argumentative, but more probably rude. He was denying the fact that the vast majority of the community spoke, and essentially said to him, "this was a waste of time, there's nothing here." A full read of the RfC tested the patience of many editors. KillerChihuahua, though I am not capable of reading her mind, observed the same patterns over and over again, and felt the need stand up to his editing.

I'm glad he's gone. His usefulness to this project was never relevant. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 13:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an utter waste of time. Ferrylodge contributes nothing and should have been shown the door a long time ago. I urge arbcom to reject this, and would like to applaud FeloniousMonk for his action.  – ornis⚙ 11:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha, ArbCom. I will admit that I hadn't spent time editing with Ferrylodge on abortion related articles (where it is alleged he was most disruptive), but I had seen him edit various political articles such as Fred Thompson and Preamble to the United States Constitution. And so I had always seen Ferrylodge as a constructive editor (although admittedly one with an opinion, but not an axe to grind). He has been very helpful in reverting vandalism where seen, and doing a lot of "the little things" that needed to be done.

So I was surprised when I saw Ferrylodge brought to the Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard, especially by someone I respect as much as KillerChihuahua. I thought, oh this must be a mistake. But it wasn't. And after reading the proposal, I responded against the ban. [48] In the course of the ban proposal, many people voiced other options rather than an outright ban (topical ban, revert limits, etc.). However, these other options, along with those of us who objected to the ban, were tossed aside and Ferrylodge was banned, enacted by an involved participant, less than 24 hours after the proposal was brought forth, with no other formal dispute resolution steps even being tried. As I stated on the sanctions board, "The top of this page reads, "Complex or ambiguous cases should go to dispute resolution." This isn't the type of case that should really be handled by the community sanction noticeboard. I know some of you have said, "I don't think dispute resolution would work", but you never bothered to try the next steps. Bans are supposed to be a last resort." And now he's still being mocked along the way.[49]

So now having looked back through about his last 1000 edits (about the last six weeks or so), I know that I was correct in my assumption. Ferrylodge is a helpful contributor who engages in discussion, and was "banned" out-of-process, and out of policy. I humbly ask ArbCom to take this case, and look into the ban. I think something may need to be done (whether a topical ban, etc.), but the ban seems wrong.

Now, I must also apologize for my harsh language directed mostly at FeloniousMonk after the ban was enacted. I don't want anything I said held against Ferrylodge. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 14:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no experience with Wikipedia's quasi-legal system, so I have no opinion on how the banning of Ferrylodge varied from the ideal version of the process. But I strongly disagree with the characterization of the process as any kind of "mob." The idea of me forming a mob with Swatjester or Jossi is pretty laughable. Rather, what seemed to me to happen was that a diverse group of editors converged quickly but repeatedly to the same conclusion.

Other than that, I said what I had to say in the CSN process(es) and have nothing to add at present. --Pleasantville 17:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To preface, I've had a very negative experience in content disputes with Ferrylodge. That being said, I feel it would be the correct action for ArbCom to review this situation, based on the rapid resolution of the proposal at CSN (and what appears to be the inherent flaws in that process), and my opinion that a much better outcome could be found. I think the truth clearly lies between User:Ali'i who states that "Ferrylodge is a helpful contributor who engages in discussion", and User:ConfuciusOrnis who states that "Ferrylodge contributes nothing". Ferrylodge has potential to be a very positive contributor, but to this point has been overwhelming involved in pursuing the goal of pushing his point of view. Other actions should have been attempted before banning. CitiCat ^♫ 16:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is grossly unacceptable. What was said here is extremely relevant. There was no chance for anyone to even participate in the discussion. Scratch that, there was no discussion. There was a vote. The ban should not stand period based off the CN "ruling". However, if ArbCom finds a reason to ban, then I personally will have no complaints. Please accept a ban review. Kwsn(Ni!) 17:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The complaints of Ferrylodge and his supporters that he was denied due process is specious; it does not match the facts. The discussion was opened at 23:32 20 September by KillerChihuahua: [50] The block enforcing the ban was placed at 18:26 on 21 September by FM: [51] That's nineteen hours of discussion. Many bans have been put in place with far less. Ferrylodge had ample opportunity to comment before the ban but instead chose to use it to continue the personal harassment that prompted the proposed ban and announce he was leaving for the weekend. The community then had another 48 hours to discuss the ban, and the result was a 4:1 consensus in favor of the ban. [52] Clearly sympathetic admins were not comfortable unblocking him, either. The proposed alternatives to banning he and his supporters are on about were for 3RR and NPOV parole, not the behavior that prompted the filing: harassement.

The community showed a 4:1 consensus in favor of a ban, no admins were willing to unblock him, and many community ban discussions at WP:AN/I and WP:CSN have run far shorter then the 19 hours before a block and the 48 hours of additional discussion afterwards. There's no reason for the Arbcom to override the community's decision. But if they do decide to taken this case, I suggest they review the incivil behavior of Ferrylodge's supporter User:Ali'i at FM's talk page. Odd nature 19:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recall the WP:CSN discussion, and if the user had been the least bit concillatory or presented anything exulpatory towards his behavior I would say that an arbcomm review of the community ban would be appropriate. As it turned out, nothing to explain, exuse, or rememdy his disruptive, harrassing, personal attacks was presented in approximately 72 hours of discussion either by the user or those who disagreed with banning. I recommend arbcomm endorse the community ban by rejecting an appeal at this time. --Rocksanddirt 20:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen both Ferrylodge and KillerChihuahua make positive contributions to articles and discussions. And at different times, I have found myself indebted to both. All that I have been able to discern about the relationship between Ferrylodge and KillerChihuahua is that they share a mutual animosity. Because I respect both Ferrylodge and KillerChihuahua, I do not intend my comments here to detract from either of them. I am also not writing to opine about the timeframe in which the ban was enacted. I am writing to say that while I do not understand all of Ferrylodge’s rhetorical decisions, and have on at least one occasion been bewildered by an issue he has chosen to pursue (“womb”), I have seen him make positive contributions to even contested pages, such as the Abortion page. Although I have not followed his Wiki-career closely and have noticed that he is sometimes notably defensive (as I see it), I can say that over the past year I have not seen him lash out without provocation. Because of this, I give him the benefit of the doubt even when he is perusing issues that I do not understand or that are not dear to me (e.g., “womb”). I think his presence on Wikipedia has net positive effect.LCP 20:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Initiated by nat^tang at 21:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nat (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiating party)
• Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Equazcion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Burntsauce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added by Penwhale

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Alkivar (talk · contribs) - [53]
• Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) - [54]
• Equazcion (talk · contribs) - [55]
• Burntsauce (talk · contribs) - [56] added by Penwhale

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alkivar - Although the situation is not the same, it deals with a similar problem.
• WP:ANI thread which led to the RFC.

My concern here is the conduct of the sysop Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) in terms of the inappropriate usage of sysop tools. Before I found the WP:ANI report that had been listed by Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs), I was completely uninvolved with the situation between Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) and my involvement until requesting for arbitration was minimal. The evidence that was listed on WP:ANI was:

• [57] and [58] - The edit summary written by Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was, and I quote, "since idiots seem inclined to continuously readd pop trivia to ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLES... this will be protected until said time the parties agree to stop." (end quote) Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) essentially involved himself/herself in the dispute, then he/she protected the page to lock out non-sysops from editing, and basically called editors who wish to add the trivia section, and I quote, "idiots" (end quote).
• [59] - Indefinite blocked Equazcion (talk · contribs) based on "Attempting to harass other users: wikistalking". Although this might seem like the case and there could be a chance that there is, Equazcion (talk · contribs) was essentially restoring trivia sections of the articles and it so happened that Burntsauce (talk · contribs) (the user who Equazcion was accused of wikistalking) was removing the trivia section. In my opinion, is that this was just a case of content dispute and not wikistalking. In addition to this point, I would like to point out that Equazcion (talk · contribs) was not given any warning before being issued a block. Equazcion (talk · contribs) was later unblocked by Nishkid64 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), stating as the reason for unblocking was, and I quote, "User seems to have been acting in good-faith per discussion at Wikipedia talk:Trivia sections. Indefinite block was a bit too much." (end quote).

Based on the evidence presented above, I feel that his actions were clearly not one should expect from a sysop. I was hesitant to file this report until I saw that this was not the first time his behaviour was placed under the microscope:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alkivar - An WP:RfC that was filed against Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on 27 July 2007 (UTC) for incivility. The statement of the dispute in the RfC was, and I quote, "The administrator User:Alkivar makes incivil statements to other users, particularly in edit summaries, and then either dismisses criticism of this behavior, or, in at least one instance, attempts to quash the criticism by invoking his administrator status.".

My goal in filing this report is to halt this disgusting misuse of sysop tools, and to ensure that Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) does not become a liability to the Community. nat^tang 21:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who suggested that this should be brought here. If that makes me involved (does it?) I proably should be listed, but I had no part in the dispute leading up to this, until I saw the ANI posting. I will also admit I was unaware of the previous RFC; it just seemed to me his behavior in this incident alone, both in his behavior and in his dismissal (incidentally using the rollback tool) of other users' attempts to engage in discussion, was so egregious that something should be done. As for the dispute itself, I don't really care about pop culture sections, and I don't think it's relevant here. —Random832 22:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In my opinion, it's not just his use of the tools themselves (if it were a one-time incident, I don't know if he's done this before, I'll be looking more closely at the RFC), but his absolute refusal to even discuss afterwards that he might have stepped over a line. —Random832 22:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on User:Lid's statement, I think that User:Burntsauce should be added as a party to this case. —Random832 13:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the RfC either, until I got blocked. At first I figured Alkivar was acting simply because he saw me making a lot of rollbacks of the same user's edits, without knowing about the larger situation, and figured it was reasonable for him to think it was stalking. Basically I just thought it was just a misunderstanding. Then I learned that Alkivar has been removing trivia sections and simply didn't like that I was replacing them. I feel it's very inappropriate for an admin to perform a block for a content dispute that he himself is involved in, especially an indefinite block of my IP, and with no warning. I was also unable to email Alkivar during the time I was blocked, although having never been blocked before I can't say whether or not this was supposed to happen as the result of a block. I learned afterwards of Alkivar's past issues and of his routine blanking of his own talk page sections where people comment on his behavior. I don't know if this is one of the diff's linked to, but here he protected a page due to people continuing to re-add a trivia section to an article, an inappropriate action to begin with, with a very inappropriate edit summary.

I don't think this person should be an admin. His use of admin tools has been inappropriate -- and very far from the objective/cool-headed stance that admins should have in situations of conflict.

You couldn't email him because he stopped you sending email as part of the block - a function that should only be used when the user is abusing the "email this user" function. See your block log. Viridae^Talk 23:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was an accident, I was unaware I had clicked it until it had been undone by Nishkid.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean the email block was an accident, not the indefinite IP block?

Equazcion • argue/improves • 03:25, 10/10/2007

Yes.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

←I'd also like to point out that Alkivar has done a number of questionable things with his user page. He's deleted vandalism from his history (diff) and then permanently fully protected his own user page. He had the protection removed once by another admin but he re-protected it again (diff). His reasoning is frequent vandalism, but we can't check that due to the revision deletions -- see his user page history, which shows little to no vandalism. Is it proper to use admin tools like this?

In all fairness to Alkivar, I believe that there is no abuse of tools there with his user page. Some admins do semi/fully-protect their user pages to avoid vandalism; and others do delete revisions from their user page, normally to remove grotesque vandalism. As for the other admin unprotecting the user page, that wasn't an appropriate unprotection anyway. If Alkivar, however, had fully-protected his talk page permanently, rather than his user page, that would be inappropriate. Acalamari 22:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After the "idiots" comment cited by Nat, above, I posted a comment on the admin's talk page challenging that name-calling. He deleted that comment without response. [60] . I tried three other times to engage him. No response. [61][62][63] Knowing nothing of his prior history, I then decided to file a complaint on WP:ANI. Given the issues raised there, including taking sides in a content dispute and blocking the page, and blocking another user for not taking the same side (both actions since being reverted by other admins) I have concluded that Alkivar is unsuited to be an admin. I expect better behavior from admins than from the average editor. The fact that he appears to be disinterested in the various complaints made against him add to the argument that he should not be an admin. At the very least, he should be suspended for awhile and let him ponder the situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for saying Alkivar does not respond. He just responds indirectly. Apparently the issues cited recently are "over and done with and no longer matter". [64] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are three administrative actions that are points of contention. All three have now been undone:

• Protection of Palatine uvula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (undone by B)
• Block of Equazcion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (undone by Nishkid64)
• Protection of Area code 205 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (undone by Edokter)

There are several other administrative actions I have noticed on a cursory glance of Alkivar's logs that, on the surface, appear questionable and should be explained:

• Protection of User talk:Phil Sandifer (logs) with the message "if i cant have my banner... you cant have your protection... how's them apples?"
• Two-week block of Wwefan980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), apparently in response to [65]. The user has since left Wikipedia.
• Protection of Talk:Demonoid (logs) - as far as I can tell, there was only one IP vandal, who simply could have been blocked rather than protecting the page. In any event, indef protecting talk pages is usually a bad idea.
• Deletion of Wikipedia:What would Jack do? (logs)

I don't claim that the above is an exhaustive list, and it should be noted that the vast majority of Alkivar's admin actions are unquestionably correct and positive for the encyclopedia. This is merely what I saw on a brief glance that convinced me that it is appropriate for this action to go forward. Respectfully submitted, B 00:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier I suggested at WP:AN/I that concerned individuals file an admin conduct RfC concerning Alkivar's actions (diff 1 diff 2). Problem is, as others pointed out, Alkivar is uncommunicative. This section of his talk page is an example of that. At any rate, I recommend that the Arbitration Committee consider this case, as otherwise it does not seem Alkivar will respond. --Iamunknown 00:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being familiar with the history of this dispute, I endorse Iamunknown's summary and propose that Neil be added as a party as he is tangentially involved with the larger issues surrounding the case. east.718 at 01:30, 10/10/2007

Neil is on the "trivia deletionist" side and seems to have blocked another user, Wikidemo, on similar grounds as Alkivar did, and it was similarly lifted. See the discussion. This might not be the place to say this but I'm truly unnerved by this behavior coming from admins.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 01:38, 10/10/2007

Ah, forgive me. I thought Wikidemo was a party to this case too. east.718 at 02:07, 10/10/2007

I don't think that this is related to this case, although I'll point out the (12 minute) block of Wikidemo was to prevent the further misuse of rollback tools while (successful) discussion took place. Neil ム 11:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response self-refactored by Carcharoth to a named section following clerk request - clerk should feel free to remove this note when no longer needed.

Misuse of rollback tools? Discussion? Successful? Nobody was listening to a discussion. We tried, and consensus was running against the massive deletion of "pop culture" material, but in the meanwhile Burntsauce was re-deleting material that had been restored, and Alkivar and Neil were helping out with those deletions. I was making an appropriate and reasonable edit to three articles using the "undo" link from the "history" tab, and was blocked indefinitely and without warning or discussion for getting in the way of the deletion shenanigans in which Neil was participating. Neil's use of administrative user blocking privileges to back his side of an edit war he was fostering are as suspect as Alkivar's. The only reason he's not up for arbitration here is that in his case it's an isolated incident and he's been communicative and a lot more civil about it. The result of Alkivar's and Neil's abuse of administrative privilege is that we're now stuck halfway, with half the sections deleted and half remaining, and everybody afraid to do anything for fear of getting blocked again. That's not discussion. I'm not a party to this in a strict sense because I had no direct run-in with Alkivar. However, he is one of the people behind the larger behavior problem yesterday in which I fell victim. Wikidemo 15:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that there existed no consensus either way on the delete/restore issue and that content should not have been altered on these articles from whichever wrong version existed while the ANI discussion was ongoing, particularly in light of the fact that all parties engaging in this edit warring were absolutely aware of the discussion. There were quite a few parties involved in the discussion on both sides of the debate that somehow managed to resist the urge to "right" the articles either way. That said, the core issue here though is possible misuse of admin tools to win an argument and that should really be what this arbitration, if accepted, is narrowly focused on.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. What I'm seeing here is an admin who (1) is exploiting his admin tools as a "competitive advantage" to make articles come out the way he wants; and (2) refusal to discuss the matter with anyone who disagrees with him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that Wikidemo's assessment seems the most accurate to me. I got similar threats from Neil along the same lines -- see my talk page, where Neil told me not to undo his edits, referred to the block by Alkivar, and implied that it would happen again if I undid his edits. Both Alkivar and Neil seemed to have engaged in the same misuse of admin tools in the interest of following the same agenda; the only reason we're not here requesting the same arbitration for Neil is that this seems to be an isolated incident in his case.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:24, 10/10/2007

We need to keep an eye on Neil's edits. If he begins to follow the same direction as Alkivar, a case will have to made for him too. Abuse of admin tools should not be tolerated here on Wikipedia (see my statement further down). Davnel03 19:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB. This was refactored from the thread that developed in the "Comment by uninvolved east718" section. Clerks, please feel free to refactor further and more cleanly if needed.

Couldn't discussion and/or warning have taken place first? And then the actions undone later if needed? Also, I think it needs to be clarified that what appears to be "rollback tools" is often people using the "undo" link in the edit history. I'd like someone to confirm whether I am right to say that before the undo button was installed as a default, people used tools to do rollbacks? Carcharoth 14:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously crossed paths with Alkivar peripherally through his relationship with User:Burntsauce, a user whose recent actions have subsequently lead to this arbitration case due to Alkivar's actions during it. Many months ago Burntsauce was in the habit of blanking professional wrestler biographical articles, citing WP:A, which at the time cause controversy as it was seen as vandalism rather than cleaning as the resulting articles often resulted in stating "X is/was a professional wrestler" and nothing more (references to this can be found here: [66][67].)

A pattern developed in which Burntsauce would remove most of an article, someone would revert, Burntsauce would revert to his version and Alkivar would fully protect the article on Burntsauce's version. This can be seen in the logs of articles such as Chris Candido, Orville Brown, Bob Saget and Rodney Anoa'i among others, usually Alkivar blocking due to an "edit war" consisting of one revert (see here: [68][69])

However the favouritism that Alkivar has for Burntsauce goes beyond this to when he overturned a block, with unanimous support on ANI, of Burntsauce's due to Burntsauce constantly ignoring warnings that prodding articles without edit summaries was damaging to wikipedia (see here:[70]). It was shown that Alkivar had come online only so that he could unblock Burntsauce and immediately logged off again, even though the block was fully supported by all. Alkivar did not reply to requests as to why he unblocked Burntsauce in this situation[71] leaving only his original unblock reason "ten of all trades should remember that blocks must be placed according to blocking policy".

The relationship between Alkivar and Burntsauce, and how Alkivar uses his admin tools to support this particular user specifically, is one I've had an issue with for some time and feel should be more closely looked at. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had no direct confrontation with Alkivar. It started when User:Burntsauce, an editor I had never heard of, deleted "popular culture" sections from a couple pages on my watchlist, giving the cheeky edit summary "popculturectomy." That seemed presumptuous but I thought "no harm done" and went about my business. A little later I ran across User:Baseball Bugs' AN/I notice on User:Alkivar, here. It dawned on me that my two "popculturectomies" were among hundreds of other near-simultaneous deletions, and that Alkivar and others were following behind Burntsauce to re-delete those that people saw fit to restore.

In one instance [72] Alkivar deleted a harmless piece of trivia from a sparsely edited article then immediately semi-protected it with the admonition "next person to readd the trivia section gets a boot upside the head." In another here, Burntsauce had done a "popculturectomy" to the Palatine uvula article. Baseball Bugs disagreed and reverted. Alkivar re-deleted and, having done so, immediately protected the article. That seemed weird. The section arguably falls under WP:TRIVIA, a guideline that says it should be left and integrated into the article rather than deleted. The palatine uvula is the subject of a lot of classic American cartoon imagery, and one can make a case that a discussion of that imagery is encyclopedic - it's that wobbling pink thing at the back of your throat you see in close-up in the Buggs Bunny cartoons when someone is screaming.

We're not here to talk content. I'm simply establishing that Baseball Bugs' restoring section is supportable and part of normal WP:CONSENSUS process. There was no problem with behavior, no edit war, nothing to justify taking the article out of the hands of editors. You use short-term page protection when an article is suffering an edit war or extreme vandalism, giving parties a chance to return to the talk page for consensus. That's why Alkivar's indefinite page protection is so surprising. His edit summary reveals his purpose: "...since idiots seem inclined to continuously readd pop trivia to ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLES." He wasn't trying to help this article (other than locking-in his preferred version). Instead, he was making the larger WP:POINT that trivia is bad. That may or may not be true but administrators are acting as editors, not administrators, when they take sides in a content dispute. They are no more important than anyone else, and have no special rights and powers. But here he used his power to game an outcome. Alkizar then deleted four successive complaints by Basebal Buggs on the matter, and a fifth complaint by User:Random832 that he was being uncivil.

I posted my summary on AN/I here, concluding that Alkivar should be counseled or sent back to admin school. If he wants to be an admin he needs to learn what admin tools are for and how he should present himself when using them. After that I got swept up in yesterday's incident against my better judgment. An hour after I posted my summary, Alkivar escalated things by blocking User:Equazcion, who was in process of rolling back Burntsauce's many deletions. Equazcion initially thought the block was an innocent overreaction. I pointed out that Alkivar had been warned numerous times on his talk page, and already had an AN/I report on his behavior by the time of the block. I don't know whether or not Alkivar was aware of the full debate on WP:TRIVIA or WP:AN/I at the time, but that's not the point. He should have been aware of the situation before he acted. Blocking shouldn't be done lightly or without having all the facts. I was appalled that two administrators and an editor who apparently had some kind of tool were contentiously deleting and simultaneously edit warring on 300 articles at a time. I warned Burntsauce to quit, and when he didn't I filed an AN/I report. I warned User:Alkivar about the user block. I participated in the WP:TRIVIA discussion on the matter. I butted heads with the other administrator, User:Neil, who blindsided me when he decided to block me for opposing him.

It looks like he Alkivar abused the block privilege for the same reason he abused the page protection feature, to have his way on a content issue. He was thoroughly involved in the dispute for which he blocked Equazcion. I don't know what the arbitration body's current thinking is, but using the block powers against a user simply for contradicting an admin on a valid content dispute is the kind of unambiguous abuse of privilege for which people could lose their adminship on first offense. There's no innocent explanation or excuse for the behavior.

-- Wikidemo 16:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alkivar has a history of borderline conduct and questionable admin actions, a quick look through his logs reveals this, this, this, not to forget the mass (out of process) BJAODN deletion, and now he blocked a valued good-faith contributor whom he disagrees with indefinitely. This has gone too far, and I think it would be good if arbcom could look into this. Melsaran (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is pretty clear from the evidence given above that Alkivar is and has been abusing admin tools. Another example of where he abused admin tools is here. He speedy deleted a subpage within a userspace, despite the fact that there were no votes for delete. Also, Alkivar indef blocked the user just two months earlier [73], so speedy deleting the page, despite a consensus not to just further heated the argument. In this particular discussion, it is pretty clear that Alkivar is only using admin tools to his clear advantage over other users who are not administrators. Whenever something begins to tremble out of hand, Alkivar has to for no reason resort to admin tools that are not exactly necessary at that point of time (page protection, blocks, image deletions etc.) Personally, I think Alkivar should be punished for his actions; if he isn't then other adminstrators might unfortunately resort to Alkivar's petty decisions. However, saying that, the discussion over at ANI concerning the trivia sections got very heated, and I feel that some of this could of been easily avoided if we co-operated with one another.

Alkivar needs to learn how to use admin tools properly and efficiently, not to abuse that at every moment, like he has been doing. Thanks, Davnel03 19:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this all could have been avoided had everyone involved followed WP:BRD. Even though that the initial delete/revert cycle was done with misleading edit summaries, everyone involved had the opportunity to stop the edit war after that point by not editing again.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the admin in question refuses to participate in the "D" part of BRD. And why should one side "give in" to the other, as you suggest they do? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested "giving in", I suggested that several editors who were involved in ratcheting this thing up could have stopped at any point, there was quite a bit of bad behavior involved in this situation and not just by the primary subject of this request. If it seemed like i was condoning the use of admin tools in this dispute above, I was not... several admins got involved in the conversation and didn't place a finger on the buttons. The usage of the admin tools in this particular dispute is what this request should be focused on if it is accepted, but I think it bears noting that there was definitely a sequence of events perpetrated by several editors leading up to both instances of blocks and that these events exhibited less than ideal behavior from established editors. (though at least in my opinion not behavior that was grounds for immediate and undiscussed blocking).--Isotope23 ^talk 20:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Except that the other editors' edit war is peripheral to the issue in question, namely that the admin took sides in the edit war and used admin tools to accomplish that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have had problems with Alkivar several times in the past. The first time was earlier this year when he indef banned me for supposedly willfully ignoring WP:BLP (regarding him letting Burntsause misinterpret BLP by deleting all unsourced info rather than just controversial info). The banning came just 5 minutes after I went through and sourced the entire Brian Adams (wrestler) article. Since I had not violated BLP and had just sourced a article, the ban was overturned a few hours later. The second big incident came a couple of months ago when I got in trouble and my fate was being discussed at WP:ANI, right in the middle of the discussion (where the general consensus looked like it would be a temporary banning followed by probation), he decided to ignore the discussion and indef block me again. Finally, just last week he went ahead and speedy deleted a user subpage I had by claiming it was all OR (ignoring the fact that OR is not a reason to speedy delete a subpage and the page had already survived a previous MFD, meaning it shouldn't have been speedy deleted for that reason either). That deletion was quickly overturned with him admitting he shouldn't have speedy deleted it. TJ Spyke 20:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion on WP:ANI led to the RFC. The ANI discussion contains a lot of accusations that are troubling at best. It led me to believe an ArbCom case was coming even sooner than this. Criticism from Jimbo Wales[74] was removed as part of "worthless crap"[75] and an editor was told not to involve himself in Alkivar's affairs until he is an administrator.[76] —Wknight94 (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please avoid threaded discussion on this page. If you have commented in another user's section, please refactor accordingly. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 20:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept. There appears to be some cause for concern here. Kirill 04:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Liberal Democrat at 13:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Liberal Democrat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vrsrini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Article: Frontline (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

In absence of notification by the filer, I notified Vrsrini at User talk:Vrsrini (history). Daniel 13:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The dispute with the user vrsrini was regarding the point on Anti - Imperialism which this party tried pointing out (along with many in the past) with sufficient sources that it was just Anti -Americanism ,which the current editor in Chief of the The Hindu group is endorsing at all levels,Standing on a high horse on issues like civil liberty and Freedom of press ,the magazine spaces articles and view points from media agencies Like Xinhua which appeared like a double speak/hypocracy,this was the only point many users in the past and this user now was trying to point out, but the contrarian editor vrsrini has tried discounting this down through out the period of time.For a better insight of what I'm trying to point out about Frontline magazine ,please find time to check out the following articles 1.[1] 2.[2] 1.[77] 2.[78] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal Democrat (talk • contribs) 13:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Reject. Looks to be a content dispute. Also premature. Follow the earlier steps in dispute resolution as an Arbitration case is the last step. FloNight♥♥♥ 03:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject per FloNight. Kirill 04:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept Fred Bauder 14:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Chido6d 03:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC) at 03:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Chido6d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Initiating party
• Mickeyklein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MastCell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John Quiggin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dessources (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yilloslime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

All parties have been notified on their talk pages. Chido6d 04:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, I was not notified on my talk page, but I assume this was an oversight and not intentional. Yilloslime (t) 16:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Talk:Passive smoking
• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Passive smoking

The Passive smoking article is in clear violation of WP:NPOV. More specifically, it violates the fairness of tone policy as it is fashioned to present one of the viewpoints in a solely pejoritave sense. This is mainly accomplished by a handful of editors who suppress information that is not to their liking, emphasize information that is to their liking, and go to great lengths to discredit information that is not to their liking. The dispute was accepted for mediation (see above). Recently, the mediation case was closed due to the withdrawal of one party. This party withdrew without giving any explanation and with no prior notice to the other parties. Within 24 hours after the case was closed, a sweeping edit that was under dispute was nonetheless implemented into the article. The POV tag was then removed by an editor supporting this edit, in spite of legitimate objections and unanswered questions. I respectfully request a reading of the article and mediation discussion for more specific information about this matter.

This is a content dispute, and one in which consensus has gone soundly against Chido6d. Perhaps there are some conduct issues: smoking-related articles are beset with single-purpose accounts dedicated to minimizing the harms of tobacco, and the situation alluded to by Chido6d is a good example of the way in which one single-minded editor can dramatically stall the improvement of an article by exploiting Wikipedia's processes. But in the end, it's a content dispute. MastCell ^Talk 05:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the statement by MastCell, except to note that there are two single-purpose accounts involved in this dispute, with broadly similar approaches. JQ 06:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also endorse MastCell's statement, and like to add the following. Chido6d's and his counterpart, Mickeyklein, who echoes everything he says, have already used the same technique to throw doubt on the Passive smoking article. They filed a request for mediation, but then stalled the mediation process which came to a dead end after months of efforts. One result was to keep the POV tag at the top of the article during the entire process, discrediting an article which, although still perfectible, has all its facts deeply rooted in reliable sources, probably much more than the average article. I regard this request for arbitration as yet another attempt to have the POV tag at the top of the article and keep it for as long as possible. However, having wasted a lot of time in the mediation, I am prepared to accept the arbitration, but provided the POV tag is removed, as this detail alone would more than reward Chido6d's harassment technique. --Dessources 06:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add to the above that I am prepared to accept the arbitration provided it is expressed in specific terms, with examples of the violations alleged by Chido6d. In the mediation process, we had plenty of such general and vague, but strongly worded, accusations, but each time we asked for specific examples, the examples given did not, upon simple examination, support the accusations. At this stage, I consider the request for arbitration groundless, and see its only effect as providing a justification for inserting the POV tag at the top of the article, without complying with the Wikipedia rules for inserting such tag. --Dessources 07:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute. No reason for Arbcom involvement except perhaps to look into the behavior of User:Chido6d, who has been tenaciously editing against consensus. Raymond Arritt 13:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specific examples, please? Chido6d 02:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this statement by User:Raymond_arritt. Yilloslime (t) 17:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Reject, content dispute; no pressing need for us to get involved at this point. Kirill 17:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject, there is no reliable source for evidence that passive smoking is not harmful. Fred Bauder 18:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. No need for a case. No reason that the community can not handle the content dispute and the editor conduct issues. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by ScienceApologist at 21:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikidudeman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Martinphi notification

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Martinphi
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

User:Martinphi has taken a hardline attack stance towards what he deems is pseudoskepticism at Wikipedia violating the spirit and letter of consensus, civility, and no personal attacks. He has maintained attack pages outside of Wikipedia, has engaged in tendentious editing (as documented in his RfC), has wholesale attacked members of a WikiProject that he maintains membership in to make a point [79], [80], [81] . The earlier arbitration on paranormal did not deal with his specific behavior, but since it has been well documented for some time and does not seem to be abating, it is time for the arbitration committee to take it up. This arbitration was initiated after asking Martinphi to remove a personal attack on Wikipedia: WikiProject Rational Skepticism and receiving nothing more than a brick wall [82]. ScienceApologist 21:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What ScienceApologist refers to as a personal attack on a WikiProject is nothing more than a parody. A parody is one of the most civil forms of criticism in civilization. I'd also like to see any pending arbitration stay on topic and not result in "How should Wikipedia handle paranormal topics" redux. One's enough. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A look at the user's contribution history paints a picture of obsessive advocacy and relentless POV pushing. It seems that wherever he goes, Talk page dispute follows. One that stands out in particular is his rather lengthy disruption of the FA Talk page which included bizarre accusations of abuse of administrative powers. Recently I made the mistake of listing my suggestions for improving Electronic voice phenomena as a Good Article review . I wasn't aware that as a former editor, I could not formally review the article. Martin used this as a pretext to accuse me of "bias" and that all my "suggestions and editing have been biased". He also seems convinced that bias stems from being "part of the Rational Skepticism project which has as a goal to bring Skeptic's Dictionary into Wikipedia.". I have honestly had my fill of Martin's bad behavior. I don't have the time or energy to resist such zealotry. If the community chooses to ignore his continued POV campaign, I will simply avoid articles in which he is involved...as many others have apparently decided to do. -- LuckyLouie 23:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to comment here by ScienceApologist. As I mentioned in the previous ArbCom case on the subject, I believe that Martinphi's approach to editing is highly problematic. He's a warrior first and foremost and has utilized a variety of unsavory editing tactics. His approach throughout that ArbCom was to minimize his violations, and he clearly came away with the message that "...the Arbitrators have confirmed my understanding of NPOV in the paranormal articles. You need to accept this." I felt then that the case, which was very broad, didn't adequately take into account Martin's behavior. I still feel that way.

Martinphi has taken the ArbCom case as a complete vindication; he continues his old tactics, but now buttresses them with edit summaries such as "Rv per ArbCom". In fact, he maintains a page of edit summaries citing the ArbCom case, for use in content disputes. The FA page disruption cited by LuckyLouie is another indication that there's a problem here which wasn't dealt with in the previous ArbCom. To me, the bottom line is that this Martinphi views Wikipedia as a battleground first and foremost; this informs his approach to editing; and he has taken the prior ArbCom ruling as a vindication of his approach, which I think is a serious problem. I would strongly encourage ArbCom to take this case as unfinished business from the previous ruling, looking specifically at the behavior of Martinphi and any other user whom the Committee believes should be scrutinized, myself included. MastCell ^Talk 00:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A look at ScienceApologist's contribution history paints a picture of obsessive advocacy and relentless POV pushing, violating the spirit and letter of consensus, civility, and no personal attacks. It seems that wherever he goes, Talk page dispute follows. I believe that ScienceApologist's approach to editing is highly problematic. He's a POV-warrior first and foremost and has utilized a variety of unsavory editing tactics. As such, his RfA should be viewed in that light. --profg ^Talk 00:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very bad time to make a POINT violation and is an omen of bad things coming from this user. AGF can only be stretched so far. I suggest that profg remove the comment and come up with something original and constructive. Having done so, profg is also welcome to remove my comment at that time. -- Fyslee / talk 00:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I am currently at a family reunion, and I have little time for Wikipedia. I will respond thoroughly, if necessary, after the 11th, though I may have some time tomorrow or later tonight to edit. Till then, I think Profg stated the basic situation well. I can fill that in with links, however the ArbCom has already encountered ScienceApologist, and called him an uncivil edit warrior.

I have tried to uphold the spirit of Wikipeida, both in civility and in NPOV, and I have tried to apply the recent ArbCom on the paranormal in a very moderate and straightforward way, always making sure that skepticism is included in the leads and bodies of articles. I have many diffs and links which will fill out my case, but don't have time to fill them in now. But just one point: the things I say in my so-called attack site (excuse me, that's supposed attack site- in inside joke) are the very things which the ArbCom decided to uphold.

For a long time -till a few days ago- the ArbCom decision took care of the problems we were having in the paranormal articles. With some recent edits by ScienceApologist and another couple of editors, one of whom was once banned from editing the paranormal, the problems have begun to return.

Responses:

• Response to Wikidudeman: I said that Raul654 abused his admin powers. I stand by that, because he protected a page where he was part of a dispute. I believe that such behavior is an abuse of admin powers. I acted mistakenly and in ignorance of what I was dealing with on that page, but Raul654 should have had another admin protect the page, if necessary.

• Response to LuckyLouie: I do think you are biased. There is nothing wrong with being biased, and every editor is. However, I simply felt that as someone who had been intimately involved in the article, you shouldn't review it for GA status. I also felt that your suggestions were biased by your firm belief that, to quote you in that discussion "It's clear that EVP is not a legitimate observable phenomena." And in addition, in the same way that I would recuse myself from reviewing articles which dealt, say, with the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, so you should recuse yourself from reviewing paranormal articles. I'm sure many who dislike me would be the first to point out my affiliation with the paranormal project were I to try.

• Response to MastCell: Yes, the Arbitrators took the most essential points from my essay (the one deleted as POV from my userspace), and incorporated them into the decision. I've tried very hard since the ArbCom not to edit war, and I've made a change in my editing style to do so: this has been difficult in the last few days, as editors have been trying to clearly violate the ArbCom decision. That's why yesterday I put in some easy links for edit summaries. You would too, rather than write them out.

I do not view WP as a battleground- which is amazing, since I edit some of the most controversial articles on WP. I did view Raul654's protection of the page (ownership of the page through the use of admin powers), as unethical. It was a situation which I'd never encountered before, and my stand against it was an ethical one, which I cannot take back. If Raul or anyone else had bothered to explain things to me in the beginning, things would have been different. Instead, they let me go on thinking that there was nothing special or different about that page- and thus that my views concerning Raul654's behavior were totally justified.

At the previous ArbCom, I admitted my mistakes, and changed my behavior aftewards (mainly, I tried very hard not to edit war). I have kept to these changes: I have made a huge effort not to edit war (though I do use reverting in situations where the need is clear). As far as I know, I haven't done anything else wrong either.

The nearest I got to doing anything wrong, was my saying that Raul654 abused his powers. Well, I can't lie to you: I still think so, because he protected a page where, as he says below he "had an earlier run in" with me, and I think that is a clear abuse. I was very upset about it. But -without going into details- I did some wrong things on that page. Mostly, this was out of ignorance, and partly it was wrong because my own feeling about abuses of power is different from that of other people: so it may not have been appropriate for Wikipedia. As you see, I'm having difficulty saying I was wrong, not because I'd mind saying so (it would help my case here), but because I can't entirely convince myself of it. I didn't know Raul had been asked by other editors to oversee the page (never heard of that before), but even so I'm not so sure it is a good idea for an admin to protect a page when he sees it going against his POV.

But, I admire Raul for recusing himself from this ArbCom case: he is obviously not without ethics.

Two more things: 1. As before, I ask that the Arbitrators look at my actual edits, rather than what people say about me. 2. I ask that only my behavior since the previous ArbCom be considered, because that reflects me as an editor today.

There's one more thing you should look at, which really sums up my attitude since the ArbCom:

Even if edit warring..... ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the above and I am familiar with this user's history. I support and agree with the statements of ScienceApologist, LuckyLouie, MastCell, and Fyslee. Bubba73 (talk), 02:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS - and WikiDudeman and Raul654. Bubba73 (talk), 04:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am hereby officially involving myself in this request for arbitration. I can personally attest to everything that has been said by Raul654, ScienceApologist, MastCell, et al. Martinphi's contributions stretching all of the way back to his beginnings here have been extremely disruptive. Martinphi has a very long history of disruptive editing, not assuming good faith, attacking other editors, hijacking attempts to reach consensus, and disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point. A RFC was brought up concerning this editors actions as far back as 6 months ago:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Martinphi where 19 of his fellow editors endorsed the aforementioned facts. Martinphi has also been shown to use sockpuppets:Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Martinphi, to advance his positions. Just recently one notable incident occurred where Martinphi completely shunned AGF, despite my numerous notes to him, and accused Raul654 of "abusing" his admin powers:link. These are only a few of the numerous disruptive incidents that this editor is responsible for and I will bring dozens of more examples forth as evidence against this user once I have gathered all of the differences and instances. I have edited articles alongside this editor for perhaps over a year and I can attest to the facts. This user is highly disruptive, pushes POVs at all costs, shuns long held wikipedia policies such as AGF, POINT as well as many others. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While my exposure to MartinPhi has been somewhat less than my exposure to others of his ilk, I've had sufficient exposure to know that Wikidudeman has hit the nail on the head with his synopsis of MartinPhi's activities. That Profg has come to MartinPhi's defense is hardly surprising, given that they are cut from the samed ragged cloth. (Of course, Profg is busily wikistalking a few people, thus explaining more definitively his involvement here, and his defense of MartinPhi should be rejected by same in the manner that one would swat away a particularly nettlesome fly).

In any case, the RFA should be accepted by Arbcom as MartinPhi has worn out the community's patience with his POV warrior behaviour, his tendentious editing, and his use of sockpuppets. •Jim62sch• 17:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My exposure to MartinPhi has also been fairly limited. But Wikidudeman, MastCell and others here have laid out a series of issues with regards to the MartinPhi regarding his behavior. These set of edits exhibit his tendentious editing attitude and plain disregard of WP:NPOV. His agenda is to attack what is supported by reliable sources and place his own opinion into the article. Time to move on. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially involved here, but I was unimpressed by Martinphi's editing at Talk:Radionics, where he poured oil on the fires for no good reason. IMO he's quite clearly pushing an agenda, and also has a lengthy record of tendentious editing and sockpuppetry - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Martinphi. Others above have confirmed my dim view of this editor. I'd urge ArbCom to accept the case, and then promptly ban Martinphi for a year. Moreschi ^Talk 18:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martinphi says in part in reference to his previous RfAr. that "the Arbitrators took the most essential points from my essay (the one deleted as POV from my userspace), and incorporated them into the decision". I think that any arbitrator will be able to glance over the decision and his essay and see that that statement at best indicates a deep misunderstanding of the previous arbitration. In some ways this demonstrates the depth of the problem with MartinPhi- even when the ArbCom doesn't seem to agree with him he sees things like they. JoshuaZ 19:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Apologist and the statements re. the previous RfAr. I've been involved with Martinphi in several editing disputes (e.g. Crop circle and telepathy), and find that he is unwilling to accept the scientific consensus in many areas. He may attempt to justify his actions by invoking WP:NPOV, but NPOV doesn't mean we should grant psuedoscience false appearance of legitimacy, and the ArbCom decision on Psuedoscience states that Wikipedia will adhere to current scientific understanding. Martinphi is apparently unwilling to accept that, and, as Apologist correctly notes, has not been gracious about it, to say the least. Michaelbusch 19:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Recuse. I had an earlier run in with Martinphi. I can attest that what ScienceApologist says is 100% true - Martinphi's behavior is seriously problematic, and I encourage other arbitrators to take this case. Raul654 02:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Kirill 02:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept Fred Bauder 18:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Iantresman at 14:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JoshuaZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tom harrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Art Carlson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bladestorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have notified all the parties listed above. Newyorkbrad 18:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Art LaPella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Fred Bauder temporarily unblocked me to file this request to arbitrate my 16 July 2007 indefinite community ban (discussion archive). I offer the following points in summary, which I would like opportunity to evidence and comment on, should my case be accepted:

• The Community noticeboard took just 5 hours and 11 minutes from starting the discussion,[83] to banning me.[84] I feel this was insufficient time for the community to fully discuss the matter, including having an opportunity myself to fully participate.
• One editor noted that he has "a bad feeling about this process"[85], and subsequently noted that the banning editor had "refused to justify his block" [86]
• Another editor subsequently noted that "I'm having a hard time finding a single shred of evidence against him here."[87]
• Without having a chance to answer my critics, and with other editors questioning the process, and the lack of evidence against me, I feel that the indefinite ban was misguided and inappropriate.

• Hopefully other editors will not find it necessarily to merely repeat views from the Community discussion here.
• I wasn't sure whether everyone who took part in the Community discussion are "involved parties", and I believe that my "temporary unblocking" restricts my contributions to this page only. --Iantresman 14:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added the Community noticeboard nominator, and the banning editor as involved parties, plus the two editors I mentioned who queried the process. I could add a dozen other names, but I feel we would duplicate much of what has already been discussed. --Iantresman 15:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If my RfA appeal is accepted, I will show that JoshuaZ's assertions are unfounded, and he will present no diffs demonstrating "pseudoscience pushing" or improper editing regarding the legitimate description of minority views. --Iantresman 19:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• ScienceApologist below, omits to mention that when I accused him of "untoward behaviour" towards me, it was not only upheld by ArbCom,[88], I provided diffs as evidence, and although ArbCom cautioned him particularly to be civil, he continued to be uncivil toward me,[89] [90] [91] [92]. I have never solicited disruption of Wikipedia on other sites, though I have sought the help of experts, whose advice ScienceApologist subsequently interpreted as the exact opposite to that offered. --Iantresman 22:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• ScienceApologist below, accuses me of "untruths" (yet again, contrary to his ArbCom fingings,[93] and without evidence). He omits to mention that when I asked for advice on the Halton Arp forum (unfortunately the message is no longer available), 20 minutes earlier I also asked for similar advice on the Bad Astronomy/Universe Today forum,[94]... hardly the actions of someone intent on disrupting Wikipedia, but the actions of an editor seeking the advice of experts. --Iantresman 11:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Three editors have now accused User talk:Soupdragon42 of being a sockpuppet of mine, which I deny as I happen to know his identity, I am happy to work with Arbitrators to establish this (subject to respecting his privacy), showing that such unfounded accusations like this, are another reason why the Community ban was unsafe and unfounded. --Iantresman 11:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC) In addition to Soupdragon42's comments below, editors can further confirm my identity through my personal web site, and the registration of my web/domain, plasma-universe.com,[95] I am not impressed that I have to jump through hoops and provide much personal information as evidence of my innocence, whereas others make unfounded allegations on which there are no demands of evidence. --Iantresman 12:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• In response to user:Art LaPella's suggestions that I have used sockpuppets User:Applecola, User:Leokor, and perhaps User:Mgmirkin based on the number of semi-colons we use, I note that the recent allegation that User talk:soupdragon42 was my sockpuppet was dropped by one of the editors, presumably after additional evidence was supplied. User:Mgmirkin's user page has a different photo to that on my home page, and User:Leokor's real name on his user page, shows results in Google Scholar that appear consistent with his Ph.D. And I can find insufficient information about Applecola to present any kind of additional information. I also suspect that an analysis of punctuation will find characteristics that match many users. --Iantresman 15:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that the community discussion was too short. However, the generally community consensus seemed to be clear. I do not think that I can do much that would be helpful other than to repeat my original reasons for requesting a ban. As I said then "This user is a general POV-warrior of all sorts of pseudoscience and fringe science ideas who seems to have overstayed his welcome on Wikipedia. His block record includes a 3RR on Eric Lerner, he has repeatedly POV pushing on a variety of articles and harassed editors who do not agree with him. For example, he repeatedly harassed User:ScienceApologist who eventually left the project over a variety of issues, including Ian's behavior. SA was a very productive editor with over 16,000 edits. Ian is now repeating the exact same thing with a relatively new user User:Mainstream astronomy Ian has been placed on probation by the ArbCom which has reduced but by no means eleminated his POV pushing. In summary, Ian is an incorrigible POV pusher and harasser who has in my opinion exhausted the community patience. Since the ArbCom's probation has not stopped him, we should consider a community ban." Nothing in that statement has changed or needs to be qualified at this point. There is no compelling reason for the ArbCom to reopen this matter. JoshuaZ 18:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the events at the community discussion leading to Iantresman's ban, the facts are the block was put in place approximately 6 hours after his case was brought before the community and near 100% support for a ban. The discussion continued there for another 10 days afterward and approximately 90% of the 24 + participants there supported the ban. I see no valid reason for the Arbcom to override the community's decision. Evidence provided at WP:CSN along with Iantresman's block log showing he ignored the probation he received in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience to the point he received a block for violating it and another for trying to drive productive contributors off of Wikipedia are ample evidence that the community got it right. I urge the Arbcom to reject Iantresman's request. Odd nature 20:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my comments made during the previous discussion. My main objection was that neither the specific reasons nor the evidence was clearly laid out. Concerning Ian Tresman, I know that he can be difficult to work with. Part of this difficulty is the energy he puts into Wikipedia and his unorthodox POV. Energy is welcome and an unusual POV can be fruitful as long as everyone is committed to keeping the articles NPOV. I think Ian embraces that commitment and the associated process. I, at least, have always found it possible to reason with him, and he is civil. I think a permanent and complete ban should be a last resort that goes too far in this case. At the very least, I think the supporters of a ban should be required to lay out specific reasons and evidence. --Art Carlson 20:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Ian's presence is entirely too disruptive. His peculiar devotion to his POV which includes catastrophism and opposition to mainstream astronomy has wasted the time and energy of contributors that could be put to better use. He has a tendency to be overly litigious to the point of absurdity: often resorting to recruitment of meatpuppets outside the boundaries of Wikipedia. He has a stated agenda of repositioning Wikipedia to conform to his fringe agenda: a kind of advocacy that has been precedent enough to ban others at this encyclopedia. Since being banned he has also used proxies to continue his advocacy at Wikipedia through his various internet enterprises. A permanent and complete ban is the only recourse when people game the system as much as this user has.

I note the following instances of Ian Tresman using a sockpuppet to argue at Wikipedia:

• User talk:81.31.38.19

I also note that Ian has initiated a ridiculous number of attacks against me throughout his time here at Wikipedia. He seems to be obsessed with me accusing me at various times of all manner of untoward behavior. He has advocated outside of Wikipedia at Halton Arp's forum and at the Thunderbolts forum for disruption of this website.

I never understood why he was tolerated here for as long as he was. That we are entertaining allowing him back is extremely unfortunate.

ScienceApologist 21:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that the meatpuppets are out in force below. I encourage anyone interested to review the editing histories of the two users who posted below. ScienceApologist 21:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian has now basically perpetuated an untruth regarding his solicitation for outside disruption of Wikipedia. In particular, in the very beginning of my editing activities at Redshift, he posted at Halton Arp's forum encouraging users there to promote their fringe viewpoints in order to get more visibility for their objections to the redshift-distance relationship. I find that his continued evasiveness with regards to the problematic patterns outlined in detail in the arbitration are only more reasons for the community consensus to stand. ScienceApologist 16:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who was never a party to any of the noticeboard proceedings, I have gone back and extensively reviewed them. It's obvious that this procedure was rushed, and the "evidence" far from compelling. I urge the Arbcom to accept Iantresman's request. --profg 21:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also gone back and extensively reviewed the earlier proceedings. I am dismayed by the entire mess. The banning has a whiff of the Spanish Inquistion about it. I also urge the Arbcom to accept Iantresman's request. --Soupdragon42 22:45, 2 October 2007 (GMT)

Three editors have now accused me of being a sockpuppet of Ian Tresman. This is outrageous, but I can't say that it surprises me given the petty and vitriolic manner in which Ian Tresman has been attacked throughout. It highlights the rash and baseless danger of so many of the accusations being made.

I am amazed that Ian Tresman has maintained dignity and courtesy throughout this whole sorry process.

I am behind the www.plasmacosmology.net web site which focuses on the work of Kristian Birkeland, Hannes Alfven, and Anthony Perratt. The site differentiates between Plasma Cosmology and The Electric Universe, although ScienceApologist does not. He continually removed the links I provided to this site, and then accused me of edit warring! He is a pseudoskeptic to the nth degree; he demonstrates an irrational fear of the emerging electrodynamic paradigm which he perceives as threatening his cherished world view! 12:35, 4 October 2007 (GMT)

In order to put an end to this witch hunt I am happy to work with arbitrators to establish my identity.

Further comment

No evidence has yet been forthcoming in respect of the Ian Tresman sockpuppet allegations! I have been accused, erroneously, of being one such sockpuppet, and I note that Durova has recognised this fact and, quite reasonably, crossed through the error in his post below. This was after a private message.

At the very least, I expect others to do likewise.

This highlights the danger of making rash and baseless accusations. Such behaviour is not doing the reputation of Wikipedia any good, especially when you consider the courteous and dignified manner in which Ian Tresman has conducted himself throughout.

Science is a competitive and argumentative business, but it cannot progress by consensus as evidence should always trump opinion. It is essential therefore that the likes of ScienceApologist are not allowed to bully those with new ideas, especially when these new ideas have so much to commend them. Integrity and fair play must be maintained. The history of science testifies to the ridicule and suppression of so many meritorious ideas in their day. I have said it before and I will say it again: The treatment of Ian Tresman has a whiff of the Spanish Inquistion about it!

As an uninvolved editor, I have also reviewed the available information, and find that Iantresman has no reason to justify his unblocking, unless he can demonstrate that he has reformed his conduct. This is not evident. Also, based on editing history, User:Soupdragon42 is a puppet of Iantresman, either a meatpuppet or a sock (looks like Apologist beat me to that one). Soupdragon42 has edited only Plasma cosmology, the associated talk page, the account's talk page, and the above. The first edit took place on 2007 April 29, while Iantresman's indefinite block was issued 2007 July 16, with an earlier block 2007 June 22 [96]. Throughout May, Soupdragon42 seems to been coordinating edits with Iantresman to avoid 3RR violations (see history of Plasma cosmology). Michaelbusch 21:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time spent on this is time wasted. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to see a number of my statements on the prior ArbCom request for ban. I'll try to boil it down and not rehash too much. I support Ian's request for removing or revisiting the ban decision. At least in part due to the fact that due process didn't really happen. As I recall, FeloniosMonk had leveled an unsupported accusation against Ian, to which he had responded (I believe with an ArbCom request asking FeloniusMonk to explain himself and provide proof) and which was pending at the time the Ban request was made. Generally, said request and or ArbCom issue should have been settled FIRST, as it was the precipitating event whereby Ian was accused of violating a prior ArbCom sanction. However, Ian was banned before the precipitating accusation could be resolved, thus he was banned from participating in his own defense on the original charge. to me that seems to be unfair play by those with a grudge against Ian. That's my personal view of the situation. Mgmirkin 23:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom shouldn't be about furthering a grudge or expelling someone who doesn't hold your particular point of view, but rather impartially reviewing evidence and coming to a sensible conclusion. As far as I saw in the banning RfA,it was short on "evidence" and long on "rhetoric" exposing personal grudges of certain involved parties. That really doesn't belong in a proceeding of that sort. I tend to believe that a better system of resolution is needed than polar opposite sides of an issue coming together and voting along party lines to either keep a friend or ban an opponent. Mgmirkin 23:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from which, I do think that the punishment was more severe than the unsubstantiated original accusation [which had not been resolved] warranted. Lesser sanctions than a "complete ban" may have been appropriate. Be that ban-from-controversial-topic(s) and/or probation on that or other topics, or some lesser remedy. Mgmirkin 23:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to declare any COI's, I do know Ian in real-life. And generally find him to be a pleasant fellow, and not prone to misbehavior. I think that his edits have generally been in good faith. Long story short, I simply don't think sufficient evidence was presented at the ban request, and as such it should be overturned at least on a provisional basis. And I think that a higher standard of impartiality & evidence should be effected in such ArbCom decisions. I realize WP isn't a court, but that can be problematic if charges can be leveled without evidence being proferred, without users negatively affected being given time to redress charges leveled against them, and said users can thus be inappropriately negatively impacted (by censure or ban). For this reason (Ian's ban w/o appropriate evidence or due process), among others, I've generally avoided WP as an unfriendly place to edit. Though I do occasionally still make what I hope are useful edits from time to time. Mgmirkin 23:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few have commented on the rapidity with which Iantresman's community ban was enacted. This was not a bolt from the blue, but rather the community standing up and agreeing after someone finally gains the nerve to say "enough!" to Ian's long record of disruption. Yes, Iantresman was singled out. He was singled out for engaging in a broad range of destructive behavior such as badgering other users, relentlessly Wikilawyering even the smallest of points, using sockpuppets, and so on. His statement above shows absolutely no indication whatsoever that he acknowledges any of these problems, and as a result I see no possibility that his participation could be a net benefit to Wikipedia.

I would have no objection to Ian's return if he is exonerated from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iantresman which I just initiated, but at this point exoneration looks unlikely. Art LaPella 07:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not this user needs to be banned, I have no opinion to offer. However, the fact that WP:CSN took less than 6 hours to decide on this upsets me greatly. Bans are not to be handed out lightly, as they are not only a technical restriction on editing, they are also a message to the person being banned that "you are no longer wanted." The fact that only 7 editors (JoshuaZ, KillerChihuahua, Prosfilaes, Odd nature, JzG, SirFozzie, Tom Harrison) participated in the discussion other than Ian, I hardly consider it a "community decision" to ban. I think the usage of WP:CSN to institute these "quick bans" is rather unbefitting to the spirit of WP:AGF. No wonder the community jokingly redirects Wikipedia:Votes for banning to it. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I believe I did participate in the WP:CSN discussion, and agreed that the user's behavior was excessively disruptive, I agree with ^demon. I would not really expect the arb comm to come to a different conclusion, but we do need to make the point clear to those who participate regularly at WP:CSN and those who want to use it as a 'ban my enemy' forum that the discussions cannot be and should not be rushed. --Rocksanddirt 21:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The short discussion time and limited number of participants in the discussion does not seem very satisfactory, but that doesn't automatically invalidate the decision. Given the circumstances, I suggest that this would be more usefully dealt with by remanding it back to the community sanction noticeboard to be discussed more thoroughly. -- ChrisO 22:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I prefer community sanction discussions to last somewhat longer than this one did, the process argument appears to be quite weak, particularly so given the strong suspicions (with which I concur) that Soupdragon42 is a sockpuppet of Iantresman. Consensus was swift and nearly unanimous because this editor was a textbook example of disruptive editing. A banned user who attempts no basis for appeal other than process should at least take care that his own actions respect process. Durova^Charge! 05:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Good faith strikethrough of the more serious conduct concerns. I maintain the opinion that something more than a process appeal ought to be needed to raise this to the level of a meritorious appeal. Assumption of responsibility and assurances to avoid repetitions of previous problems would go a long way with me. Durova^Charge! 02:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Penwhale

I think that sanctions through the community sanctions noticeboard needs to have a period of considerations so that people can respond, etc. (Especially allowing the accused to reply.) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/2/0/1)

• Accept, probation has to be given a chance to work, if it is going to be effective. It may take a year or two, but that is very different from an indefinite ban. Fred Bauder 00:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• As an aside, I was never especially convinced that "Mainstream astronomy" was a new user, but that doesn't excuse the behaviour. Mackensen (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. James F. (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject, per Tom Harrison. Raul654 02:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. Kirill 02:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. As a general rule, I think we should not act on a community ban unless there is widespread disagreement among admins and we need to stop or prevent a wheel war. If our probation did not work then a community ban seems the next logical step. If the editor was requesting an unblock because they now want to work collaboratively, then I would feel differently. That is not the main thrust of the ban review so I feel we are going to end up back in the same place. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. Place new requests at the top.

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Remedy

As the closing clerk, I noticed some interesting problems with the remedy 1 of this case. The remedy 1 puts edit supervision on the editors sanctioned in the original case, however, at least 2 editors sanctioned in the original case was not named as a party to the newer case and was surprised/shocked of the development. I'd like some input from the Committee to explain the ruling on this. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, under this case, other editors who edit in a similar manner to the previously-sanctioned editors may be placed under the limitations of the original Armenia-Azerbaijan case. Do these sanctions expire one year after the editor in question is notified, or are they indefinite as no time limit is mentioned? The supervised editing remedy from the second case appears to be indefinite, as no expiration is mentioned, so my question is whether this is indeed the case and whether the other remedies are still meant to expire after a year, including on other editors brought in under the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this situation requires attention from the committee. Frankly, I was always troubled by remedy number 1, which took all the users who were placed on revert parole (revert limitation) in the earlier case, and now placed them on supervised editing (which I gather is a new term for some form of probation and/or civility parole) as well. This was done despite the observation that although some of the parties to the earlier case had continued to display problematic behavior, others had done little or nothing wrong since the earlier decision, and there was no real reason to be applying additional remedies to them.

The problem is magnified if, as has been stated, some of the parties to the earlier case were not parties to the newer one. The case was such a sprawl and so many editors were listed as parties (and there was edit-warring over the list for awhile) that the clerk handling the case probably assumed that all the (unbanned) parties to the earlier case had been listed again. (From now on, I will check for things like this in every case myself.) If that didn't happen, then at a minimum anyone who was subjected to a remedy without having been notified of the case should be entitled to have the case reopened and to be heard on this issue. Newyorkbrad 19:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. See below.

As far as the duration is concerned, "until the situation improves" is probably a good rule of thumb. I am content to leave the decision up to the enforcing administrators. Kirill 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to NYB, I was also the clerk in the original A-A case. However, this case was opened anew, so I did not add the parties from the old case to the new one. I never assumed that they were listed. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, there was no reason to look for the additional parties or add them at the beginning of the case. However, when a remedy showed up on /proposed decision (or originally in an arbitrator proposal on the workshop) applicable to "all the parties to the prior decision," we should all have checked then to make sure that all of them were parties in or had all received notice of the new case. My fault as much as anyone's. Newyorkbrad 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• With due respect to Kirill I think this is a non-issue and his motion is a mistake. Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 provides that any editor who edits disruptively on the topic of "Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area" may be placed on civility parole, 1RR and probation by means of a warning on their talk page. The fact that some editors in the first case were not notified of the second case is easily remedied by a note on their talk page. Passing the motion below would take a small group of editors who were placed on 1RR and exempt them from the civility parole and probation that applies to every other editor on Wikipedia following an appropriate notice. Thatcher131 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They could be placed back on the remedy, yes; but only if they edit disruptively. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt; staying out of the second case does count for something, I think. Kirill 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dren. I missed that remedy #2 still applied. Sorry. Thatcher131 20:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thatcher, I had to look that word up. Clearly I have some remedial TV watching to do. More seriously, Penwhale, could you advise which users subjected to the remedy in the first case were not parties to the new case? (I ask you instead of doing the research myself as you know which users have complained to you already.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad 23:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not so much of "complaining", but TigranTheGreat and ROOB323 were the ones affected. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • While User:TigranTheGreat was not included in the list of the parties to the second arbcom case, many users provided evidence of his behavior which they considered to be disruptive. So he was definitely a party to the second case, and he was well aware of it as he provided evidence himself. His non-inclusion was just a mistake, because most users considered all the parties to the previous case to be parties to the second one as well. On the other hand, no one complained about ROOB323, so he should be the only one affected. Grandmaster 06:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • "His non-inclusion was just a mistake" as in "Darn it, I forgot to add his name to the list"? If he (or any editor) was not on the list of involved parties in the second case, nor even told of its existence, then how can he be a party to the part 1 sanctions imposed in the second case? It is that simple, or wikipedia descends into a Kafka-esque justice system. Meowy 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Just a quick note, since contributors in the 2nd ArbCom case ended up there due to pretty much the same disruptions as those in the 1st case, would not it be simpler to just place everyone on 1RR parole? I think this would significantly reduce the reporting and decision overhead, whether something should be considered a civility violation or not. Thanks. Atabek 14:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it is shocking that ANY editor can fall foul of these remedies without having any prior warning of their existence. If these restrictions are to be fair then there must be an earlier stage to the process where editors are first warned of the existance of these pre-existing remedies and that they run the risk of breaking then if they were to go about editing an entry that falls under those remedies in the same way as they would an "ordinary" entry. A warning should be placed on every wikipedia entry to which these draconian restrictions apply. Meowy 02:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, TigranTheGreat was well aware of the second arbcom case, as he was providing evidence on other users, while others were providing evidence on him. [97] His non-inclusion was just a technical mistake. And I agree that some sort of warning would be good, but there are hundreds of articles covered by the remedy of arbcom 2, is it possible to add a warning to every one of them and who should do that? Grandmaster 04:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a "justice system". Basically, anybody who cannot behave or respect policy is out, justice or no justice. Nobody will be banned without warning, but, IMHO, there are topics that are so severely and systematically disrupted by ultra-nationalists, that need to impose "draconian" measures on misbehaviour by topic, not just by individual account (which are a dime a dozen), in the interest of maintaining a sane editing environment for serious editors. I have been saying this two years ago, and I am glad the arbcom is now seeing the need for this. dab (𒁳) 09:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor who edits disruptively on this topic area may brought under the umbrella of this case by a notice on their talk page. A templated warning is available at {{Armenia-Azerbaijan enforcement}} which explains the situation thoroughly. Rather than apply the notice to thousands of articles, this notice is given to the editors involved (so far 6 in addition to the editors involved in the case itself). If you are arguing for two separate warnings, (i.e., a warning about disruptive editing before the notice about being placed under the remedies can be given) that would be nice, and many admins will do that, but ArbCom didn't require it. Thatcher131 10:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)

Extension of remedies in Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Those parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan who were not named as parties to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 and were not given notice of the proceedings are exempted from the extension of existing remedies imposed by Remedy #1 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. They remain subject to Remedy #2.

See also discussion above. As there are currently 8 active Arbitrators, the majority is 5.

Support:

1. We messed up here. Kirill 19:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. James F. (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Paul August ☎ 13:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. There is a defect in noticing everyone in, but the remedy should properly apply to everyone. Fred Bauder 13:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain: