Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jdforrester (talk | contribs) at 21:26, 21 December 2005 (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0): Reject.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcut

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

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due


Indian military history (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 08 Jun 2025 22 Jun 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Arbitration motion regarding Ritchie333 and Praxidicae Motion none 20 May 2025

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

How to list cases

Under the below Current requests section:

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

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests


Threats to report anonymous user to his (government) employer by AustinKnight

 AustinKnight
Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time which may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery. Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales of what they have done and why. [1]Cognos 18:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

anonymous user at 208.27.111.121 and AustinKnight were involved in a small-scale edit war on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_surveillance_without_warrants_controversy. User AustinKnight traced anonymous user's IP address to a physical location and made veiled threat on the article's talk page [2] to report anonymous user to his employer (the U.S. government) for abuse of government resources:

Also, if you are a U.S. gov't employee (as indicated by your IP address as being at a U.S. court in Washington, D.C.), I take great umbrage over that fact that you are editing Wikipedia on the taxpayer's nickel. Whom should such abuse be reported to...? Never mind...I'll sort that out handily. --AustinKnight 17:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Anonymous user told AustinKnight that he was reporting the matter to arbitration on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AustinKnight

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I raised this issue on the user's talk page, his response was to reiterate the threat, indirectly:

Your threats were totally out of line, and you know it. That was pure thuggery. How do you know what my job responsibilities are, or if my wikipedia work isn't consistent with my employer's internet policies? It doesn't, BTW. (anonymous entry by 208.27.111.121)
LOL. Only a lawyer would refer to my comments regarding the exposure of fraud, waste & abuse as a "threat." Grow up. --AustinKnight 17:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
What waste of resources? Is the government running short of bandwidth? Is there something on my desk for me to do right now - or perhaps not? Only a wannabee lawyer would call that "fraud". Get a copy of Black's legal dictionary and learn the elements first, player. (anon entry by 208.27.111.121)
The U.S. government has a categorization called "fraud, waste and abuse." It's a collective term...perhaps one you'll grow familiar with. Cheers, --AustinKnight 17:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


I do not think that mediation would be an appropriate response to such an extreme personal attack, and I think this is totally inconsistent with the spirit of wikipedia, and thus deserving of a ban or probation as a direct result of a RfA. 208.27.111.121 21:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I would like to personally chime in here endorsing this summary from the anon. Please view AustinKnight's current talk page. He has been approached by two editors (coincidently, both are from Australia). Here is the response we have both received:
Perhaps I have not been flippant enough. You apparently don't get it, so let me make it more clear albeit with less humor: I don't care what you, random person from Australia, thinks on this topic. At all. Nor should I. Moreover, I think that it is repugnant that a taxpayer-insulting employee of the U.S. federal government is able to turn what amounts to a "whistle-blowing" event (against her abuses) into some kind of Wiki-martyrdom, at least amongst the anti-U.S. wiki-forces that she is a subset of. That's idiotic, and ludicrous...but expected from the anti-government ilk. No one has threatened her employment except herself, and every honest person knows that. --AustinKnight 13:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
P.S. One can only be "flippant" toward a superior, and you have no such relationship to me. I simply don't buy into your self-aggrandizing fabrications re. the Wiki-social structure...nor should I. --AustinKnight 13:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I feel that the ArbCom should at least accept this case to investigate further. It's very rare that I see such intimidation on this website. Totally out of control, IMO. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 208.27.111.121 17:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I will decline to make a statement, the facts speak for themselves. 208.27.111.121 17:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ta bu shi da yu 15:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I am extremely concerned with this development. Since when did we "report" people to the government? I have not heard anything back from AustinKnight. I would at the very least like to see an apology and an undertaking that he won't be doing this. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Willmcw 16:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I am also concerned about this behavior. The initial threat appears to have seriously violated WP:NPA and Wikipedia:Harassment. The editors has made rude and dismissive responses to those who've tried to resolve the situation. -Willmcw 16:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AustinKnight

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

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

  1. Reject - you don't need us for this. Threats are not allowed. Warn first then block if it ever happens again. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Reject - Admins can deal with this, doesn't need our time. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist (previously Joshuaschroeder)

Involved parties

Alleged continual breach of Wikipedia policies, processes and style guides, including (a) NPOV (b) Citations (c) Personal attacks (d) Civility (e) Verifiability (f) Request for Comments (g) Association fallacy (h) Consensus

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

ScienceApologist Notified by --Iantresman 15:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Have talked to the other party involved (also under his previous account name Joshuaschroeder [4]) since Sept 2005 [5] (and earlier)
  • Several people have tried to mediate. I have informally asked Art Carson [6], and others [7]. Art has provided some useful input
  • Have discussed with numerous third parties, including (a) Two Request for Comments [8] and [9] that also ask people to vote (b) Offsite on the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum [10] (c) Experts in the field, such as Prof. Daniel F.V. James (contribs. • [11]), Prof. Emil Wolf [12] [13], and Prof. Theoretical Physics, Indian Statistical Institute, Sisir Roy [14]
  • A straw poll was included in the 2nd RfC mentioned above, but previous suggestions for a survey were met with disapproval [15]
  • Have notifyied user of my allegations of vandalism [16] and [17]

Statement by iantresman (talk · contribs)

I consider the defendant's edits to undermine the integrity of Wikipedia, using techniques that do not reach the standards expected of Wikipedian editors. For example:

  • Extreme interpretation of NPOV. For example, the defendant rightly points out that "Redshift" has a specific definition in astronomy. But then assumes this is the only definition, and claims that the term 'redshift' as used in optics, eg. in the Wolf effect is incorrect, despite my included peer-reviewed citations to help verifiability, and, getting confirmation from three experts in the field [18].
  • Dismisses peer-reviewed citations (over 500 of them!) provided to help verifiability [19] claiming, for example, bias, that one is "poorly written", he "cannot make heads-or-tails" of another, that it is an "unacceptable form of research", and many others. He has provide only 2 peer-reviewed citations to support his own position.
  • Personal attacks / Civility: Aimed at myself [20] [21] [22]; Labelling scientists such as Halton Arp a "pathological skeptic", [23], describing the work of Nobel Prize winning scientist Hannes Alfven as pseudoscience [24], removing credentials from physicist Dr. László Körtvélyessy [25] [26]
  • Ignoring consensus (a) of a VfD vote [27] (b) of a recent RfC on Redshift, by crossing out those supporting changes [28], and has even now submitted the Redshift article as a "Featured article candidates" (21:00 17 Dec 2005)
  • Using Association fallacy, eg. that I am a "nonscientist layman" [29] , an "avowed Velikovskian" [30]. Labelling non-mainstream articles as "pseudoscience" [31], [32]. That using the Internet to promote views is a criticism (see intro, last paragraph [33]). That sending out books for review is a criticism [34]
  • Claims my contributions include errors, but has never substantiated any one of them with citations
  • Defendant is now claiming that this RfA is slander [35]. Another example of Association fallacy? And again, no evidence to substantiate the claim. (19:58 17 Dec 2005)
  • I have made a previous RfA which was not accepted.
  • The defendant was subject to (a) a 24-hours ban on 22 Nov 2005 (b) Page protection, apparently due to the defendant's "blanking" [36] (c) Page protection for alledged POV-ing [37]

Statement by party 2

This RfArb is inappropriate because User:Iantresman has not tried other steps in dispute resolution including not having tried an RfC or mediation directly on the topic of my contributions to Wikipedia, both of which I would happily participate in. While many of User:Iantresman's contributions help articles (he provided a wonderful picture for the redshift article) he doesn't always recognize consensus or accept that he might have a bias in many articles. Many of his allegations are not even violations of Wikipedia policy (for example, pointing out that Halton Arp's promotion of his ideas could be seen as pathological skepticism on a talkpage is not a violation of Wikipedia policy). This is the second time User:Iantresman has resorted to an RfArb without trying other steps, and I request that he withdraw this and try one of the others.

Thanks, --ScienceApologist 15:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

outside statement by Dunc

Note the Ian Tresman is POV pushing bizarre pseudoscience which was quite rightly opposed by Josh who does a valiant job of opposing nonsense and keeping one's head in such situations is often difficult. Like many pseudoscience POV pushers Ian has resorted to vexatious litigation because he's not getting his way through normal channels (this is the second such action taken by Ian). (As an aside, Josh's recent block was performed by Ed Poor (talk · contribs) because Josh afded one of Ed's articles (which was subsequently deleted)). As such it should be recused. — Dunc|☺ 15:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

outside statement by Zoe

I am offended by the repeated use of the term "defendant" in this listing. This is not a court of law, there are no defendants, prosecutors or judges. Zoe (216.234.130.130 19:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

outside statement by Flying Jazz

I only know about some of the activity at Redshift since the second RfC. Both Iantresman and ScienceApologist were uncivil in differing ways. ScienceApologist was uncivil in a blunt way. He seemed to make baiting statements or edit articles prematurely in a way that could be rapidly corrected. Iantresman was also uncivil, but in a subtle way that was more dangerous to Wikipedia in my opinion. He misrepresented the views of others on and off Wikipedia. On two occasions, the journal articles he claimed supported his opinion actually supported the exact opposite opinion. After the first time I pointed this out, he seemed to understand that was an error for a day or so before repeating similar misrepresentations again in addition to finding a new citation to misuse. All this ocurred on the talk page.

He also listed the complex opinions of RfC participants in a table by simple "support" and "oppose" labels when many participants listed in the table (including me) supported some parts and opposed other parts of his proposals. I'd have prefered not to have appeared on such a simple table, but the act of removing myself from it would most likely have been misinterpreted. He again misrepresents the statements of others in his request for arbitration when he talks about the specific issues of consensus and verifiability and so on. It is easy to lose one's temper and be uncivil in a blunt way when one sees this misrepresentation of the words and work of others occuring over and over again from a single individual.

Still, in recent weeks (with one or two brazen exceptions from ScienceApologist) both Iantresman and ScienceApologist have treated the article itself with deference and left most of the editing to others and the article is better because of it. Both of them contributed to making a better article in spite of the messy talk pages. Flying Jazz 06:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentations are not based on feelings, but on the content of the text itself. This most recent misrepresentation from you about Harald88's text is a good example. You are now indicating that he wholly supported your proposal to create a list when the text itself indicates he supported Dragons_flight (who seemed to agree with you in part but also wished to avoid "laundry lists.") Please stop repeating this cycle yet again of apologizing for misrepresenting others, saying the misrepresentations were unintentional, and then returning to the same misreprentations and/or creating new ones. I'm too new to Wikipedia disputes to even know when arbitration is required using formal policy statements or whatever is used, but I know by common sense that when you follow this cycle repeatedly, people will get angry with you. In cases like this one, where the contributions of both parties improved the article, arbitration just seems very premature before people have had a chance (if they wish) to talk about what was said in the talk pages in some other forum. Flying Jazz 15:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Mcfly85 -- Emergency injunction requested

Involved parties

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

I've attempted to warn Mcfly85; he disregarded my warning. Given that the admins are genuinely split on this issue (User:Celestianpower believes that Mcfly85's vote should count; User:Howcheng does not and neither do I), I don't think we can get the dispute resolved before Mcfly85's behavior further taints the renewed RfA.

Statement by User:Nlu

Mcfly85's sock puppetry in inflencing SWD316's prior RfA tainted that vote (see WP:AN#Mcfly85 for details), and so I brought the new RfA. Mcfly85 then insisted on injecting himself into this RfA despite his prior behavior. I am requesting an emergency injunction to not allow him to vote or to make any further comments on the RfA. I am not, at this point, asking for any additional sanctions, as I am otherwise unfamiliar with the history between him and SWD316. In the meantime, I blocked Mcfly85 for three hours for disregarding my instruction to backoff SWD316's RfA. Please also review if this was proper action on my part. --Nlu (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I see User:Fred Bauder's comment that he would like to see Mcfly85 and his sock puppets blocked indefinitely. Obviously, the ArbCom has the power to do what it believes is right, but I (as I explained to Mcfly85 on my talk page) do not want to see this. I think he can become a productive editor, and he has made productive edits before. --Nlu (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mcfly85

(Copied over from User talk:Mcfly85 by User:Nlu as Mcfly85 is himself unable to do so during the block) OK, I'm just sorry for all of this. Please remove my vote, please block me indefinetly. I'm sorry, please block me, I don't want to cause any more harm. You guys do a fine job with this site. SWD316, I'm very sorry for all of this, I think you will make a good mod. Mcfly85 04:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SWD316

Where to begin, well he vandalized my user page several times. (see:My User Page for the full listing) Also he creates several accounts strickly used for vandalism. Also signed in as IP addresses, also listed on my user page, to vandalize my user page, my talk page, my RFA, and various areas on Wikipedia.

He first got upset when I edited his user page censoring the word "fuckers". I apologize for doing so. Anyways, in the edit summary I misspelled "vulger" and typed "fulger". Months later Mcfly85, under an IP address, vandalized my user page here. I immediately knew it was him. When confronted, he simply blanked his talk page.

In all of this mess, Mcfly85 was determined to prove his innocence to Wikipedia as he contacted the Administrators' noticeboard, The Mediation Cabal and other user trying to ruin my name on Wikipedia.

I ran fro adminship on December 14 resulting in me getting frustrated and closing the RFA. I closed it because Mcfly85 voted oppose causing major controversy on my RFA. He even signed in under sockpuppet accounts as Rock09 and Sigma995 and voted once again.

Banes found more incriminating evidence today further leading to this RFAr (see: my talk page for evidence). Later that day Fred Bauder ran a CheckUser on Mcfly85 and saw where he created numerous accounts for vandalizing my user page, RFA, etc.

I was renominated today to run for adminship based on Mcfly85's edits to the previous RFA. He interjected himself into this one as well tring to influence the voters to vote oppose saying I was a bad user. Im just glad Mcfly85 has now given up. SWD316 05:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Howcheng

According to a checkuser run by User:Fred Bauder (see [38]), User:Mcfly85 is a confirmed sockpuppeteer. He voted against SWD316 multiple times with the puppets during SWD316's second RfA attempt (see [39]) in clear violation of WP:SOCK. As one possible penalty is a permanent block, I believe it should apply retroactively to the time when he wielded his puppets, thus disqualifying his vote on the resubmitted RfA. Even if a block is not applied, at the very least his vote should not count and he should be censured and an injunction prohibiting him from working on the same articles as SWD316 or those articles that SWD316 is likely to touch (i.e., those that fall under the sphere of Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling) should be issued. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 07:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/2/0/0)

User:Robert I + anonymous user(s)

Involved parties

(*)Several anonymous edits on the disputed pages (see below) have been made from rotating IPs beginning with 81.131 and 213.122. There are credible grounds to believe that all or most of these anonymous edits were written by the same person using two different ISPs, and equally credible grounds to believe that Robert I and the anonymous editor are acquainted and working in conjunction.

Robert I and the anonymous editor(s) have deliberately misrepresented published texts no fewer than four times at Gregory Lauder-Frost and Conservative Monday Club. On the first occasion, Robert I resorted to personal abuse after being discovered and denied that his edit was misrepresentative. These misrepresentations have continued despite repeated warnings and criticisms.

Robert I and the anonymous editors(s) have also made many biased edits to interrelated pages involving far-right British figures (eg. Harvey Ward, Western Goals Institute and Western Goals (UK), as well as the two already mentioned). They have behaved in a generally uncivil manner toward other contributors, making frequent accusations of left-wing bias and a sinister agenda against GLF and the CMC.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Given the difficulties of contacting someone with a rotating IP, is assumed that the anonymous user(s) will learn of this request through the aforementioned article talk pages.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Efforts were made to resolve the matter directly with Robert I and the anonymous editor(s), and several outside observers were brought in. The inappropriate behaviour continues, and there is no reason to believe any step short of arbitration will resolve the matter.

Statement by CJCurrie (complainant)

Please see Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost ("Observations") for the reasons why I believe the anonymous IPs are all the same person, and are working in association with Robert I. Gregory Lauder-Frost has himself written to Wikipedia from three of the "rotating IPs", and it appears likely he is the anon. See Talk:Conservative Monday Club ("Accurate quoting", "Winds of Change Speech" and "Observer Retraction(?)") and Talk:GLF ("Accurate quoting (again)") for the specific transgressions.

User:Homeontherange and myself have been the target of frequent and sustained abuse by Robert I and the anon at these and other pages (including legal threats), and I do not believe the situation is likely to change without intervention from ArbComm. CJCurrie 00:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Amended: 00:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: For an indication of what these articles looked like before I discovered them, see this. CJCurrie 23:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Homey (complainant)

I concur with CJCurrie's statement. I also suspect Robert I may, in fact, be GLF as well - it would be helpful if a developer could examine all the IPs involved, including User:Robert I's to see if there is commonality.Homey 18:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert I (respondant)

Please note that a request for arbitration on Gregory Lauder-Frost and the Conservative Monday Club had already been made before. User CJ Currie deliberately targetted Gregory Lauder-Frost, the Conservative Monday Club, and anyone associated with them, as well as tracking down every post made by me, in order to demonise the individuals, to smear them, and to make them totally unimportant. Their opinions were paramount throughout the edit war which naturally took place. Comments which gave any credibility were removed.

Mr.Currie deliberately inserted damaging comments to Lauder-Frost in particular which, under Scottish Law, placed Wikipedia in a difficult situation. When told this he suggested that the socialist newspaper and the Marxist journalist he was quoting should be the subject of action, not Wikipedia/himself. he also stated on his Talk Page that he was aware that the information on Talk Pages was going out over the internet, so even when things were removed from the main article, he made certain they remained on the Talk pages. This is possibly the clearest evidence of spreading disinformation and opinion.

They describe Lauder-Frost as being "on the fring of the fring" yet he was the leading officer in the largest multi-issue political pressure group in the United Kingdom. Another classic smear was that he was just an energetic letter-writer when, in fact, he was mostly delegated to do this by the organisations he belonged to. Whereas Lauder-Frost was first and foremost a Conservative Party activist (and a Patron of an Association of which Alec Douglas-Home had been a previous Patron of) they have placed a slanderous quote from a known left-wing nespaper at the top of the political information on on, and then said "he was also" in the Conservative Party. This is classic left-wing demonisation.

I have relied much on interviews with people, and with paperwork which I have had sight of here. They, instead, rely utterly on newspapers and journalistic opinions. They insist upon "proof" as though this were a court and THEY were judges, and my word is meaningless.

Throughout their re-edits, the objective and agenda has been clear. CJCurrie called in 'helpers' to support him and at least one homey has joined in the attacks wholeheartedly both under the guise of "neutrality". Yet they have deliberately changed "non-European" to "non-white", and people referred to in our history books as "pioneers" in Africa have been changed to the classic Pan African Congress status as "settlers". I wonder how the population of North America would like being referred to as "settlers" in 2005? Presumably thats how the indigenous population see them? Moreover, it becomes obvious that CJCurrie and homey are totally obssessed with apartheid, "white minority rule" etc., the standard obsessions of the Left. Any objective individual will be able to see that the re-editing/neutrality is a poor disguise for standard left-wing activity and demonisation.

I refute utterly their attempts to obfuscate what they haven doing. Their claims of sock-puppets are possibly the prime example, and of 'abuse' it simply amounts to straight talking. Only their OPINION counts. They are so arrogant they see themselves as beyond reproach. I do not accept that I have misquoted. As has already been said I quoted what I believed to be facts. It is standard practice to quote a word, a part-sentence, a paragraph, or whatever.

They are not beyond being told the truth about their activities. We in Britain resent to a large degree being lectured on our politics and our history by those who do not live here and who do not understand the British character and scenario. I for one would not dream of passing the same comments using the same ideological nuances and sentence constructions that they have on Canadian politicians. Please note also that I could have easily retaliated against their Wikipedia contributions but I have not done so.

I have never been so disgusted with anything as the manner in which they have been able to entirely rearrange articles to their obvious political satisfaction and complain about others as though their views are utterly supreme.

A well-known socialist here in Britain has made a posting on the CDA forums at http://www.quicktopic.com/15/H/dxVhP9ADUER where he states that the two people attacking me are "over the top".

Robert I 08:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 213.122.67.71 (respondant)

The issue here is very clear. It has nothing whatsoever to do with multiple user claims or whatever. (There has never been a problem with anonymous contributors provided they do their work properly). It is to do with DEMONISATION. CJCurrie and friend homeontherange have been flat out deliberately demonising the Conservative Monday Club, Gregory Lauder-Frost, and numerous other pages. They are now attempting to divert adjudicators from the REAL ISSUE HERE - their activities. 213.122.67.71 07:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 81.131... (respondant)

Please limit your comments to 500 words

Brief comment by El_C

I urge the Committee to accept this case. I may add some comments and/or evidence later on. El_C 12:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ground Zero

I have worked extensively with CJCurrie and Homey on numerous articles. While I do not always agre with them, I respect the work that they do and their understanding and acceptance of Wikipedia policies. CJCurrie, in particular, is above reproach in his handling of neutrality. While Homey has, on occasion, had dispute over neutrality with other editors, I do not believe that he has any agenda in this case other than neutrality. The respondents in this case have frequently resorted to ad hominem attacks as above. The fact that the complainants are Canadians must not preclude them from editing an article about a British political figure. Robert I and the anonymous editor's edits appear to me to have the goal of making GLF appear to be an important person, and his views to be a part of the mainstream and popular. The suggestion that two Canadian editors would spend so much time to "demonise" a minor British political figure is ludicrous. That they would spend so much time to keep hagiographical biographies from appearing in Wikipedia is laudable. Ground Zero | t 15:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it's esp. pertinent, but I do seem to recall (perhaps mistakingly) that GZ is himself a Tory. El_C 01:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response by defender

I note what GroundZero says. All biographies (at least in the Dictionary of National Biography and even the Encyclopaedia Britannica lean towards the positive, not the negative side of the person they are mentioning, minor or not. At the end of the day it cannot be denied that CJCurrie and homeonetherange have deliberately attacked, for two weeks, numerous connected articles in a defamatory and demonising way. If you examine every connected edit they have made, you will see that they must have spent hours trawling through newspapers etc., with the very clear intention of only flagging up negative comments. If that is not the case, where have they found something positive? Or maybe all these people, including the thousands of members and former members, including MPs, of the Monday Club were simply all bad and/or not "mainstream"? I have asked, to date, six people to look at these and they all concur. Groundzero may well have had a good working relationship on other articles with this couple but every article is different. I am not suggesting that Canadians should not edit things. But caugtion is required when making ABSOLUTE comments on foreign politics if you don't live there, and I am saying that these people had a very clear political agenda, and it continues. Robert I 15:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

User:Haiduc

Involved parties

This is a refiling of a previous RfAr, rejected without prejudice at that time.

Since that time, User:Haiduc has revived the CfD-deleted category of Category:Historical pederastic relationships under the even-more-POV category name Category:Pederastic lovers -- which should perhaps been expected in light of his prior promise to circumvent the CfD process by renaming the category. He has also continued personal attacks against me when I nominated the new category for deletion in light of the circumvention of the CfD process. (See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 15 for more details. For whatever reason, neither the prior CfD nor the prior RfAr appears to be archived, although I'm sure the ArbCom has access to both.)

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

As previously explained, I've tried to make good faith efforts to talk over with Haiduc during the prior CfD and believed, at that time, that I got no good faith response from him. In light of his subsequent condescending remarks toward me prior to this particular dispute (see User talk:Haiduc#Request for arbitration and User talk:Nlu/archive7#Category issues), I highly doubt that any other dispute resolution technique will be of much use.

Statement by party 1

Haiduc's actions to circumvent CfD is a violation of WP:POINT. His actions in the previous and the current CfD are violations of WP:NPA. I am requesting sanctions. Last time, the ArbCom rejected the RfAr without prejudice without stating further reasons; I am assuming that is because that at that time, no circumvention of the CfD process had yet occurred. It has now occurred, and action should be taken. --Nlu (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

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

Deeceevoice

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

on deeceevoice's talk page (she has now removed this) [41]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Request for comment: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Deeceevoice

deeceevoice refused to take part in the RfC. She also deleted comments on her talk page regarding civility policies, labeling them vandalism. Given this behavior, it would likely be fruitless to pursue any other steps. -Justforasecond 16:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Justforasecond

Deeceevoice has regularly and repeatedly violated wikipedia policies. On Dec 6, 2005, a request for comment was filed, which deeceevoice refused to address, stating:

it amazes me that people have nothing better to do on this website than play Miss Manners with other adults like prissy, pedantic, insufferable, niggling, mealy-mouthed, self-righteous, tattletale brats.

Most editors in the RfC agreed that deeceevoice had broken wikipedia policy, though a significant fraction thought her actions were reasonable. Several editors also mentioned deeceevoice NPOV and NOR violations, but those were not documented extensively in the RfC.

While many of deeceevoice's uncivil comments are directed towards vandals of one sort or another, she has, on numerous occassions, attacked cordial editors. In at least one cases she has described a legitimate request as "vandalism" in an edit summary while removing it from her talk page, though she insists on leaving truly offensive vandalism such as swastikas and photographs of lynchings for all to see.

What follows is from deeceevoice's RfC and is only a portion of her incivil behavior, but I believe it is enough to show a convincing pattern. -Justforasecond 06:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

From conversation with User:Zoe:

What? U want me 2 hold your little, white hand and sing "Kumbaya"? What the hell kinda comment is that? Don't insult my intelligence... [42]
...I can only conclude you wanted to read some reassuring warm-and-fuzzy expression of brotherhood/sisterhood....I got no time, no patience to stroke your psyche. Get a teddy bear. [43]

From conversation with User:Matt Crypto:

When I need a lesson on playing nicey-nice to someone's irksome, naive bullcrap, I'll be sure to look you up. I don't do nice. In the meantime, kindly go to hell. [44]
Do you really think some little twit instructing me in "civility" is going to change me? I find that mildly amusing. Thanks for the comic relief. Okay, I'm done w/you. Now go home. (yawn) [45] [46]

From conversation with User:Matt Crypto:

Do you really think I give a flying ****? [47].

(With edit comments of "pathetic" [48] and "Deleted annoying clutter from MY talk page" [49])

To get beneath the 500-word limit, I'll leave out the other quotes that can be found on the RfC page. [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]. [61] [62]

Statement by deeceevoice

I won't dignify this apparent retread of the RfC with a response. I would, however, like to say something to those who have weighed in in support of me. First, sincerely, thank you. But more importantly, this: just ignore JFAS. He seems to have a rather unhealthful fixation with me (and perhaps may be a recycled antagonist with a new user name and ulterior motives -- perhaps not). He seems to crave attention of even the most negative sort. Whatever the case, it is extremely difficult at this point to believe his actions are well-intentioned. Not only do I believe his antics are divisive and counterproductive, I am concerned about the degree to which responding to him has diverted the time and energies of positive contributors to the project away from the business of improving Wikipedia. I truly appreciate the support, but, please, go back to your editing. It's what I intend to do -- when I have the time and the tolerance for it.

I have nothing else to say. Period. deeceevoice 10:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alabamaboy

As stated before, even though User:justforasecond is the author of this RfA, User:justforasecond is bringing this RfA against deeceevoice despite having NO interactions with deeceevoice since the failed RfC against her. This RfA appears to be part of a pattern of harrassment by User:justforasecond against deeceevoice, as evidenced by the fact that nearly 2/3 of User:justforasecond's total edits on Wikipedia (see corrected stats below) are against deeceevoice.[63]

Yes, Deeceevoice can be abrupt to users who make racist and other attacking comments to her. However, many of the examples cited above are from her talk page and, by Wikipedia standards, users are given more freedom to do what they want with regards to their talk page. Deeceevoice is also an excellent editor of articles, as indicated by a long track record of edits. Finally, this RfA is not valid because the previous RfC failed to achieve consensus and was stopped early due to excessive personal attacks.--Alabamaboy 16:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


As a final note on how I believe that Justforasecond is harassing Deeceevoice, I refer to this instance [64] where Justforasecond removed a comment in support of Deeceevoice from Deeceevoice's personal talk page. This comment was shortly thereafter restored by another editor.--Alabamaboy 02:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jpgordon

I just feel the need to reiterate what my comment on that RfC:

It must be said that there are many places in discussions on Wikipedia where saying "Fuck off" in so many words would save an awful lot of time and energy currently consumed by coming up with long-winded euphemisms and policy discussions that mean exactly "fuck off". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It amazes me too that you have nothing better to do with this website then hassle DC; at this point it appears that well over 3/4 of your Wikipedia activity has been furthering your assault upon her. You think any of this is going to make her tell Nazi vandals on her talk page to fuck off more politely? The only outcome that will include that will include her leaving, and her contributions to Wikipedia have been extremely valuable. There's an easy solution for you, the filer of this arbitration request: don't read her talk page.

At any rate, she's already announced (prior to the posting of this RfAr) that she'll not be around much, if at all, for the remainder of the holiday season, so I propose that this RfAr be postponed until she return so that she can participate should she choose to. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


But, he-e-ey. One minor point here I feel compelled to mention. Nowhere do I actually spell out the f-word. My momma taught me better. :p deeceevoice 17:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Encyclopedist

Since this is an extended version of the same bullcrap, I will add exactly what I did here

I am a strong friend of Deeceevoice on this site, so I don't know if anyone is going to object to my views as being arbitrary. However, I do know that Deeceevoice, above all arguments, has done much to improve this site, and should be considered one of the valued colloborators here. This has not been the case, one need only look at her talk page to see hate filled vitriol and rascist comments that she has decided to post there (and I am not just talking about obvious vandalism, I am talking about some contributors) as "gratitude" for her hard work here. I am not going to condone any NPA or POV actions that Deeceevoice may have; but I do think that it is important to see firstly that as an African American and as an avid intellectual; she may and does have more to offer in terms of contributions to Afrocentrism articles, and this may seem to be POV to others, as on the talk page I have seen several preconceived, biased and rascists notions against her and her edits. No, it is not right to insult another Wikipedian, however, this argument is inherentently excluding the fault that Deeceevoice's opponents here and outside this RfA have, especially in regards to questionable civility. In Deeceevoice I see a very very strong person; who has convinced me to stay on a site where I am bombarded by hateful racism, along with arrogant and abrasive editors. As a contributor on Wikipedia, she has stayed through several cases of attacks against her and insults, but only to contribute more to this site. Her attitudes in my opinion do shed light on the fact that she is trying to give attention to several themes that are ignored and often of poor quality on Wikipedia. Black topics here are often ignored, so Deecee's efforts to try to improve such have been criticized as POV. THEY ARE NOT. They are from a different, and interestingly enough, an AFRICAN AMERICAN perspective. Does being African American give here the right to add POV in articles? No. But does being a scholarly intellectual with African descent give her the right to contribute to sites that are often ignored by the monotone community of Wikipedia? Yes. Sure, I know that people will probably not endorse or agree with what I am saying; I have been in a number of debates here (i.e. VfDs, RfAs etc.) , and frankly, every one has been like pulling teeth. I predict dissent and naysayers leaving nasty comments under this message; but I do not have time for any arguments. I could sit here and type all day about the excellent contributions Deecee has created for this site; and similarly, write about the rascists and hate filled words directed towards her. Concerning NPA, it is comprehensible that Deecee voice will get angry. The problem here is that the complainants are focusing on bad points when Deeceevoice finally did insult malactors for their insults; but never look into the times when she has brushed off such foolishness. Bottom line, I have no qualms against anyone here (at least not anymore); and I do consider Deeceevoice to be a true friend. My argument stands as it is. I know that no one will agree with it, and I will hear people complaining with little subcaps below, as if I am going to give them the time of day to respond to them. I have a life, I suggest others get the same. And concerning Deeceevoice not resppnding, I wouldn't either: nothing ever comes of it, people here are ready to crucify her since she has been here. It will just be a long argument, but the outcome is the same. Deeceevoice, stay strong. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Above all, I see just as much, if not more, fault in her opponents. There will never be an equal voice in Wikipedia as the majority of the contributors here are white; and a person decides to focus in an Afrocentric perspective. Deeceevoice has been shown little respect for her contributions, and I believe that instead of putting this RfC (which is not to the standard of what it should be, neither in format or whatever "evidence" you can find against her) we should commend her. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this, you lose the RfC, so you pull a stunt like this?? That is so sad. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DreamGuy

deeceevoice has a long history of extremely harassing statements and extreme POV-pushing on this site. She regularly inserts highly Afrocentric opinions into articles related to Ancient Egypt and calls people racists and other major violations of WP:NPA when the edits are removed, while using racially abusive language herself in response, calling editors "Whitey" for example without knowing anything about their actual race. The RFC was not a "failed" RFC, as a large number of posters agreed that she was extremely abusive - nothing further happened solely because RFCs have no teeth, and deeceevoice was ignoring the entire process, instead having editors with questionable histories show up to try to portray her as an angel and her detractors as racist and etc. etc. I don't know [[User:Justforasecond from Adam, other than he tried to get me to make more active role in the RFC, but regardless of whether the attacks on him above by the questionable editors are accurate in their claims or not, the fact remains that deeceevoice's only goal here seems to be rather drastic POV pushing and major, major examples of not just uncivil behavior but outright abuse. Those looking whether to take on this case should ignore the back and forth of the editors above and simply browse the RFC against her and her contribution history. It won't take much time, and you can see for yourselves which (if indeed any) of the views posted above are accurate, or, more importantly, whether there is enough there to open this up to the evidence stage. Much of the content of the statements above are highly irrelevant to the question of whether arbitration is necessary and I think could all too easily act as a smokescreen to the real issues here. DreamGuy 11:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jmabel (not a party to the arbitration)

I suggest that people abide by the rule that this page is not the place for conversation. People are interjecting their comments into each other's statements.

I urge the arbitrators to take into account how active and useful a contributor deeceevoice has been (and continues to be) and how little Justforasecond has participated in Wikipedia other than to complain about deeceevoice; that the two other people who have identified themselves as parties to the arbitration have come in to support deeceevoice; and to reject this request for arbitration as a distraction from the work of building an encyclopedia. If a serious participant in Wikipedia like Matt Crypto wanted an arbitration with deeceevoice, I'd urge her to consider it, and I'd urge the arbitrators to take it, but that is not what we have here. We have an almost brand new contributor taking more of his/her own time on a grievance about an established contributor than on contributing to articles, and eating up a lot of other people's time in the process.

Full disclosure: for the record, if anyone doesn't know, I am not a neutral party. While I have suggested to deeceevoice that some of her remarks to people are excessive and I think a few have even been somewhat uncivil, it seems pretty obvious to me that with her we get the whole package or we get nothing, and between the two, I'll take the package without hesitation. And I know people will chew me out for this and that I hold a minority view, but I feel that the main issue with racially charged remarks—which deeceevoice has made—is that they can create a generally hostile atmosphere for the people in the group against whom they are directed. I see no prospect of Wikipedia becoming a generally hostile environment for white people, so her remarks simply do not distress me to the point that similar remarks about (for example) Blacks, Jews, or Roma would distress me. She has been occasionally uncivil, but most of us are occasionally uncivil. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About RobChurch's statement

Note: RobChurch just deleted this section, which I am herewith restoring. His edit note stated: "Edit conflict; am withdrawing - this is no longer (as I had hoped) a question of resolution - it's become a brawl from which there is no escape)"

Why am I restoring it? Because whatever damage he has done is done. Lies cannot be retracted. I believe it is useful to keep his comments here, because they are instructive of precisely the kind of, IMO, racism and antagonism that strangles this website. I also have added a response, which did not register because of an edit conflict. deeceevoice 17:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see this [expletive withheld] has also completely deleted his slanderous statement at User:Robchurch/deeceevoice, and I can't recover it. If anyone can, please do so and post it here. For those of you who are curious about it, he falsely accused me of calling editors "whities" and "crackers" and of sending a vitriolic, "screaming" retaliatory e-mail after he blocked me for violating a 3RR. Which I, of course, NEVER did. He also said, "I couldn't give a SHIT what she writes in response to this" -- or something very close to it (profanity included). Is this [(creature) expletive withheld] at all credible? I think not! deeceevoice 17:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. SURELY there must be some sort of rule against deleting material entered as evidence in an RfA -- including material on a separate page submitted as an addendum! And this is the kind of person entrusted with with administrative (or whatever) authority on this website? And how do I pursue an action against him? Despicable and utterly indefensible. deeceevoice 17:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This just from my talk page:

I've undeleted Rob Church's user subpage, as I believe it should stick around as long as the Arbitration case is filed. It certainly looks suspect to me, and I imagine to the ArbComm too. — Matt Crypto 17:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: RobChurch has removed it again after an admin restored it. Someone should restore it -- regardless of what he's written since. It was submitted as part of the RfA, and as such, it should be preserved as an important part of the record. People have a right to know and to understand what is being discussed here. deeceevoice 21:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Because this time, rather than deleting the document, RobChurch merely edited it the relevant passages, I -- a lowly peon with no admin or sysop capabilities :p -- was able to retrieve it. Because Church likely simply will delete it again if I restore it, I've decided to reproduce it below.deeceevoice 10:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RobChurch's statement

In order to avoid clutter, and while I appreciate ArbCom prefer it on the same page, I've slapped this bit as a subpage of my userspace. All my comments pertaining to the matter will appear on User:Robchurch/deeceevoice over the next week or so.

It's a shame it's come to this. Rob Church Talk 21:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What follows below, bounded by the two horizontal lines, is Church's initial statement which he repeatedly has deleted, as explained above.

Deeceevoice is from apparently African-American descent. I'll state that now, because you'd better not ever forget it; she doesn't ever let it drop. I'm afraid what I have a problem with is her unrelentingly inappropriate style of putting people down. If I started guessing at people's ethnicities, then making rather snide remarks based on them, I think I'd be disposed of quite quickly. She seems to believe that demeaning people as "whities" is acceptable, and will make her comments seem more casual and less irritating. Wrong.

I'm without doubt that some put-down or brush-off to this particular view is coming; I'd stake a hefty sum on it. I'd stake a similarly hefty sum on that it will be offensive, and that it will attempt to nullify my opinions and views as "unsuitable" or "ill-informed."

I blocked User:Deeceevoice about a month ago for violating the three-revert rule. Now, people know I'm quite lenient on that one; I'll block pretty heavily for it, but if people email and explain themselves, I'm quite often inclined to unblock; provided they're trying to improve the quality of the encyclopedia, I don't mind too much.

User:Deeceevoice sent me an email which "screeched" that I was obviously blocking her with pure bias in mind; that I was a vicious sadistic character who despised her, etc. etc. - I'd not even heard of her prior to that event.

I'm afraid it is not acceptable

  • For Deeceevoice to make clearly derogatory remarks about people all over the place
  • To remove people's polite comments from her talk page while leaving appallingly bad-faith edit summaries
  • To brush off all complaints by us "whities" as being of no merit, as we can't possibly understand what "her kind" have been through, and can't possibly be anything but biased and racist

I really couldn't give a shit about what she's going to write under this. I simply urge ArbCom to accept this case, to consider that we have always disposed ourselves of people who have hindered more than helped us, and I hope they will give her the dressing down she actually deserves. She can't go on thinking that she's helping us - even if she is - while leaving a trail of social destruction in her wake. That is not how wikis work, and if ArbCom begin imposing one rule for one, one for another, then I for one will consider all hope at recovering Wikipedia to its core goals lost.

Another apparently biased whitey, Rob Church

Note: Since these things always end up being about evidence, here's mine. Visit [65]. View the edit history.

(end of initial statement by RobChurch)

The shame is that you would stoop to such utter fabrication. Just abysmal. deeceevoice 22:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have never, ever failed to own up to my own words and actions. I stand by them. The words at the above link are complete and utter lies. I don't know who this guy is, what his beef is/issues are -- and I don't give a damn. But this outrageous lie is the last straw. I'm done here. Wikipedia can go to hell. deeceevoice 06:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My response to Robchurch's comments on the above page after he deleted it with a snide edit note saying he didn't want my comments on his page, because I delete the comments of others when they are "trying to help" or some nonsense

A response
Your post is pure fabrication.
I've never called anyone on this website "whitey" or referred to anyone as "whitey." It's not a word I've ever used -- not even in the '70s, when it was the fashion. And reject your characterization of my remarks and opinons as complete fiction.
Again, I challenge you: provide the diffs. I dare you.
Further, I sent you no such e-mail in response to your block. You're simply hallucinating -- our knowingly flatout lying. A "vicious, sadistic character who despised [me]"? WHAT? Playing the victim? Making something personal? That's hardly my style. If you're going to fabricate your comments, at least come up with something credible. The fact that you would stoop to writing such lies is sleazy, despicable and contemptible beyond words. Don't ever, ever, ever contact me again -- about anything. As far as I'm concerned, from this point on, you're lower than low. You don't exist. *x*
Further, if there is any way to trace e-mails through the system, I strongly encourage that this be done. And when the truth comes out, I urge that the author of this despicable lie be dealt with in the harshest possible terms.deeceevoice 22:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Observe, ladies and gentlemen. When anybody posts anything on one of DCV's pages, she used to (and still will, no doubt) delete it, but the moment I give her a little taste of her own, she rants, raves and downright screams. Ludicrous. Absolutely ludicrous. Rob Church Talk 16:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Observe the hyperbole, the lie. This was written (obviously) before Robchurch deleted it (duh). And my response is to the bald-faced lie perpetrated on his page -- to which he has not responded. (Am I the only one who finds that at least a little strange?) Again, if there is any way to trace e-mails through the system, please, someone do it. Now. And expose this despicable entity for what it is. deeceevoice 16:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is plastered all over the place. This page, and the history of your talk page, and the talk pages of everyone you've ever dealt with. Rob Church Talk 16:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"...the talk pages of everyone you've ever dealt with." More shrill hyperbole. Well, now. Then it shouldn't be too difficult to provide a single, solitary diff to bolster your (bogus) claims about me calling editors "whities" and "crackers" -- yes? It's a simple request. We're waiting. Put up or shut up. deeceevoice 17:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And still no reaction to being called a liar. Dang. If someone did that to someone else and it was a false accusation, I'd expect the accused to be fightin' mad -- especially someone with your, uh ... temperament. You've just outted yourself. Really sleazy. deeceevoice 17:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sam Spade

see User:Deeceevoice. Sam Spade 16:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and User_talk:Deeceevoice#YOU_LIKE_COCK_8.3D.3D.3D.3D.3D.3D.3D.3D.3D.3DD_---_-_-_-_-

Sam Spade 02:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Statement by Sam Spade

[I thought only arbitrators were allowed to delete comments). Original question read: WTF stands for what the fuck, right? El_C 12:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

SS has just now (following two deletions of my comment above) has deleted his earlier comment. In the interests of coherence, I am reproducing it here: WTF? How can someone be allowed to behave in the manner DC has in a volunteer project? What the hell kind of place is this? I think this case is a pretty good barometer on if we should bother w this project at all. Sam Spade 22:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC) El_C 02:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zora

I once made some effort to participate in the Afrocentrism article and gave up; dealing with Deeceevoice's high-handedness would have been just too wearing. She holds strong views which I would regard as both racist and unscientific. I have two anthropology degrees; I've taken physical anthropology courses; I know that categories such as "dolichocephalic" and the like are antiquated labels from the 19th century. Yet she uses them with abandon. Deeceevoice has no scientific training and no qualms about labelling anyone who disagrees with her a racist. She is not improving Wikipedia; she is filling it with pseudo-scientific nonsense. I have no objection to the Afrocentric POV being represented, but it should not be allowed to crowd out or intimidate other POVs by playing the "racist" card. Zora 23:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coyep

I had similar experiences with DeeCeeVoice. She frequently vandalized the dreadlocks article by removing valid informations about non-blacks, or, as she calls it: "Caucasoid wannabes" .

The very few things DeeCeeVoice added to the article were either unverifiable or plain incorrect, for instance a reference to Tuts wig, which has braids, not dreads; that dreadlocks are connected to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which is simply incorrect, the assertion that only "black" hair is able to grow into dreadlocks naturally, which is incorrect, the assertion that dreadlocks in Indian Hindu culture have Egyptian origins, which is a totally unverified and unsourced POV edit. (When I asked her to verify her edits, she refused, telling me that: "good writing is more than a regurgitation of facts.")

Instead of adding valid material, she constantly removed valid and sourced informations, for instance the Celtic/Vedic connection, the fact that Rastafari sects welcome all ethnicities, a reference to dreadlocked priests of the Aztec, the Hindu references and quotes, that dreadlocks are a cross cultural hairstyle. She even removed a cybergoth picture asking me to replace it by a cybergoth, totally ignorant to the fact that it IS a cybergoth, she removed the Shiva picture because she disliked that it was "curiously fair-skinned and weirdly blond", totally ignorant of the Hindu color symbolic.

Her biased edits reached a high when she repeatedly removed a picture (Dreadlocked Gabriele.jpg) showing an european dreadlocked man from the dreadlocks article because the picture was allegedly of "poor quality" [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] , but then insisted to include the very same picture into the Cultural appropriation article to illustrate the pejorative term "Trustafari" [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]. CoYep 10:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xed

Mostly harmless. Her contributions are largely ridiculous and over-the-top Afrocentric gibberish - ranting about "slave trading crackers" [76], the size of asians testicles [77], her distaste at pink flesh [78], and ignorant-by-default white folks [79]. Since I believe in free speech, I'm happy for racists of whatever hue to participate, whether they be Nordicists, Zionists or, as in DC's case, Afrocentrics. Some might say that allowing these types to contribute is the only way to expose their moribund arguments. To make it clear, I don't support this arbitration attempt. - Xed 12:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Crow

I'll sign in because I offered a comment on the RfC and my participation was solicited here. This has evolved into something different and broader than the RfC. The RfC was regarding lapses in civility by the editor in question. The reason I commented on the RfC is that I have noticed she does have over-the-top lapses in civility and there is no reasonable excuse for this. However, both that RfC and this RfA has turned into something of a witch hunt prosecuted mainly by the stalk handle User:Justforasecond for the purpose of talking about race-related POV issues, and others have jumped on the same bandwagon. You've taken what was originally a reasonable intervention of a reasonable scope and derailed it by turning it into a broad POV lynching, and I do not appreciate your soliciting my support to participate in it. The Crow 15:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pharlap

An encyclopedia has to be a neutral source of informations. A bias is a bias, no matter if it's a black bias or a white bias. A racist is a racist and a supremacist is a supremacist, no matter if s/he is black or white. There is no "Black" NPOV and there is no "White" NPOV, there is only a NPOV. Replacing a "white POV" with a "black POV" and white racism/supremacism with black racism/supremacism, is counterproductive, especially if it's accompanied by insults and uncivil behavior.

Deeceevoice is not very pleasant to deal with. She justifies her personal attacks against other editors as perfectly legitimate and likes to portrait herself as a mere victim. In a former case she even managed to claim that a comment, which was posted more than two years before she even joined Wikipedia, was a "personal attack" against her and therefore entitled her to insult the editors. [80] Whenever you comment on her lousy behavior she calls you a liar, asking you to provide diffs. When you provide the diffs, she calls you a racist and/or a socketpuppy and accuses you of harrassing and stalking her. Deeceevoice is known for pushing her particular viewpoints at the expense of accuracy, and, as soon as her contributions are challenged, she

refuses to provide sources or to get up evidence

  • I'm not going to spend my time searching the Internet for sources -- particularly for stuff that isn't germane to the article in question and that is perfectly obvious to just about every black person on the street. I have neither the time nor the patience. But that's just me. After a while, this kind of stuff gets really old really fast; it's just wearisome. I've already spent too much time discussing this. What some white folks stubbornly want to believe is what they want to believe. deeceevoice 10:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • you're not only ignorant, arrogant and presumptuous, you're lazy! I'm not here to be your personal tutor on African or African-American culture. Your computer has a search engine. Use it. deeceevoice 06:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Who said anything about being "conversational" or "kind"? lol You're kidding -- right? Do some research, and then maybe I'll have something to say to you. Of course, rather than take some initiative toward and responsibility for your own education -- or, you can continue to sit around and wait for someone else to enlighten you. deeceevoice 03:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • What I've written is fact. You rudely, arrogantly and ignorantly challenged it -- without asking questions first. You simply ASS-umed I had fabricated my entry. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't have a problem pullin' your coat, but given your belligerence, I'm not so disposed. I don't have time for such obnoxious bull from the intentionally obtuse. Like I said, the information is readly available on the Internet .deeceevoice 23:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

claims to be a target of racism

  • Glad that crap is gone. They were totally unnecessary from the git-go. But some white folks just have to have their freakin' say on every goddamned thing black folks do. deeceevoice 15:56, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • What is with you folks, anyway? If melanin were ketchup (or any other organic substance) and not associated with black folks, and if I were not black, would you have been so quick to assume "vandalism"? Very telling. Ya better take a couple of steps back and check yourselves.deeceevoice 03:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems, though, that everyone wants to put in their (usually ill-informed, but still highly opinionated -- and often bigoted) two cents when it comes to black folks. The article is fine without all that crap.deeceevoice 01:21, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I almost hate reading anything on Wikipedia that deals with black folks. The abysmal ignorance, arrogance and sometimes outright racism are ridiculous. Virtually every article I've visited on this site dealing with black folks is just terribly written, with all kinds of idiotic, erroneous notions or just mind-numbing naivete. deeceevoice 18:25, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know if it's that seemingly omnipresent sense of white entitlement, or some misplaced sense of egalitarianism or what, but I'm certainly not gonna waste any more time trying to tell them otherwise. deeceevoice 10:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I just don't trust Wiki to be able to produce something that isn't riddled with incredibly naive or outright racist bullcrap. But, then, that's just me. :-p deeceevoice 15:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the racism crap and assume you're trying to be funny. deeceevoice 01:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Wrong again. If/when I think you're being racist, I'll let you know. And since when did "giving someone the benefit of the doubt" become a threat? Get a grip. Understand that your assumption that I (or any black person, for that matter) am so hypersensitive in matters of race that I am incapable of distinguishing what is and what is not racism is in itself an insult. Quite the contrary. If, in your opinion, you're not being racist, then fine an' dandy. There's no need to tell me when you stopped beating your wife. (Damn.) We're cool. deeceevoice 11:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh. Like not being racist and actually saying you're not being racist? LOL *slappin' sides* :-D deeceevoice 00:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • There is an ugly tendency on Wikipedia in articles dealing with African-Americans for people to pick and pick and pick and pick anything and everything ad nauseam. Often ill-informed and/or ridiculously pretentious criticisms, which, IMO, are a particularly perverse/rampant form of white arrogance, anti-black antipathy -- or of just hopelessly old-line knee-grow mind-sets. The first set of objections will have to suffice. This other stuff is more of the same -pure bull (only even more extraneous) -- and it is disappeared. deeceevoice 10:49, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

attacks the editors

  • What are you doing? (Other than being an arrogant ass.) deeceevoice 03:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • You're simply mentally and spiritually crippled. But I gotta give you one thing. You're good for at least one thing: comic relief. BWA-HA-HAAA! (slappin' sides -- still) :-p deeceevoice 00:36, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Aw, man. You're so full of it, your eyes are brown! lol. deeceevoice 07:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • So, what's all this crap? A "boatload of stupidity," indeed! :-p deeceevoice 06:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Damn. Another freakin' Wikipedian with selective comprehension. *x* deeceevoice 01:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't waste your time. I don't give a shyt what you think. You're nothing but a weasel. You don't even have the guts to sign your posts. *x* deeceevoice 00:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not like we're asking for a white stamp of approval about what to call ourselves -- or that we recognize others' (especially white folks') reaction to it is of any importance or merit. It doesn't matter to us in the least. So, what's all this crap? A "boatload of stupidity," indeed! :-p deeceevoice 06:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The intellectual dishonesty, hostility and and outright ignorance with which these "contributors" have approached the subject under discussion do Wikipedia a disservice. I'll simply explain it myself employing the wording I've already used to explain the phenomenon in this "discussion." That should clear up any confusion on the part of non-Americans -- and shut up some of the obviously mentally challenged "contributors" to and commentators on this article. deeceevoice 16:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • What do I care if, in your ignorance, you disagree? Things are no different today from what they were yesterday, or what they will be tomorrow. I'm out. deeceevoice 03:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • chuckling* Like I care what it sounds like to you. :-p The statement isn't misleading at all. deeceevoice 21:34, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Now, about that "brilliant" thing (how embarrassing). Gee, I'm sure the vast preponderance of those fortunate enough know you are simply blinded by your "brilliance" -- as are we all here on Wikipedia (bowing low); we're all duly impressed by your huge "Mars Attacks"-like brain: <http://videodetective.com/search.asp?SearchForMethodId=1&searchstring=mars+attacks&search.x=6&search.y=7>) not to mention such a self-serving observation. (Crackin' up, still. Dang. And whose ego is showin' here?) But as a "brilliant" white man, when it comes to gauging how widely black folks speak AAVE -- when it is virtually universally acknowledged that we generally don't do so ("code switching") in the presence of white folks dumb as dirt or otherwise; you're outsiders in this regard -- I repeat: you got no clue. Now, writing "You got no clue" is different from calling you "clueless." (Far be it from me to do so! I certainly wouldn't want to be among the lowly, benighted "few" who don't recognize the awesomeness of your magnificent brain power!) The simple fact is you are in absolutely no position to have any kind of credible opinion on the matter -- unless, of course you have some sort of empirical evidence. Which you don't. Otherwise, you would have presented it. So, again, my "brilliant," white brutha, when it comes to the numbers of blacks who speak AAVE and the numbers who don't, you got no clue. It should be a simple concept for someone of your dazzling intellectual capacities. Your obtuseness is baffling. Perhaps you'd like to explain it to Wikipedians of lesser intellect. (I'd like to know, too. :-p) So, I gotta ask again: just what part of that don't you get? Inquiring minds want to know. :-p deeceevoice 10:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Aw, Quill, baby. Just havin' a little fun. :-p (chuckling) No, you didn't say you were brilliant -- did you? Just that everyone who knows you -- except "a few" -- does. Oh, yeah, and you also mentioned that you're "quite clued in" -- whatever the hell that means. lol Maybe it's just me, but I find the sheer smugness of that really hilarious. Ah, well, humor: diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.... :-p deeceevoice 05:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

and demands that other contributers stop editing because they are "arrogant and ill-informed"

  • You probably don't know jack about the complexities of America's internal problems, so I'll overlook your ignorance about "diminishing returns" -- but not your presumptuous arrogance. Don't speak on what you don't know. deeceevoice 14:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Please don't speak/write on matters about which you know nothing. Use your computer's search engine and investigate before making groundless charges. deeceevoice 03:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Why are you so adamant about something (to the point of belligerence) about which you apparently know so little? Do you think you know everything? What's that about? deeceevoice 20:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Being quarrelsome for the hell of it -- when you know you don't know much about a subject (and anyone who could question/challenge "cool's" origins, doesn't know squat about it) -- is simply counterproductive. deeceevoice 04:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Considering the kind of ill-informed, naive, silly or just plain racist crap one has to wade through on Wikipedia when dealing with issues pertaining to black people and the aparently relatively few contributors with real knowledge and sensitivity on the subject, I think you'd better leave well enough alone. deeceevoice 18:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Do what you will. For someone from Japan to try to tell me who and what my people are is presumptuous at best. And that African Americans aren't an ethnic group within the U.S.? ROFLMBAO. Ignorant presumptuousness -- and with an attitude. So, hey, I reciprocated. (Always more than happy to return a gesture. :-p) deeceevoice 22:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Now, there's a statement redolent with white arrogance and condescension! Your statements throughout this discussion show YOU to be the one who is abysmally ignorant of African American heritage and culture. You should just shut the hell up, because you obviously haven't a clue and clearly aren't qualified to make pronouncements on who knows what on this subject.deeceevoice 18:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I see the correct decision was reached in this matter, but to me it's amazing that it even needed to be discussed. Talk about clueless and insensitive. deeceevoice 06:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, and Pgd, keep in mind you didn't "stomped on" for honestly trying to address a subject. You were "stomped on" for a completely useless and extraneous rant about black youth, immigrants and education in an article on African Americans. Leave it be. deeceevoice 12:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The detailed diffs and the timeline in context of some more particular incidents are to find here [81]

PS: Some of you wondered why she left the Swastika on her talk page. She explained it:

Just returned to this after leaving a thank-you note for the Wikipedian who performed the revert. Hm-m-m. I was looking at this image in isolation and thinking about how some of my Native American cousins and others used the symbol. Among the more evolved of the human species, it's a beautiful, spiritual thing.[82] I accept this image in that empowering sense. (So, thank you to the half-wit a**hole who left it in hatred, intolerance and stupidity.) Makes you kinda wonder why the swastikia is BLACK -- not white -- doncha? Because BLACK IS STRONG AND BOLD AND BEAUTIFUL. That's why. (Yeah. Like dat. :D) deeceevoice 21:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[83] Pharlap 22:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rob Church

I am withdrawing what I will freely admit to being absolutely disgusting and unacceptable comments from this RfAr. Please read the full reasoning at User:Robchurch/deeceevoice.

I'm guilty of everything I blamed Deeceevoice of, and I recognise that, community-wise, I'm not much use here. Wikipedia has no place for my like, and so I'm retiring to develop.

Apologies, profuse and unceasing, to all...Rob Church Talk 19:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zoe

My one and only dealing with deeceevoice was not pleasant, as documented above. I will not be working with her in the future unless I have to. I have never been involved with her in any edits, so I cannot comment on her editing behavior. However, I am offended that an article in my Talk space and my discussions with her were added as evidence without anyone letting me know they were here that I might discuss them myself. Zoe (216.234.130.130 19:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]


Statement by Zaphnthpaaneah

It's amazing that when people make condescending remarks to DeeCeeVoice and then she responds bluntly to it, we find ourselves here, having perhaps the LONGEST RFA page in the entire history of Wikipedia RFA. How much vandalism has she endured and how much of her responses have been to nip in the bud sneaky attempts to maintain or establish a anti-black POV. For example, she mentions how "Kike" is not given the same lengthy detail and association to Jews as Nigger is given to black people. Therefore those that argue for maintaining a literary or social/cultural link between a racial slur and an ethnic group should not be surprised if a memeber of that group becomes irate. Can you imagine DeeCeeVoice going to a Jewish page and trying to push the same "logic" and meeting resistance from Jewish contributors? Can you then imagine her insisting on her ignorant position that "Kike" should have the same treatment as "nigger" has done? No, I do not think the angry protests from Jewish contributors would be seriously taken as RFCs. These experiences she endurs are obvious. I am starting to get some of the same foolishness. Don't tell me that "nigger" is a real legitimate racial description of a black person. Don't tell me that an IQ test should be put into the black people article. Otherwise you will get some of the same responses that DeeCeeVoice has given some of the "victims" here. So hopefully these examples illustrate the obvious bias. There is a credibility and quality problem in Wikipedia in dealing with articles related to black people. It is something that is extremely frustrating for her I imagine. Who knows how many times she overreacted. She hasn't posted unilaterally and she certainly doesn't seem to be the type that uses circular reasoning as justification for her posts. --Zaphnathpaaneah 23:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that has my attention is the seemingly objective point that DeeCeeVoice is unnecessarily offensive in her responses. Ok. Why is then there is also this issue with people deleting part of her comments, and then presenting an abridged and edited version of events, where she then has to come in here and correct. In otherwords she has to restore omissions that would otherwise vindicate her??? --Zaphnathpaaneah 00:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

RJII / Firebug

Involved parties

  • Firebug
  • RJII
  • Juicifer I wouldn't exactly call myself an involved party here. But I do strongly oppose the recent behaviour of Firebug.
  • Jkelly

[First part, from Firebug]

RJII repeatedly engages in personal attacks against various users, even after being warned to stop. He also refuses to follow WP:NPOV and WP:CITE.

[Second part, from RJII]

Firebug is being very disruptive and disregarding Wikipedia policy. He's been redirecting and moving the economic fascism article knowing that there is no consenus to do so. There was just a vote on deleting this article that failed. The result was no consensus. He seems to think he can redirect and/or move the article anyway. He has no even attempted to collect a consensus for what he's doing. Moreover, he explicitly acknowledges that there is no consensus: "Note that 12 people wanted the article gone completely, 11 wanted to keep, and 5 to merge/redirect." He flatly says he's "not going to capitulate to a POV-pushing bully." Adminstrator Jkelly has locked the page now because of the back and forth redirecting and reverting back. You can look here for a discussion on this that pretty much says it all: [84] Making edits without consensus is one thing, but deleting a whole article (redirecting) without a consensus, when you know that others want it to stay is abominable (full knowing that a vote had just revealed no consensus a few days ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic fascism 2). I'd like to note that another editor besides myself (Jucifer) has put the article back after he redirected it with the comment to him: (Your edit caused significant loss of info. This page recently had an AfD with no consensus therefore KEEP. you must Put it up for AfD again if you want to REDIRECT.) So, it's not just me. He knows both from the vote and from actions that there is not a consensus to get rid of the article. RJII 19:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since the two disputes have been merged, I'd like to say that that's probably the right thing to do as they're closely related. I think it's pretty clear that firebug's arbitration case was launched in retaliation for me stopping him from redirecting the article without consensus. RJII 21:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that firebug recently tried to become an admin. Thank God the vote failed: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Firebug This is one guy you don't want as an administrator. RJII 22:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I alerted RJII on December 13. [85]

--

Notified Firebug and Jkelly

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

When an RFC was opened against him, he refused to take the process seriously (despite certification and three additional endorsements) and defaced the page with this clown photo. It had the following caption: "Hey kids! Here's your chance to vent against big bad RJII because he didn't let you get your way! Someone this competitive should not be allowed on Wikipedia! Don't miss your chance to vent out all your frustration! Scour Wikpedia for "personal attacks" and anything that may vaguely by construed as a "policy" violation and report them here! Let's cut RJII down to size. His extraordinary intelligence, impeccable logic, artful argmentation, and indefatigable competitive drive and spirit is just too much for us to contend with. It's JUST NOT FAIR! Come on kids!. We know you're out there. Come on out of the woodwork and sign your name and let everyone know your frustration about not getting your way!  :) :) :)" At this point, it is clear that no other form of dispute resolution except for arbitration will have any effect on RJII's misbehavior.

--

Jkelly, adminstrator, tried to meditate but to know avail.

Statement by party 1

[To first part]

RJII appears incapable of refraining from personal attacks. He made a number of personal attacks against User:Slrubenstein; in one, he accused him of lying and concluded: "So, blow it out your ***." [86]. I politely asked him to refrain [87]; he responded "He had it coming" [88]. He has also ignored and disregarded other warnings of WP:NPA by various other users. He repeatedly pushes his POV onto pages, refusing to provide cites when asked [89]. He incorporates gross incivility into edit summaries [90] [91] [92].

[To second part]


Statement by party 2

[To first part]

I have a right to put a clown on very own RFC page! RJII 20:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And, don't let bug fool you. The RFC was not intented to settle any dispute. Read the RFC there for more details. RJII 18:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[To second part]

Firebug is being very disruptive and disregarding Wikipedia policy. He's been redirecting and moving the economic fascism article knowing that there is no consenus to do so. There was just a vote on deleting this article that failed. The result was no consensus. He seems to think he can redirect and/or move the article anyway. He has no even attempted to collect a consensus for what he's doing. Moreover, he explicitly acknowledges that there is no consensus: "Note that 12 people wanted the article gone completely, 11 wanted to keep, and 5 to merge/redirect." He flatly says he's "not going to capitulate to a POV-pushing bully." Adminstrator Jkelly has locked the page now because of the back and forth redirecting and reverting back. You can look here for a discussion on this that pretty much says it all: [93]

Statement by User:Jkelly

I am concerned that User:RJII's first response to content disagreements or concerns about behaviour seems to reliably be to assume bad faith. I am concerned that User:Firebug seems to have a tendency to escalate any dispute that editor is involved in, rather than work diligently towards resolution. My knee-jerk judgement is that neither editor is purely disruptive. I am pessimistic that mediation would be effective, given the current environment of anatagonism and provocation. That said, it is not clear to me that there is enough urgency here that the typical process shouldn't be followed. Jkelly 20:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ponytailsnipper, DeepakShenoy, Ravikiran R, PeaSea, BloggerBrigade

Involved parties

Concerning The Indian Institute of Planning and Management, see also Advertising Controversy: The Indian Institute of Planning and Management

The IIPM article came up earlier this year, with extremely negative and POV language, completely cited from blogs. This was in response to IIPM suing a website and a blogger linking to the website for defamation. I saw this on Google, and attempts at cleaning up the article and making it more Wiki-like have resulted in multiple accounts spawning to continue to try and keep the POV content.
IIPM Article's talk page has a posting on this Arbitration request


I had gone to the AMA and asked Konrad West to mediate. He has been trying for over 2 weeks. He has observed that the article is completely un-encyclopaedia like, among other problems.

Statement by party 1

I dont reall know what to say. Other complaints on this site seem extremely emotionals and pointed, to say the least. I just need to know Wiki admins care about the IIPM article, and the effect it may have on the world's largest business school, to have such a defamatory and plain biased article on Wiki. Bloggers simply hate the institute because of the lawsuit, and are using Wiki. Take a look at the discussion page and you'll see. Regards,--Iipmstudent9 07:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

(Please limit your statement to 500 words)

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

User: DrBat -- continuing breaches of previous ArbCom ruling

Involved parties

Sockpuppets previously confirmed by ArbCom members:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Yes [94]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Yes - see statement below.

First time round, RfC and RFM were tried initially, the matter then went to RFArb. Second time round (Nov 2005) he was given a chance to walk away and save face. 2 weeks later (this week) he recommenced the same activities on other articles and was only noticed doing so by chance.

Statement by FT2

(1) OCT - DEC 2004: DrBat initial activity under the sockpuppet "Ciz", and ArbCom ruling

Following an intense POV war campaign on the Zoophilia article and Furry, ArbCom issued an indefinite ban on DrBat (under any name) editing on the subject. His warfare included libellous and vicious personal attacks on any NPOV editors, and complete disregard for every policy related to NPOV and NPA, to the extent that almost every post he made in a 3 month period Oct - Dec 2004 was a documented breach of some (usually significant) Wikipedia policy, including vandalism of ArbCom related matters when the subject was raised there, and the Adolph Hilter article. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ciz

After RfC and RfM, some 10 editors supported ArbCom referral, 8 of them requesting a wikipedia-wide ban on the basis he would probably not be able to resist continuing POV warfare on other articles that caught his attention this way. ArbCom ruled (Jan 10 2005) as follows:

  • Ciz has engaged in controversial edits of Zoophilia against consensus. (8-0)
  • Ciz has engaged in personal attacks on editors of Zoophilia. (8-0)
  • Ciz has made no civil attempt to discuss changes with Zoophilia with editors there. (6-0)
  • Ciz edits under another account, DrBat, that he does not wish associated with zoophilia topics. This does not in itself constitute creating a sock puppet for an abusive purpose. (8-0)
  • DrBat is an upstanding member of the community, and has made numerous legitimate contributions. (6-0)
  • Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) is prevented indefinitely from editing Zoophilia and its closely related articles, including their talk pages.
  • "He has made many good edits with his other account. Thus we are not throwing the book at him this time" [Emphasis in original, ArbCom talk] [95]

Ciz ceased editing Zoophilia at that point.

(2) NOV 2005: Ciz returns to POV warfare on Zoophilia under another sockpuppet

On Nov 21 2005 a request "out of the blue" was filed to move the "zoophilia" article to "bestiality", followed by a resumption of the POV warring before. There was no prior talk page discussion attempted.

I asked user:Kelly Martin to check whether ShadowH was a sockpuppet of DrBat, which seemed likely. She confirmed that "DrBat and ShadowH are the same person, with a very high degree of certainty" [96]

DrBat's first actions under the "ShadowH" name were 1/ edit an article referencing zoophilia to replace it by "bestiality" [97], 2/ to post a Requested Move to "bestiality" [98] [99], 3/ repost his old allegations that the term "zoophile" is POV and that zoophiles "rape" animals and are like pedophiles [100] [101] [102] (all similar to previous approaches)

In the course of only 6 posts to Talk:Zoophilia DrBat had already shown his intent to continue his previous documented approach from 2004, including:

  • An attempt to abuse process (previously he had abused VfD and other processes, this time requested moves)
  • Unsourced statements ("More people associate..." [103], "Many view..." [104])
  • Weasels ("Some could argue..." [105])
  • Personal view as basis for editing ("I find it offensive..." [106], "To associate a group of people enslaved and persecuted for hundreds of years, to a group of people who are unpopular for raping animals, is deeply offensive to me" [107])
  • Straw men (A comment that many groups, such as Black Americans, find certain terms POV, was replied by DrBat: "As an African American, I find it offensive to be compared to bestiality" (there was no comparison of people or groups, but only of their views on perceived POV terminology) [108]. A careful re-explanation of this [109] was completely ignored (as in 2004) and replied to with: "So you're comparing the persecution of African Americans to people who believe having sex with animals is abuse" [110])
  • "Zoophilia is equivalent to pedophilia" ("And I am sure pedophiles find the term pedophlia insulting and would prefer something more npov such as boylove instead?" [111]. In fact the article uses the term zoophilia for the same reason as pedophilia; both are the appropriate clinical terms)

After confirmation by Kelly Martin that ShadowH was a sockpuppet of DrBat, I considered how to handle it. Wikipedia philosophy/ArbCom precedent does not believe a person incapable of change, even Willie on Wheels, and in its previous decision ArbCom imposed a minimum ruling to prevent DrBat vandalizing on the subject of zoophilia, despite his heavy POV warfare and personal attacks. I felt the spirit of Wikipedia would be better served if he would simply leave the article and subject of his own accord. So instead of escalation, I simply posted a note on the talk page to ShadowH on Nov 23 saying I suspected he was DrBat and to either state he was not, or cease editing on the subject matter. ShadowH ceased editing Zoophilia the same day.

I was satisfied that a situation had been defuzed the simplest way. Explanation to Kelly Martin why I was not approaching AER or RFArb *this time* [112], Post to "ShadowH" on article talk page [113], posts archived in Talk:Zoophilia/Archive15.

(3) DEC 2005: DrBat recommences deletion and POV change of zoophilia references in other articles

Just two weeks after the above, on Dec 5, DrBat began POV warring on zoophilia yet again, this time in other articles. He edited without consensus the South Park article "recurring themes" section, to delete the fully sourced and cited section discussing zoophilia as a recurrent theme. [114]. This is in addition to his edit of Savage Love on Nov 9 [115] as ShadowH changing "zoophilia" to "bestiality" (c.f. text of his Requested Move).

(4) UPDATE

...And deletes again the cited South Park section, after reading and responding to this RFArb, again without consensus. [116]

(5) Fairness and neutrality:

When not editing on the subject of zoophilia and furry, DrBat makes valuable contributions to many other articles.

SUMMARY:

AER doesn't seem relevant as DrBat is a habitual sockpuppet user, and it was only by chance his POV activites of December were noticed, since they affected another article. He has now vandalised or POV edited 4 or 5 (rather than just 1 or 2) other articles in total, as well as the zoophilia and other furry articles. It seems a decision on handling is needed, not just enforcement of an existing ruling.

His 2004 warfare was given a second chance by ArbCom, by removing him from the one subject only ("Thus we are not throwing the book at him this time"). His November 2005 actions through another sock-puppet in breach of the ArbCom ruling, were given a second chance by myself, to walk away without escalation and save face. Having been given a chance so recently, I feel that in continuing to vandalize other articles this way, DrBat has now reached the point that I have to pass this one back to ArbCom to decide how to handle it.

FT2 13:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Updated ruling - exact nature of request:

The problem is that the previous ruling only refered to a ban on editing "zoophilia and its closely related articles" and not a ban on "edits related to zoophilia or animal sexuality in general". As it stands, it is hard to argue (for example) that South Park is a "closely related article" to the zoophilia article, although his section deletion is clearly due to a similar motive. Nor is Savage Love "closely related", although his edit is clearly from the same motive. So there is doubt whether the previous ruling applies to these edits, even though there is obviously a common cause. He has also previously taken this POV agenda to WP:AFD and other articles such as Non-human animal sexuality in the past.

So this does little to reflect that he is editing the identical arguments into other non-closely related articles, whose editors are probably unaware of his history, and that this is repeatedly done through sock-puppets. The previous ruling stated "for now", implying review if needed, and as it stands does not effectively prevent these kinds of edits. Hence the request for review of the previous ruling, to request a wider scope of prohibition or other action in light of recent events:

  • Scope of ban:
  • Old - "...prevented indefinitely from editing Zoophilia and its closely related articles, including their talk pages."
  • Requested new - "...prevented indefinitely from editing Zoophilia and its closely-related articles, or any editing related to the subjects of zoophilia, bestiality, animal sexuality, human-animal relationships, and related subjects in any article, including their talk pages."
  • Effect - prevents posting POV edits or terminology changes on the subject (or closely-related subjects) to other unrelated articles. [Note that DrBat uses word-play a lot, hence a list of the exact subjects is given.]
  • Enforcement powers:
  • Old - "...any changes made may be reverted by any editor and any administrator may, at his/her discretion, block [DrBat] for up to 24 hours."
  • Requested new - "...any changes made may be reverted by any editor and any administrator may, at his/her discretion, block DrBat (under whatever name he may be using) for increasing periods of up to [maximum time] upon repeated non-compliance."
  • Effect - appropriate useful enforcement powers given continuing POV warfare. (A maximum ban limit for repeated violation of 2 months is requested, as a balance between "getting the message across" and not inhibiting future positive contributions.)

With a change of this kind, it is then possible to enforce action against the above type of edits. At present it is not. FT2 12:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DrBat

1)The request was to move zoophilia to bestiality, which most people associate the term with. No changes to the article were made, and it was put to a vote.
2)South Park does not have bestiality as a recurring theme, and South Park itself is not connected to bestiality. Almost all of the stuff seemed taken out of context. If you asked Trey and Matt, they would probably also say bestiality is not a recurring theme in the show. Furthermore, the question on if it was relevant was put into talk when I removed the bit. No one else has commented on it or reverted it until you came. If actual SP fans didn't feel it was meant to be in the article, and they left it alone, I don't see how it would be vandalism. Do you even watch the show?

UPDATE
...And deletes again the cited South Park section, after reading and responding to this RFArb, again without consensus. [117]
The above "2)" still applies. --DrBat 13:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3)On 'Savage Love' the term bestiality was already mentioned and linked at the top of the page. Hence my removal of the link when it was mentioned further down the page in relation to the Santorum controversy.--DrBat 22:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4)"As it stands, it is hard to argue (for example) that South Park is a "closely related article" to the zoophilia article, although his section deletion is clearly due to a similar motive. It is not a recurring theme. None of the other SP editors have a problem with it being taken out(you're the only one who has). A question was put on the talk page asking if anyone thought it was relevant, and no one replied. If it truly was a recurring theme, someone would have protested. Nor is Savage Love "closely related", although his edit is clearly from the same motive. The term "bestiality" was mentioned earlier in the article (and not put there by me, btw). And its what Savage refers to it as. So there is doubt whether the previous ruling applies to these edits, even though there is obviously a common cause. He has also previously taken this POV agenda to WP:AFD and other articles such as Non-human animal sexuality in the past. POV? All I have posted in that article were facts and quotes (such as the zoo director on the aforementioned liger). I don't think anything I've contributed to that article was irrelevant to the topic, or POV. --DrBat 20:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

(I have commented on the above points at the end of the statement, to specify exactly what is sought and why. Note that both scope and enforcement were extremely limited: the previous ruling did not in fact cover "rapidly lengthening periods," for example. It allowed bans of a maximum 24 hours only. Hence as Fred Bauder states, this is a request for enhanced scope and enforcement in light of recent edits. FT2 12:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Requests for Clarification

Requests for clarification from the Arbcom on matters related to the arbitration process.

Zen-master again

Zen-master is on probation regarding all articles. Does that include pages in the Wikipedia namespace? The reason I'm asking is that he's recently been active in some (rather spurious) policy proposals. Radiant_>|< 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in hearing any evidence or argument Radiant can come up with that explains and justifies his labeling Peter's WP:0RR guideline or any other "policy" proposal I've "recently been active in" as being "spurious". I will also note the coincidence that Peter is unable to defend his guideline against charges of being "spurious" as he was just blocked for 24 hours for accusing Carbonite of being a "troll" because Carbonite initially moved the WP:0RR guideline to Peter's user namespace because of a header dispute (among other actions that are seemingly unbecomming of an admin and don't appear to have been done with an assumption of good faith in mind). Feel free to disagree with any guideline but please don't thwart its acceptance by others. zen master T 23:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master#Zen-master_placed_on_probation includes any page other than his own user and talk pages. Whether he is being disruptive is up to the determination of the banning administrator. Any ban should be logged and documented. Fred Bauder 23:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But some actual reasonable argument has to be attempted that explains specifically how I have, if ever, been "disruptive". Instead of repeating labels over and over again why don't you or someone get down to specifics? Please note WP:Probation policy: "A [probation] ban may be imposed only for good cause which shall be documented in a section set aside for that purpose in the arbitration case. Banning without good cause or in bad faith shall be grounds for censure, restriction, or removal of administrative access". At this point I interpret everytime I've been labeled as "disruptive" was and is some sort of misdirection ploy so people don't focus on numerous highly biased and biasing articles, with the most notable and nefarious example being race and intelligence. zen master T 01:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic

I would like to discuss my status with respect to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2.

The mentorship agreement specified that users Raul654, Kim Bruning and Grunt would act as my mentors. It said also "If the mentors think it is working, they can lessen or end their supervision of Netoholic's editing. If they consider it has failed — at the six month review or at any earlier time — the namespace and revert restriction in remedy 2 will take effect."

Over time, all three of my mentors ended their supervision for various reasons. On June 28th, Kim Bruning stepped aside as my mentor. Grunt became inactive as of July 5. On July 19th, Raul654 resigned recommending an alternate "probation" approach.

What I'd like confirmation is whether these resignations fulfilled the "end their supervision" clause. In the above linked resignations, neither Kim or Raul654 indicated that the mentorship failed, but mentioned leaving for personal reasons or because of the way the mentorship arrangement was designed. That arrangement was flawed because the community was asked to bring up concerns with the mentors directly. This meant that even minor disagreements were propogated to three different talk pages, which lead to a lot of stress.

In short, I'd like to ask to be relieved of any Arbitration edit restrictions presently in place. -- Netoholic @ 18:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree strongly that Netoholic should not be, at this point, under as draconian a set of restrictions as he currently is - particularly the template restrictions, where I think he's a needed force for pointing out that consensus does not get to override the developers saying "Please don't do this," I would caution on the other hand that edits such as [118] do make me worry that some of the incivility problems have not corrected themselves. On the other hand, that Netoholic's behavior has in general improved while under parole seems clear, and it may be that the remaining issues can only be fixed through experience. So I, at least, offer my tepid support of this. Which, considering my history with this conflict, probably actually still counts for a lot. :) Phil Sandifer 18:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Netoholic and Snowspinner are actually working together. Holy goodness me! Net still needs to grasp the finer points of dealing with f*ckw diplomacy, but has come to both of us for help in these matters, with good productive effect. A strong caution about dealing gently with policy should remain - but he seems to be getting this point, which is excellent. We each have our strengths and weaknesses, after all ... - David Gerard 20:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdanov Affair question

Now instead of working on the Bogdanov Affair page, the users who were banned from editing the Bogdanov Affair (including CatherineV) are editing the talk page of the article instead. Can they be blocked for doing that or not? The RfAr decision isn't clear on that. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This decision should be modified to include the talk page. Fred Bauder 13:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I will hold off on doing anything until it is. We have Catherine and I'm pretty certain that LaurenceR is a sock of the Laurence blocked already for Bogdanov. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 15:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What's the status on this? I don't mean to be pushy but the people who should be blocked from talking on the talk page are still talking on the talk page and until the decision is altered, I can't do anything about it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to extend ban to talk page

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Regarding_The_Bogdanov_Affair#Ban_on_editing_Bogdanov_Affair is extended to include the talk page of the article.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 14:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jayjg (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Concur. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Motion to desysop Karmafist

Move to reopen Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing and desysop Karmafist (talk · contribs) based on inappropriate blocks of kmweber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) , see [119], Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Kurt and User_talk:Kmweber#Block_Notice.

[Support options split & comments copied/moved as appropriate. James F. (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)][reply]

Support reopening:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Concur. While we're there we should broaden the restrictions on POTW as well, possibly even ban him altogether. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree to reopen the case; do not agree to any foregone conclusions ➥the Epopt 19:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support reopening to consider all parties, but not necessarily this specific action. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I am willing to reopen Pigsonthewing, I am not willing at this stage to desysop Karmafist. He has twice indefinately blocked someone when a finite block was required? If he repeatedly redoes the indefinite block after other admins shoerten it then I will support a desysop. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:59, 21 Dec
Support desysoping:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Concur. While we're there we should broaden the restrictions on POTW as well, possibly even ban him altogether. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Reject. Karmafist said some things in the heat of the moment that shouldn't be held against him. He needs to ignore Kwebber and POTW and do something more productive and less frustrating, and leave someone else to handle those two. Arbitration, in this case, is not likely to produce a good result and would only exacerbate the situation. Raul654 20:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Reject for now - let's see if Karmafist calms down and Kmweber and POTW knock it off. If the behaviour continues for another day, then I'd support re-opening. Jayjg (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I'm note sure; on the matter of reopening, I'm not opposed to it but am not entirely sure that it is needed. Certainly, I am with Epopt/Kat/Theresa in that I am not sure that karmafist needs desysoping (but I will, as always, keep an open mind). James F. (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

I'm not currently AC-active, but I want to say that this move to desysop Karmafist is premature. Kmweber has a history of driving otherwise calm people into an incandescent rage. Combine that with Pigsonthewing, who does the same thing deliberately, and I think very few of us would manage to keep our cool. Punishing Karmafist is not helpful IMO. Certainly please wait 24 hours for everyone to calm down a bit.

I've asked him to pretend Kurt doesn't exist from now on, and I think he will try to do so. See also the "Kurt" section on WP:ANI - I've unblocked Kmweber and asked other admins to keep blocks to loving and educational 24-hour zaps, but have noted that I'm not going to undo further blocks. See also User talk:Kmweber, down the bottom. - David Gerard 20:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archives
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=32281167"