Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:04, 7 August 2008

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/6/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Tenmei and Nick Dowling

Initiated by Tenmei (talk) at 02:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Tenmei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Nick Dowling (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

Diff. 1[1]; [2]
Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive456#Personal abuse and disruptive behaviour by Tenmei

Statement by Tenmei

This forum has not been challenged to contrive a "win-win" resolution, but this instance requires just that -- nothing less. In all other fora except WP:AN/I, my voice was unheard, lost, drowned out; and what I seek here is something like the successful intervention I encountered there.

This dispute began too quickly. Claimed offense came too soon. One sentence with citation support was added in an article with no other references cited. It was rebuffed as a "bad faith confrontation." That gambit of shocked indignation persists.

Nick Dowling frames issues consistent with a fixed confirmation bias and feigns not to understand anything which doesn't fit a pre-existing schema. In the context of this three-part restatement, please re-visit (a) the last paragraphs of the last citation Nick Dowling offers below; (b) the last two paragraphs of the first citation which is offered below. Cognitive dissonance excluded the 2nd and 3rd points Optigan13 raised, and the momentum of discussion on the framed topic drowned all else. Dispute resolution failed seriatim because each was re-framed with a confirmation bias; and Nick Dowling now avoids neutral scrutiny of an extended charade by withdrawing from formal mediation. I may have drawn the wrong tactical conclusions from Bellhalla's salutatory model, but I believe that this paragraph was never possible before now.

My "bad faith" and "disruptive behaviours" are ascribed as reasons for this untimely withdrawal. I'm calling a bluff by inviting closer scrutiny. My frustration is illustrated by one crucial sentence: The issues he raises are also outdated or irrelevant given that the article is now fully cited." Contrasted this sentence with my serial attempts to overcome framing and confirmation bias in the dispute resolution steps listed above. Confirmation bias thwarted all queries about a credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever? Where else could I have gone, what else can I to re-engage the mediation process on this point. My words and actions have been seemly, constructive, prudent. If my conduct were so irredeemable, then let Nick Dowling now support such facile claims with more than innuendo. Perceived slights can fall by the wayside; but this case puts a spotlight on worthy issues, not trival ones.

I don't care if Nick Dowling's sham sense of offended dignity is exposed -- no, no, not, not the point. If valid elements to this vague charge are to be found, good -- I can learn from this experience. If phoney elements are found, I'd hope for the presence of mind to rise above it. In the end -- bottom line, I'm seeking enough of a "win-win" outcome from this process so that the flimsy veil of any barrier to mediation is rent asunder.

Expressed in other words, I'm asking the Arbitration Committee to address the gravamen of Nick Dowling's complaint:

"I am withdrawing from this mediation as User:Tenmei is continuing to seek advice from a disruptive editor concerning me and is continuing to personalise this dispute. This combination of diffs shows the text in question: [3] (it is worth stressing that User:Mrg3105 was recently blocked and then placed on editing restrictions for, among other things, disruptive behaviour which included a totally unsuccessful attempt to get me sacked as an assistant coordinator of the military history wikiproject and an attempt to have one of the members of Arbitration Committee sanctioned because he didn't agree with our views and actions over a minor content dispute - Tenmei is aware of this behavior given that he quotes from and discusses the talk page discussion in question). I don't see any purpose in entering into mediation with an editor who behaves with such bad faith or who reacts in such a way to disagreements such as those I posted above." Nick Dowling (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Dowling's persisting cognitive dissonance and problems with taxonomy or nomenclature paradigms seem to foster a perception of bad faith where none exists; and worse, that point-of-view exacerbates the effect of critical logic fallacies which affect Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. Again and again, the effort to re-focus on framing has failed, and this pattern of miscommunication needs to be ameliorated. If not here, then where else? when else? how else?

The Committee's challenge is to achieve a kind of alchemy: to make things work out better than I dare hope -- despite whatever flaws and limitations the parties bring to this venue.

Statement by Mrg3105

Given I am mentioned in the above quote, it seems I should confirm that I had indeed requested removal of Nick from his position, and requested review of User:Raul654's adminship due to the dispute over renaming of an article which, to me, did not seem to be based on any accepted Wikipedia Article standards. I have since attempted a mediation with Raul654 as the initial renaming proposer--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why I was asked - is quite simple.

There is a direct relationship between the two articles.

The discussion on Hyūga class identification begun with a suggestion to rename the article, and amend the lead. The discussion I participated in was over an article name, and the lead paragraphs.

In the article Hyūga class helicopter destroyer, Nick and others (note role of Buckshot06) insist that the official designation of a warship is more acceptable for Wikipedia than a generic Hyūga class aircraft carrier (for alas, helicopters are aircraft). The designation of "Hyūga class helicopter destroyer" is based on the English translation of the official Japanese classification of the warship, regardless of its obvious resemblance to an aircraft carrier.

In the article that used to be called Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation Nick, and others, insisted the opposite, that the English translation of the official designation from Soviet sources of this offensive operation's "current article title is lousy", and should be named as it is now, with a more generic, but unsourced name "Soviet invasion of Manchuria" (again not Buckshot06's participation). This despite the fact that the offensive was expressly not an invasion in the common understanding of the word.

The expression "what is good for the goose, is good for the gander" springs to mind, but alas only my own--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick Dowling

I don't really think that this request for arbitration is warranted, and it is but the latest incident in a long string of disruptive and rude behaviour by User:Tenmei over what appears to me to be a minor content dispute. Tenmei is insisting on the inclusion of a sentence which describes the ships as aircraft carriers and has consistently refused to acknowledge that other reliable sources call the ships different things and there is no consensus among experts on how to describe the ships and no other editors support his position. A paragraph describing the different views of the ships (which includes all the sources Tenmei provided) was drafted on the talk page and added to the article after unanimous consensus from the editors who comment on it was gained, thereby ending the content dispute. However, by his own admission Tenmei chose to sit out this discussion and instead restarted it after the text was added to the article: [4]. The initial stages of his disruptive and rude behaviour over this issue should be apparent at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer (diffs to particularly rude and disruptive comments include [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and [12] but it's probably better to scan through the whole page to get a flavour of what's been going on here), and he has for some reason personalised the dispute on me, even though there are about half a dozen other editors who disagree with his views. Tenmei is now making totally unwarranted attacks on me, of which this is but the latest. As such, I don't agree with Tenmei's request for arbitration between he and I as a) this disagreement was not limited to two editors b) the content dispute is basically finished given the consensus on the article's talk page and c) this RFARB is Tenmei's latest attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.

All attempts to discuss the article with this editor on the article's talk page and elsewhere have been met with rude and disruptive behaviour. I withdrew from supporting his request for mediation after he again appealed to User:Mrg3105 for advice on me [13] following an earlier attempt to canvass support against me [14] and despite User:Coldmachine [15] and myself [16] requesting that he not do so (Mrg was blocked[17] and placed on editing restrictions[18] for disruptive behavior, which included (but was not limited to) his behaviour towards Raul and I, and this is how he appears to have come to Tenmei's attention given his initial approach: [19] (note that Tenmei's post references Mrg's attempt to get me sacked and is titled 'Common cause?')). Tenmei's uncivil posts and over-reaction to disagreements on the request for mediation's talk page also gave me little confidence in his desire to enter into a good-spirited conversation about the article (for instance, [20]). WP:M allows editors to withdraw from mediations if they wish (and this RFM hadn't even been accepted), and I had warned Tenmei that my participation was reliant on him behaving civilly and in good faith ([21]). Please note that Tenmei has been warned about his disruptive and rude behavior over this issue multiple times but this has not made any difference at all (for instance, [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30] and many more times). Please also note that I took this matter to ANI a few weeks ago, where I was advised to go through the dispute resolution process first and Tenmei was warned against his behaviour: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive456#Personal abuse and disruptive behaviour by Tenmei (this diff by EyeSerene sums up the outcomes of the ANI report in my view: [31]). Nick Dowling (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note 1 - Nicks statement "he again appealed to User:Mrg3105 for advice on me" seems to imply there is a restriction in editors seeking to understand actions and words of other editors, of which I'm unaware. It is certainly not a cause to withdraw from a mediation process--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2 - "Mrg was blocked[32] and placed on editing restrictions[33] for disruptive behaviour, which included (but was not limited to) his behaviour towards Raul and I" - I was not blocked for disruptive behaviour or behaviour towards Raul654 and Nick, but for alleged "incivility and personal attacks" (sic, a single "attack"), namely towards Buckshot06 (at least according to the provided diffs)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seicer

RFAR is used to conduct emergency actions to remove administrator privileges in case of abuse, to solve venomous disputes between administrators, and to solve matters referred to ArbCom by Jimbo. This case does not fall within any of those three bounds, and this case is not serious enough to warrant ArbCom's attention.

I would like to express my displeasure with reading the comments initated by Tenmei, who has attempted other forms of dispute resolution but has all but disengaged other editors from participating. Parties are not agreeing towards mediation because of this issue, and it seems that Tenmei is purposefully engaging editors in what is a petty edit war.

I would not mind mediating the issue, but with restrictions, and with the acceptance of others. seicer | talk | contribs 13:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

User:Alastair Haines

Initiated by L'Aquatique[talk] at 02:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

L'Aquatique (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

[34]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by L'Aquatique

Alastair Haines seems like a smart guy with a lot to contribute, but his people skills leave a whole bunch to be desired. He makes personal attacks [35], [36], [37], calls good faith editors trolls [38], [39], and continually claims that others are slandering his good name when they try to offer constructive criticism. [[40]]
He's gone through an RFC/U, which he refused to even look at. The admin that closed the RFC warned him that his behavior was poor,.
Around the same time, I opened a request for mediation to handle the content dispute issue between Alastair and a few other editors. Prior that, it had been a medcab case which I had mediated- which was how I became acquainted with him. He rejected the rfm and demanded that it focus on all the perceived wrongs against him by virtually everyone else. He was blocked temporarily because his message contained a legal threat, and then unblocked after he redacted that part. Here's his message: [41], and the legal threat: [42].
More recently, on a thread on AN/I, he wrote a good two paragraphs whining about how everyone has slandered, defamed him, how he's perfectly innocent and the rest of us are out to get him [43]. He challenged anyone to give even one example when his edits have been less than perfect [44], so I provided him with a long list of inappropriate and uncivil edits on his part [45]. His response was: [46].

I’m at my wits end, here. I’ve already had one editor burn out after dealing with Alastair. To be frank, I’m not sure arbcom even needs to take binding action… In the past, he’s constantly threatened various people with arbcom cases, so I’m guessing he puts a lot in stock by your opinions. I think it might stave off further bad behavior if you guys could just inform him that his editing is disruptive and he needs to stop making personal attacks. It would be a shame to see him get banned, because he does have a lot to contribute.

Note: Alastair has been encouraged to change his user name so that there would no longer be worries about slander against his real name. He declined. L'Aquatique[talk] 05:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2: Just so I can't be seen as hypocritical here, I do have to admit that my handling of this case could have been slightly better. However, as a mediator, it was my job to find a solution that everyone could have lived with- whereas Alastair constantly demanded that Rushyo and I focus only on punishing Ilkali, and he seemed to believe that since he initiated the Medcab case that was somehow his right. So yes, I did tell him he was passive aggressive, I refused to apologize for so-called slander upon his good name, and I more recently told him exactly what was wrong with his behavior with no pulled punches. I'm not denying that. However, it's not my job to sugarcoat things, at least for experienced users that should know better. L'Aquatique[talk] 14:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Ilkali's response to Tim: I'm not sure I agree. While I do not believe this is necessarily Tim's fault (it seems to me we all hold at least some responsibility) the fact that he was willing to step forward and be as bluntly honest as he did reflects very highly upon his character. I believe he knows that I happen to have a good deal of respect for him, just as I have respect for you, for Lisa, and yes, for Alastair. Unfortunately, respect aside there has been some very poor behavior displayed and I have to think about how this edit war is harming the editing environment of Wikipedia at large: which has not been good. L'Aquatique[talk] 02:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alastair Haines

L'Aquatique is "jumping the queue" here, and not disclosing her unsought and intemperate language. The antecedent of her request is that a then new user called Ilkali used a range of forceful editing approaches several months ago. These constituted inappropriate behaviour and words which became more and more focussed as personal attacks on me, because I was opposing both a minor content issue and his behaviour. His behaviour has improved a little, but still constitutes deliberate personal attacks, despite me seeking for it to be addressed: personally, at WikiEquette, by mediation, and by giving time for another user to help him see his error. He is currently on notice that ArbCom is the next step, though I'm still hopeful that it will not be necessary to take the Committee's time on what really ought to be able to be addressed in other forums.

Nonetheless, I am very happy for Ilkali's behaviour to be the subject of an ArbCom investigation, which will naturally also need to consider how I and others have sought to address it. However, until someone actually questions some feature of my so far uncriticised behaviour, dispute resolution hasn't even begun in my case. It seems to be inappropriate process to request an ArbCom decision regarding a user who has two years of unquestioned constructive editing, simply because a few people have asserted bad behaviour, without genuine discussion and ultimately without evidence, except citations of one another's interpretations of my motives in particular edits. Sadly, no one's even thought to ask for my rationale. Whatever I've volunteered anyway has been rudely dismissed.

I actually would appreciate ArbCom involvement in the case, despite the fact that the process will definitely be time consuming, since establishing Ilkali's inappropriate edits, comments and personal pursuit will clarify precisely where others should have been moving to support an experienced, knowledgable and good faith editor, against one who started by experimenting and quickly escalated to slandering.

The viciousness of the language of those who have criticised me is not an environment I've wanted to invite friends into. It has also not been conducive, I imagine, to passers by who would otherwise have endorsed my actions and comments. I am very grateful to TEKlontz, who stumbled across the debate by accident, and has done a sterling job of attempting to dissuade those masking their intemperate and unfounded comments by raising ever more accusations and citing one-another as evidence for the reasonableness of their conclusions.

It will be apparant to those reviewing this that I've never been officially accused of any bad behaviour, which is not surprising because there is none. Despite what I've said above, I am unwilling to support an arbitration request if the topic of that request is my behaviour, it is obviously against the DR policies I've read and been pursuing. Not only that, if this is indeed to be the topic of the arbitration, then I am unwilling to participate unless there is a respected editor who is willing to assert his (or her) confidence that my edits are entirely consistent with protecting Wikipedia's: content from error, community from divisive editors, policy from misunderstanding and processes from abuse. Without such an advocate, I will remain in the situation of having to defend myself, a feature of many previous discussions, imo ruthlessly exploited by the small group of people criticising me and represented by L'Aquatique.

As I see it, Ilkali's bad behaviour was originally minor, but the defamation he has achieved is a serious matter indeed. If one reflects on the current situation the only serious damage is to my reputation and to that of Wikipedia for failing to protect it so far. The longer it is left, the more time consuming it is to clear up. I support some kind of action now, just precisely what, I leave for those who are more experienced in such things to suggest. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS Since people keep making much of legal threats, which I have never made, that particular accusation alone is hearsay regarding an unfriendly interpretation of a point I'm happy to repeat here. It is also defamatory, since even at this page alone, it forms part of presumed evidence of bad character or conduct. People who do not otherwise know me, my character or conduct are concerned about possible (and some have even asserted actual) failings in me on the basis of misinformation published in regard to this matter. The problem is that I am an editor using my real name. Were I anonymous, I would not be professionally at risk due to personal attacks on my character published on Wikipedia talk pages. In my opinion, this should indeed have a chilling effect on responsible Wikipedians—Ouch! I'm using my real name. People can slander me here. Would the processes here protect me. This point has not been lost on Cailil. I have several times made, and here repeat, that defamation is occurring. That is simply a fact. What have I done about it? I've appealed to the Wiki DR process to sort it out, I'm trusting the volunteers who administer that process. So far they've not done very well, which is a little disappointing, but I am still confident of a positive result. We all know this kind of thing takes time here. But the point is, how would you like false accusations about your character or behaviour published without accountability? Stand in my shoes for just a moment, and it's not just me, this can be anyone who entrusts their real name to the community. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel

I rejected the RfM, due to the fact that Alastair was at the time indefinitely blocked due to legal threats (and hence it would be impossible to conduct mediation), as well as his disagreement. I explicitly noted that this was without prejudice if both the legal threats situation and Alastair's disagreement were reversed, however I also suggested an article requests for comment before trying an RfM again.

The rejected RfM in its final state is preserved here for case management purposes. Regards, Daniel (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ilkali

My comments on Alastair are available in the AN/I and the RfC/U, and contain dozens of supporting diffs. Ilkali (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Teclontz's statement: Arbitration requests are not made or granted just on the basis of somebody being involved in two disputes. It is insulting to everybody involved - and especially to L'Aquatique - to suggest that the reasons behind this case are so trivial. Ilkali (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved but not impartial user Miguel.mateo

Not that it matters, but I am bringing it up since it may. Alistair has been accused of misbehavior by some of the editors that have similarly accused of missbehavior other very junior editors in Wikipedia. The samples that I have can be seen here, some of these editors placed really bad accusations in the original editor's talk page, without any hard evidence. My point? Some of these editors accusing Alistair maybe are just jumping into conclusions too fast. Just my two yen worth opinion ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LisaLiel

Alastair seems to feel that he can change any article if he deems it appropriate, but that other editors require his permission to edit articles. I assembled a list of diffs that illustrate this ([47]). I got out of control during this attack of reversions and was (correctly) blocked for violating 3RR. Alastair, however, continues to maintain that he is flawless and perfect and has never done anything wrong. In my opinion, it is this attitude that makes him unfit for participation in a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. Someone who is constitutionally incapable of admitting fault, no matter how egregious the offense and no matter how obvious the evidence, is someone who will always be the center of problems. I'd only add that I'm using my real name as well, and that doing so is a personal choice. Alastair made the same choice, and he can hardly use his own choice as a bludgeon to try and prevent others from criticizing him. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I would like to note that even here, Alastair has attempted to turn this into an investigation of Ilkali, rather than address even a single criticism of himself. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the recent statement by Tim, I will state that despite his strange belief that I am somehow "stalking" him on Wikipedia, the edit I made on Sunday morning, which began the latest edit war, had nothing to do with Tim at all. On the contrary, as the list I've posted shows, while Tim's edit may have alerted me to the fact that there was editing going on in the Judaism section of that article, the changes I made were solely to a bad faith edit by Alastair, who moved two reliable sources (the only ones in the article about any Jewish view of the question, traditional or liberal) to the end of the article, and characterized them as "opinion pieces" ([48], [49]). He had originally tried to label them as POV and irrelevant ([50]).

This edit had been done by Alastair a few weeks earlier, and I hadn't noticed it among the flood of edits on the page during his edit war with Ilkali. I corrected the section, and Alastair replied by reverting it. This was when I lost my cool and reverted it back. I was remiss, and should have sought third party assistance at the time. Instead, I unwisely continued to revert first Alastair's and then Tim's reversions of my edit.

Contrary to Tim's tale of persecution, when Tim added a source to the section in question during this edit war, I stopped reverting the section to my initial edit, and started reverting it to my edit with the addition of Tim's contribution. Tim blames me for the fact that his proposed edits in two other articles were not in the end accepted by a consensus of editors. He considers it to be a personal thing. I state for the record that it isn't. In fact, Tim has invited me to help with another article he was working on ([51]), though I didn't take him up on it.

As far as the article Gender of God, I didn't even know that Tim was working on it at the time that I put it on my watchlist. But looking back now, I see that Tim had only made edit to the article prior to my first edit there. That edit was a reversion an edit by Ilkali ([52]). His second edit in the article was also a reversion, this time of an edit by Alynna_Kasmira ([53]). I think that having ones first two edits in an article be reversions is a bit odd, but I hadn't noticed that until now. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to L'Aquatique's response to Tim's response, L'Aquatique wrote the fact that he was willing to step forward and be as bluntly honest as he did reflects very highly upon his character. I dispute this. What Tim did was the equivalent of someone being willing to sacrifice himself in order to bring someone else down. He wrote what he did in order to indict me, but he knew that simply accusing me would look bad, so instead, he accused me and himself jointly.

I'd like to point out, again, that my edit in the war on Sunday had nothing to do with any edits of Tim's, and was purely due to Alastair's bad faith edit from a few weeks earlier. And that Tim's first two edits in Gender of God were both reverts of edits by other editors. I think those alone should be sufficient to show where Tim is coming from. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved User:Anonymous Dissident

The sheer heat of the matter at hand becomes clear as soon as one reviews the alleged legal threats. This is a sure sign that the dispute has escalated to a level at which intervention by such a body as ArbCom will be necessary before the issue festers and becomes further blown out of proportion, and grows into a real problem beyond the plain text. An obvious accept, with much hope of finding a solution to the dispute as well as the accusations that seem to be liberally thrown about by both parties. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved but not impartial User:Casliber

I must disclose I have known Alastair for over 25 years and hence my opinion is coloured by this. I have always found him thoughtful, openminded, erudite and very helpful. As I am an atheist and he is religious, our wikipaths haven't crossed often and I have little interest in the Gender of God article. He has been helpful and thoughtful in some discussions on vampire, and Sirius, and was happy to accept others points of view then. The Gender of God is always going to be an extremely difficult article manage both due to the interpretation of the subject matter (which 'God' and how broad/narrow to take it), and because of those who may edit it. I felt the 1RR proposal for the page was a good one, as I feel this dispute is as much about the page as about users. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The other antagonist not thus far mentioned WRT Alastair earlier on on the Gender of God article, User:Abtract, has a significant block record, as well as LisaLiel's issues above. Hence the scope of this case is somewhat murky. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved User:Privatemusings

I must disclose I have known Alastair for over 25 mintues and hence my opinion is coloured by this. I have always found him thoughtful, openminded, erudite, though with poor choice in beer. Ok, so I'm just sort of passing through, but am glad the arb.s will take a look at this (I promise to hold no charity fundraisers over this one - and hopefully even you chaps can sort this out in less than three months!). Speficially, I think it would helpful to clarify whether or not the use of the word 'defamation' constitutes a legal threat. On a personal note, I'd offer a note of support to the protaganists here, and ask all to consider whether or not a breakdown in communication isn't the root cause of the problems here. I hope the arb.s could ask some questions - I think just one of you could sort this out in 15 posts with little trouble. Privatemusings (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by the person who caused this mess User:Teclontz

First, I want to apologize to Alastair for causing this mess by daring to venture onto a page he was dealing with. I've had a perpetual series of edit wars with a single user [54] (I think the only edit wars I've been in were with the same user). Alastair is a victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The hot tempers that brought the initiation of this Arbitration case were the direct result of an edit war that started only a few hours after I dared make an edit in a Jewish section of the Gender of God article. It was foolish for me to think it was safe to do so.

In fact, the only reason I felt that it was safe to edit there was the presence of Alastair. Being a religious Jew with a working knowledge and education in Christianity, I've found Alastair to be a moderating force in my dealings in Wikipedia. He's consistently upheld Wikipedia standards, consistently encouraged me toward patience, consistently tried to find the middle ground, and has even disagreed with me and corrected me on occasions that I was getting too close to a particular issue. I am a better editor today because of Alastair's cautions toward patience. He's advocated complete faith that the Wikipedia system eventually works things out right, and I've very vocally argued against his optimism. I would very much like to see Alastair proven right in this case. I really do want to have the faith in Wikipedia process that he's tried to help me with.

If I remember correctly, in this latest edit war I had with Lisaliel on the Gender of God page, Alastair stopped after a few edits [55][56][57][58], and Lisa and I were the last people involved [59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66]. That is, Alastair STOPPED participating in the edit war as soon as he realized one was starting, while Lisa and I CONTINUED to edit war until I followed his lead and stopped as well. Lisa did not follow his lead, and was subsequently blocked.

As for Ilkali, Alastair and Ilkali had an earlier issue. Lisa and I had an earlier issue. The only reason Alastair got caught in MY edit war was because he had no idea that Lisa and I have this bizarre history. He acted like I do on a normal page. A revert or two if long standing and well cited content is eliminated without discussion first. I think after it kept going he realized that something else was afoot and backed out of it. Then Lisa and I followed our usual pattern.

When the administrators came in here they saw three editors in the latest edits: Alastair, Me, and Lisa.

Being normal intelligent human beings, the Administrators put two and two together and thought Alastair was the common denominator. Accordingly, they kept encouraging him to stop things that he wasn't even doing at the time. I was the one fighting on the Gender of God page. The latest disagreements on the Gender of God talk page were between Ilkali amd MYSELF, not Alastair.

Being normal intelligent human beings, the Administrators saw three guilty parties. Lisa and I both promised to back down. Alastair just insisted he wasn't a part of it.

Being normal intelligent human beings, the Administrators saw Alastair as unrepentant and therefore uncorrectable. And therefore we are here now -- basically because Alastair has shown the bad behavior of protesting his innocence.

Well, here I am. I'm the guilty party. Actually, Lisa and I are the guilty parties. Alastair was an unfortunate bystander in this case. His only crime was in telliing normal intelligent Administrators that he really was the bystander here. I do not fault the Administrators in any way. I think they are doing an excellent job. And the history that Lisa and I have is so extended and so bizarre that someone coming from the outside would never expect to look at the two of us instead of Alastair.

If I were L'Aquatique, I would have done EXACTLY what she did: start this arbcom.

And I want to apologize to L'Aquatique for causing this confusion. You had no way of knowing. To you, Alastair and Ilkali was one strike. Alastair, Lisa, and Tim was one strike. The person with two strikes is Alastair.

But that is just by accident. Again, I'm sorry to Alastair and L'Aquatique for not having the skills to get away from this. I had felt safe on the Gender of God page because such an experienced editor as Alastair was there.

And he got shot with a bullet aimed at me.Tim (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Ilkali, I don't think this is trivial at all. I think this is a very long term and serious problem stemming from November of last year through today, and I really do think that the Administrators are on target by including ALL editors in their consideration: you, me, and Lisa included. At the bottom line, Ilkali, is the need for Wikipedia to have a process to ensure that the overhead of disruptions doesn't eliminate real work that goes into the creation of an encyclopedia. They also want to see that personality issues don't eliminate real work as well. At the heart of it are ultimately three things, all extremely serious:

Long term disruptive edit wars
Personal targeting in the opening of your last "case" against Alastair
One editor's personal agenda to make sure I'm not allowed to edit in Jewish articles or Jewish sections of articles.

That's two personal targeting agendas and one edit war habit. All three of those are very serious. SO serious that Alastair has been swept up into the bow wave of yourself, myself, and Lisa.

The Administrators have shown amazing wisdom both in opening this issue, and in adding the three most guilty parties to the review.Tim (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Lisa's response to L'Aquatique's response to Ilkali's response to me: folks, this is going to take a while. We can't even stop fighting HERE.Tim (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

Comment: I'm waiting until Alastair responds here. I would like to know just what Alastair means by the accusations of defamation, slander, hearsay, and such, on AN/I; his comments there do seem to amount to the same chilling effect that we attempt to prevent via WP:NLT. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Statement is adequate to demonstrate a problem exists. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept to consider behaviour of all editors. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per Sam. --bainer (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Kirill ^(prof) 11:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, per Sam. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/6/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Request for clarification : Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/John_Buscema

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATenebrae&diff=228478711&oldid=228228599

Statement by Scott Free

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/John_Buscema

I have a question concerning a statement by Tenebrae -

...the version largely written by Scott Free's former identity, Skyelarke, which was disallowed by both RfC consensus and a lengthy Arbitration.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohn_Buscema&diff=226555068&oldid=215860249

Extra info - A similar statement was made here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohn_Buscema&diff=228308285&oldid=228307747

My question would be is the statement correct? Does the Arbitration ruling state that content contained in previous versions are not allowed to be integrated into the current article? I'm not clear about the consensus aspect, but my understanding is that of the closing arbitrator -

'(Referring to 'Consensus can change') ...This is certainly a legitimate and well-recognized principle. I don't know that it's applicable to this case because before the article was protected, it's not clear there was a consensus between the two versions, one way or the other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FJohn_Buscema%2FWorkshop&diff=181873872&oldid=181781354

I ask this because my understanding of the situation is that discussion on content had been interrupted (with about 30 or so referenced passages, having arrived after the RfC in question, left more or less incompletly discussed) due to conduct and civility issues that required arbitration. Following the Arbitration, which issued a decision aimed at resolving the dispute, in theory discussion could continue, addressing the unresolved content questions. So I guess my second question would be: Can I make edits to the article (within reason) that aim at reintegrating some or all of the 30 or so unresolved referenced passages?

Right now, I feel that if I should make edits to the article in that spirit, judging by the statement (which has been made in various forms several times), I would get a reply to the effect of 'the content being presented has been disallowed by RfC and an Arbitration ruling'.

In good faith,

--Scott Free (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding respecting post-arb consensus - That's also a question I have - What if no clear consensus emerges from the limbo the article was in? I did do a RfC to try and address this, but there was little in terms of comments on the specific issue of the previous disputed (and I say largely unresolved) content - the RfC ended up being pretty inconclusive aside from certain generalities about image use.

--Scott Free (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question to GRBerry - Just to clarify -had you or have you read Tenebrae's first statement in the Arb Enforce request? (Which is the same as the diff provided here above) I ask because your closing statement seemed to indicate that you might not have. (That was partially a mistake on my part, as it wasn't included in the green area of the diff, it was just above it.) (Although this clarification request isn't a direct reaction to your admin action - the statement is fairly typical of the editor and I was planning on making a clarification request on this sooner or later.)

--Scott Free (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sam Blacketer - I can see how reverting a paragraph wholesale would be innapropriate - I was thinking of taking the 30 or so passages individually and reintegrating them into the current version, rewording as required (they are all fairly short sentence fragments, I think, spread out fairly evenly throughout the entire article) - either one at a time or one section at a time. The reference sources are the same as the ones already used in the article. However, content-wise, it would still be the same content that Tenebrae is, I gather, strongly opposed to and will most likely delete most of them. Most likely, I would probably end up making a request for comment, to get additional feedback. Would this be acceptable?

I think in three cases, Tenebrae had removed the reference tag and kept the text, stating that references weren't necessary for them - Post-arb, another editor removed the phrases for reason of lack of reference. In those cases, I would restore the 3 phrases and include the corresponding previously deleted reference tags.

Another question would be : Would it be acceptable for me to submit this article to a Peer Review process?

--Scott Free (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tenebrae

Anyone can go on the John Buscema page and see Scott Free's disruptiveness even when editors besides myself try to dissuade him from continuing to promote his highly POV, often non-MOS, hagiographic fan page with over a dozen often decorative images. He was barred from editing the page for three months, and his obsessiveness over the page got him another month tacked on.

Please: Go read the lengthy Arbitration log, and the months of discussion that went on before and, now, afterward. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to jpgordon

I believe I've tried, having made only non-controversial and minor edits and not having touched the article otherwise.

It might be helpful to read these two new related, closed discussions on the Admin Noticeboard, of which I've only now become aware, in which other editors and admins have addressed Scott Free's continuing disruptions and obsessive behavior: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#John Buscema and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Addenda to John Buscema. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRBerry

There was a recent WP:AE thread posted by Scott Free, which I closed after 5 days had gone by. It was clear to me that it did not merit administrative action, and no other reviewer had suggested that use of tools was appropriate. During that thread it was discovered that the external link was to a out of date mirror of our article, and it looked due to lack of further dispute over the link like that would lead to consensus about it. This thread is now archived here. A followup thread, attended to by Shell Kinney, is still on WP:AE but will archive to archive 24 shortly. An even earlier related thread is here. No other WP:AE activity I'm aware of is relevant. GRBerry 03:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

The remedies in the case said nothing whatsoever about the content of the article; rather, they require that after your topic ban expired, both of you "respect consensus developed in the interim concerning the basic structure of the article and the nature of the material that should be included". Does your material respect the consensus that developed? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The terms of the arbitration case are that you have to respect the basic structure, so simply restoring the same paragraphs that were previously being objected to would not be respecting the structure but reverting to the previous structure. The external link to Nationmaster is clearly inappropriate. If you are adding reliable source references to what it already in the article, or making additions to explain existing material, then that is quite acceptable. Meanwhile I hope other editors will continue to assume good faith on your contributions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FPrivatemusings

Statement by User:Privatemusings

Could I have my restriction on editing BLPs lifted, please? I asked about two months ago, and someone else asked a month or two before that. Happy to answer any questions. Privatemusings (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply to Sam... yeah, I know I haven't always exactly made the most sensible 'keep your head down' choices - I guess my head's stuck somewhere! - I see Daniel's suggestions made the policy after a time, which is great - and I totally understand that the reward board thing might have touched a nerve... on the other hand.. it was kinda supposed to, and I'm glad to have maybe raised a smile here or there. I've tried to be consistent in criticising the system, not the people (I do think the arbcom is full of outstanding people, but is singularly useless as a body) - and would like to edit unencumbered if at all possible. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ps. your comment is somewhat non-committal (probably intentionally, so sorry for being dense...) - would you mind saying 'yup, the restriction can be lifted'? If you think otherwise, there's no need to say anything ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

I'll let you into a secret. Several times recently I've been thinking of suggesting removing the restriction, but then you've done something like this or this and I decide that my time might be more productively used elsewhere. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 81: / Line 81: @@
 ==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ====
 *
+----
 === User:Alastair Haines ===