Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:19, 20 May 2006

• ]

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.

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

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

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

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or clerk may do so.

• Arbitration policy
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case - Recommended reading: An (unofficial) guide to presenting effective Arbitration cases.

How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

• Click the "" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;
• Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
• Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
• Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
• Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

TruthSeeker1234 (talk · contribs) and Collapse of the World Trade Center

Involved parties

User:TruthSeeker1234, User:MONGO, User:Tom harrison, User:DCAnderson: TruthSeeker1234 has been continually referring to other user's edits as vandalism on Collapse of the World Trade Center. He has also been generally exhausting the patience of the community by tying up all discussion on the talk page with requests to add things to the page that we have told him he can't add and why, but he still keeps asking anyway.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• User:TruthSeeker1234
• User:Tom harrison
• User:MONGO

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This has been brought up in Wikiquette alerts and he has been warned about it in his talk page, and on the talk page of Collapse of the World Trade Center.

Statement by party 1

User:TruthSeeker1234 has referred to the edits of both User:Tom harrison and User:MONGO(this last edit was after repeated warnings on his talk page) as "vandalism" in the edit summaries on Collapse of the World Trade Center. He has carried these claims on to the talk page as well..

He has also taken up over half the talk page of Collapse of the World Trade Center with a diatribe about how certain facts need to be included. This would be fine, but we have continually explained to him why they should not be included, but he keeps bringing up "new" arguments, and has pretty much drowned out any other meaningful discussion. He also has inferred on numerous occasions that we are trying to "hide the truth" and that we are "anti-science" ,,,etc.--DCAnderson 21:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party TruthSeeker1234

"Collapse of the World Trade Center", as currently written, is Original Research in its entirety. It has synthesized various competing theories about the cause of the building collapses into one. Even ignoring the "controlled demolition" theory (which is well supported) , there are at least 3 other prominent theories about what may have caused these unprecedented structural failures: (1) The core meltdown theory, (2) the pancake theory, and (3) the column pull theory. It is important for the reader to understand that, particularly in the case of (2) and (3), that these theories are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be true. There are mainstream, published, official sources on these theories. NPOV requires that WIkipedia present them.

I have indeed referred to deletions made by Tom Harrison as "vandalism", and with good cause. Tom Harrison has repeatedly deleted my work, when it was material that was interesting, relevant, and which cited mainstream primary and secondary sources. Tom Harrison does not seem interested in actually contributing to the article, as it appears his only "contributions" are deleting and reverting.

I have also, just today, referred to a deletion made by MONGO as "vandalism" and with good cause. MONGO's edit summary was "it is a conspiracy theory and Jones is not the only one who "thinks" this way...padded cells, nice friendly nurses, some tea, quiet time". "Jones" refers to Dr. Steven Jones, professor of Physics at BYU. Denigrating Dr. Jones this way is a clear indication of bad faith, not merely disagreement.

I do not mean to exhaust the patience of the community. I have repeatedly raised very important questions about the synthesis, about published facts, about rationale for including/excluding certain sources. For the most part, these questions have been ignored. To the extent that they are addressed, they are adressed with falsehoods. For instance, I would like to include mention of the molten metal which was observed, reported, photographed, video'd, and published in mainstream journals. DCAnderson states: "Can't prove exists. Only brought up in theories of Steven Jones . . .". This is just plain false.

It is absolutely beyond me how anyone can think that the article as it stands is anywhere close to NPOV. TruthSeeker1234 23:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Response to questionable statements by Tony Sidaway in "Clerk notes" above

Tony Sidaway makes reference to "the slightness" of my "offence". According to WP rules, merely calling another person's edit "vandalism" does not automatically constitute an offense. I ask that the Clerk refrain from referring to my comments as an "offense", whether qualified with the word "slightness" or not.

Tony Sidaway also opines that Tom Harrison's comments on my talk page are "the kind that a good user would make to inform a newcomer of the basic rules of Misplaced Pages editing which he might be breaking". Tom Harrison's first comment on my talk page was "I should point out that we have a three-revert rule that you may be violating". I had only reverted ONE time, not even two, much less three. I believe Tom Harrison can count to three, therefore I believe his comment was intended to intimidate, not inform. TruthSeeker1234 16:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

TruthSeeker1234 is a newer editor but his first edit was to the discussion page of Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center and I believe he/she may have edited for some time simply using an IP, not that this matters. My personal view is that TruthSeeker1234 does not edit war and does contribute to the discussion page at Collapse of the World Trade Center. TruthSeeker1234 has also contibuted to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article and the talk page there. I don't personally find TruthSeeker1234 to be that annoying, but I'm fairly thickskinned most of the time. The problem is that TruthSeeker has been warned numerous times to not refer to other editors reverts and or additions as vandalism. Most of the editors that TruthSeeker is in disagreement with believe that his linking to conspiracy theory websites , , , violates the undue weight section of WP:NPOV. TruthSeeker1234 has, however, also used accredited sources for his references, such as those from FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency)and the NIST (National Institutes of Science and Technology). The constant harping that anyone who disagrees with his edits are vandals has led to a somewhat diminished level of discussion on the associated talk pages. Tom Harrison even told him if he didn't stop referring to his edits as vandalism, there was not going to be anymore discussion between the two of them. After I warned TruthSeeker1234 to stop calling reverts of his work vandalism, he filed a complaint against Tom Harrison at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts and once again using that vandalism accusation. What got me was what I percieved to be a threat actually and it was made to both myself and Tom Harrison. The threat was to publish something about us, and posted to my talk page stating that "TruthSeeker has written an article about you", and "Let me know if you would like to comment on it prior to its publication." and also posted with slightly more venom to Tom Harrison's talk page stating "TruthSeeker1234 has written about you", "Tom Harrison, you are mentioned several times in my article about my experience here. I accuse you of vandalism. Journalistic responsibility requires that I give you an opportunity to respond, should you choose to do so." No links were ever provided by TruthSeeker1234 to this publication even though I asked him to send me a link.. Lastly, TruthSeeker1234 has lately been filling up the discussion page at Collapse of the World Trade Center with the same old, tired rhetoric that has been going on for a couple of years now by numerous single purpose editors. At this point, the discussion page is definitely blog-like, not like one would expect when editors are trying to build a fact based and neutral encyclopedic article.--MONGO 02:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Tom Harrison

Truthseeker1234 seems determined to repeat his accusations . If my edits are vandalism, tell me and I'll knock it off; If they aren't, tell him they aren't and ask him to stop saying so.

I also found his comment on my talk page kind of odd , but I haven't heard any more about it. Tom Harrison 03:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by SkeenaR

One would have to read the whole discussion to really understand what has taken place on that talk page, but for the most part I have found Truthseeker1234 to conduct himself appropriately. I also find that his arguments for what constitutes legitimate contributions to the article to be accurate. In the face of his opposition, I find his actions acceptable to say the least. SkeenaR 04:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

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

• Accept Fred Bauder 01:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Francis Schuckardt

Involved parties

Bernie Radecki (talk · contribs) Athanasius303 (talk · contribs) AKA Fra. John

Since Februrary, I (and a number of others who don't have user accounts) have been attempting to modify the Francis Schuckardt article, but have had gotten consistent resistance from Athanasius303. He quotes policy a lot and deletes alot, even deleting large sections on the talk page that reflect poorly on the subject of the article. His grounds are that it is a personal attack against the subject of the article! This did provoke some parties. I went to the mediation cabal in March and it did serve to clarify things somewhat. Athanasius303 holds that since the article is about Francis Schuckardt, it should be from his point of view. I hold that the long explanation of Schuckardt's theological views is Original Research and should not be given prominence for several reasons. Additionally, Athanasius303 has consistently deleted my additions that are properly cited from third party sources. The current article on Francis Schuckardt now contains sections that both of us strongly disagree with. We have agreed to keep the article in this form to make the Arbitration Committee's role easier in that the article contains a section that I strongly contest and it also contains 2 sections that I have added that he strongly contests. This article has been hotly debated for 6 months with Athanasius on one side and 5 or 6 on the other. Due to the results of the Mediation Cabal request, the issue has been refined down to a policy dispute on No Original Research and Verifiability of sources. If we got a binding decision on these policy issues, the content issues may evaporate. Simply looking at the article as it now stands may suffice for you to reach an arbitration decision. - Bernie Radecki

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Francis_Schuckardt&diff=prev&oldid=53517469

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-15 Francis Schuckardt After a lot of wrangling, the only change agreed to was to remove a footnote. We could not even agree on what the term "Catholic Church" should refer too. The talk page on the Francis Schuckardt article demonstrates that Athanasius303 and myself, Bernie Radecki, have discussed in agonizingly great detail the portions of the article that are contentious. This effort has not resulted in an progress. We have agreed that it is a policy dispute and that we need a binding decision instead of the non-binding, collaborative approach available through mediation.

Statement by party 1

Athanasius303 has added in a 2000 word section titled | "Separation from the Modern Church, Three Principle Causes" with its three sub-parts. This was after I brought up the topic of Original Research in mediation. He writes what Schuckardt thinks and believes, but there are no third party citations showing that Schuckardt actually believes it. I find this to be blatantly against Misplaced Pages policy. Athanasius303 is a religious brother in Schuckardt's church of 100 or so. Schuckardt is his direct religious superior. Unless he agrees to cite independent, third party sources, I do not think Athanasius303 can keep his own POV out of the article. A good example of this is the section he recently added entitled| "Reaction of the Post Vatican II Church" which is very revealing as to his point of view on the subject of the article. I have searched to find any third party that has cited Francis Schuckardt's views on theology. It is my contention that he falls into the Tiny Minority view as evidenced by the fact that I could find none that mention him. I hold that Schuckardt is a controversial figure, but due to his other and more controversial actions, reputable sources have not published any of his material. Additionally, his theological view is roughly Sedevacantism and there is an article in Misplaced Pages on this subject already so it doesn't need to be contained in the Francis Schuckardt article in any event.

My second issue is that when I add information from third party sources, Athanasius303 removes them. I beleive, since this is a controversial subject (the subject of the article holds that the Catholic Church is not the "real" Catholic Church and his band of 100 or so followers is) that a NPOV needs to be maintained by using citable material as I have done. There is a lot of published material that refers directly to Schuckardt's non-theological views, especially the bizarre practices of his followers. See my entries in the following sections in which I cite published, third party sources: |"Opposing Viewpoints on Schuckardt's Consecration" and |"Dissension Within the Ranks". Dateline, CNBC, and the Seattle Times have recently all reported on the bizarre practices of his group, but I know if I add this to the article, Athanasius303 will revert. I content that this is what is published on Schuckardt, this is what he is known for, so it reflects the majority view: That he is not a Bishop of the Catholic Church, that he is a schismatic, that he fled one church in 1984, that he has a tiny church now that continues the same bizarre practices as before. This should be well represented in the article and not a tiny, minority view. Bernie Radecki 17:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

My overriding problem is that Radecki, an anti-Schuckardt zealot, wants to turn this article into a critic’s page and try to overwhelm the article with negative and salacious statements. This is contrary to Wiki’s NPOV policy.

I’ve unsuccessfully tried to get Radecki to agree to three simple fundamental facts: this article 1) is a biography of a living person, 2) is controversial and 3) and deals with religion. Any perusal of the article will demonstrate all three of the above. Misplaced Pages has set forth policies and guidelines on dealing with all three of these topics and I simply ask that all editors comply with these policies or state why compliance with them would be inappropriate. Radecki has never attempted to demonstrate why these policies/guidelines should be ignored, but does indeed ignore them. This is the fundamental problem in my view.

Some Radecki policy violations: 1) Under “Opposing POV” Radecki adds nothing that was not already in the article’s earlier editions; his additions seem only to push his POV, sometimes with purely gratuitous statements, (e.g., Viewpoint of Pope John Paul II… Brown never received…). 2) “Dissension within the Ranks” if full of gratuitous, unsourced references, including self-published “public letters,” all of which violate verifiability policy. 3) Under “Accusations…” very little of this is sourced and again largely gratuitous. The McKenzie quotes don’t mention the Bishop at all; it’s guilt by association. 4) Radecki changes this article on a daily basis and squawks whenever I revert to the pre-agreed to version prior to the Mediation process (which he pulled out of). I DID NOT agree “to keep this article in the present form,” for the Arbitration Committee to review. I reject Radecki’s tactics of making major edits (and extractions of material in contention) just before submitting this to Arbitration as though this current version is the basis to work from. It is not.

Radecki has also mischaracterized my arguments against his editing:

• As a biography, I believe this article should explain what Bishop Schuckardt believes and how he got there. This of course represents a “minority view,” a view of one. It’s a biography after all.

• Misplaced Pages’s verifiability policy allows the biographical subject’s personal website and other self-published material to be used as a source. Radecki rejects this and deletes the website link.

• Bishop Schuckardt’s views are his own. Simply to characterize him as a “Sedevacantist” both misrepresents the truth and is non-verifiable.

• As to the charge that there is little to no publications detailing Bishop Schuckardt’s beliefs, that is not surprising: it’s boring, and boring doesn’t sell.

I am not in opposition to a balanced opposing POV. I have demonstrated this by answering non-verifiable criticisms instead of simply extracting them, because I felt this would better inform the reader and favor a more neutral approach. I do, however, oppose undue weight being given to the critics. Much of this criticism I know to be factually untrue (I know, it’s not truth, but verifiability) and is without question harmful to Bishop Schuckardt’s reputation. I think that is one of the distinguishing differences between Radecki and me: his version will do damage to someone’s reputation, my version will not. I have patiently exercised restraint and have not gone to the articles on Radecki’s church (also a tiny minority) or his church leaders and retaliated in kind. I hope that I am not punished for my restraint and he rewarded for his lack of it.

Once Mediation came into play, Radecki toned down his rhetoric so as not to appear as an anti-Schuckardt zealot, but this is indeed what he is. I do not believe he is capable of representing a NPOV – the millions of dollars of church assets he and his church now enjoy was obtained through the demonization of Bishop Schuckardt. The moral justification for the retention of these assets and their ousting of Bishop Schuckardt would dissolve if the Bishop turned out to be someone other than who they have been portraying him to be all these years.

Our differences will never be amicably resolved, we need help. Thanks. Athanasius303 17:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 3

My name is George Wagner and I have been involved with this topic from the beginning. My experiences have been many. The biggest one is as Bernie Radecki points out, is NPOV. I contest 90% of the content that Athansius303 adds because it is a)irrelevant or b) not supported adequately with suitable material. Most of his additions are first hand experiences, not citeable from any book, magazine or paper.

We mention that the Schuckardt group is a cult and add citeable proof of this allegation, he simply deletes in the name of personal attack. Even on the talk forum we mention things of this nature to propose in the article and he deletes them. I don't have the time in my day that he does to revert and destroy someones work. I have left it alone for the time being leaving the major portions untouched, while making only minor changes.

I know that Schuckardt is a living person, or at least we assume he is living, and we need to make sure the facts are straight. Well, I challenge anyone to research him and tell me what you find from third party publications. This article does not reflect the truth in it's present state. It is watered down with unsourced opinions from those who live with him. This is my biggest complaint.

George Wagner

Now that I have read Fra John's response I must add a few thoughts. Bernie has done the research and all the additions he added are SOURCED DOCUMENTS. Fra John must be living in a fantasy world because just about everything in his statements are not true. He pushes the POV card pretty heavily, well, he happens to be living with Schuckardt and is one of the elite in the group. Seems to me his POV is just about everything he writes. We, however, are not associated with the group and we are Catholic in the sense that differentiates us from "groups".

George Wagner 19 May 06

Statement by 207.156.196.242

Yet another content dispute. Arbitration is not for content disputes. Please reject without prejudice. 17:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.156.196.242 (talk • contribs) .

Statement by TenOfAllTrades

Looking at the history of Francis Schuckardt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) there appears to be a fairly long history of edit warring among Bernie Radecki (talk · contribs), Athanasius303 (talk · contribs), and an assortment of floating IP addresses. The article's talk page also leans towards the acrimonious. While the ArbCom probably shouldn't be ruling on a content dispute, there may be user conduct issues to look at. (I've never looked at the article before, and I probably never will again; this comment is just in response to the anon remark above.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Accept Fred Bauder 03:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Request to reopen hearing 'Rex071404_4'

Request for reopening of closed Rex071404_4 RfAr , for violation of remedies therein. Request ArbCom extends existing blocks on Rex (and known socks) to an indefinite ban for deceptive and disruptive behavior (using sockpuppets to circumvent ArbComm rulings). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

Rex071404 (talk · contribs) (a/k/a Merecat (talk · contribs), Anon Texan (talk · contribs), 70.84.56.166 (talk · contribs)

Prior petitioners:

• Mr. Tibbs (talk · contribs)
• JamesMLane (talk · contribs)
• Woohookitty (talk · contribs)
• Derex (talk · contribs)
• Jtdirl (talk · contribs)
• Szyslak (talk · contribs)
• Kizzle (talk · contribs) (involved but not submitting evidence)
• Dmcdevit (talk · contribs)

ArbCom members who accepted the original case:

• Kelly Martin (talk · contribs)
• The Epopt (talk · contribs)
• Mindspillage (talk · contribs)
• Jayjg (talk · contribs)
• Fred Bauder (talk · contribs)

RyanFreisling (talk · contribs) (requesting reopening)

Additional petitioners:

• Kevin Baas (talk · contribs)

Brief summary

As Rex071404 (talk · contribs) (a/k/a Merecat (talk · contribs), Anon Texan (talk · contribs), 70.84.56.166 (talk · contribs)) this editor has been banned from editing John Kerry. In the recent sockpuppet guise of 'Merecat' (, , ) he has violated ArbCom's ban by making 20 separate edits to the article. , (URL to diffs is below). In addition Merecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in, and received numerous blocks for) disruptive editing across a number of politically charged articles, and has been the subject of an RfC. Accordingly, I request that the prior hearing be reopened in light of these new, more egregious violations (using sockpuppets to circumvent a permanent ban in particular, and disruptive editing), and appropriate remedies applied.

Note, Merecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s initial block was lifted at my request, in order to permit him to respond here . He chose not to, and has since been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing and instructed to email an arbitrator in order to have the block lifted to permit him a response here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

,

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

4 prior ArbCom hearings, most notably this one . One RfC .

Statement by party 1

User:Rex071404 has violated his ArbComm permanent ban on article John Kerry.

In direct violation of a prior permanent ban on editing the John Kerry article, Rex071404 (talk · contribs), the subject of 4 prior RfA's, has taken on the sockpuppet (, , ) Merecat (talk · contribs), and in that guise, has willingly violated the ban.

None of his edits to the John Kerry article are disruptive. However, according to the enforcement term of the hearing, Rex has violated the term that permanently banned him from editing the article.

Merecat's edits to the John Kerry article are available here .

The Checkuser report for Merecat / Anon Texan / 70.84.56.166 / Rex is here: . Mackensen further commented on this here:

In addition, there are numerous examples of trollish techniques (shifting arguments, personal attacks, rhetorical devices, aggressiveness, parrotting, vote stacking, undiscussed article moves, ignoring or deleting talk page requests, deleting other users' comments from article and user talk pages, revert warring, accusations against others of vandalism, 3RR violations, anon avoidance of blocks, etc.) displayed in his edit history that violate the remedy in that same RfAr allowing additional blocks for disruptive editing on other articles. I will provide diffs for that conduct if appropriate, but that conduct is not central to this specific issue.

In light of this specific violation of specific RfAr remedies, I request that his prior ArbCom hearing be reopened, and his behavior assessed against the history, decisions and remedies made there by the ArbCom.

Update: Note that Merecat chose not to directly respond to my question about the likelihood / reasonable conclusion that he is Rex, but instead asked me to use an alternate page and to 'be more specific'. I see this behavior as atypical of one wrongly accused of being a sock of a blocked/banned user. He appears to not wish to respond to this RfAr request. In addition, given Tbeatty's comments below representing the POV that none of Merecat's edits were disruptive, I guess I'll have to go further and gather all the specific examples of disruptive behavior as mentioned above for addition to this RfAr.

The articles that Merecat disrupted have suffered as a direct result of his behavior. And now there's no reasonable doubt that he is Rex - a well-known troll - deliberately evading his prior ArbComm remedies. Such conduct is wrong whatever the political POV of the miscreant - and I did not participate in the prior RfAr's. To cause this much disruption is really wrong and really shouldn't be tolerated by a responsible community.

I ask that it be considered that 4 or more ArbCom hearings may in fact be more than enough time and effort already taken from the work of the encyclopedia to address the proven bad faith of one troll, and that enough is in fact enough. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: I've also added a 'request for clarification' below, should it be decided that this request to reopen Rex071404_4 is not needed. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

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

Statement by Tbeatty (talk · contribs)

Since it's stipulated that none of the edits are disruptive, isn't it proof that Merecat was acting in Good Faith and therefore contributing positiviely to the project. Regardless of whether the "Merecat" account was a sock puppet or not, he has positively contributed to Misplaced Pages for at least 5 13 months, and in the end isn't this what matters? Ryan's account of Merecat's "violations" are already outlined on an RfC and as far as I can tell the RfC would end in Merecat's favor. Ryan has attempted to stifle dissent to his POV by endlessly attacking this user and using the processes of Misplaced Pages to essentially prevent people from contributing. Merecat's only violations was of recruiting users to vote on an AfD. He should be blocked for 24 hours. If he is indeed a sock puppet of Rex, his sock puppet should be disabled and he should be warned about using sock puppets. Further, Ryan should be banned from bringing any further ArbCom or RfC actions against Merecat and vice versa. THis is a waste of time for everyone involved. Spending time trying to ban a user who is not disruptive is against the principles of wikipedia. This request should be closed with prejudice.--Tbeatty 01:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are stats on the account being accused of being a "sockpuppet" and a "troll":

And here's rex's stats (accused of being a 'known troll'). Simply amazing.

I have also read with interest those persons arguing for a permanent ban for an infraction (editing the John Kerry page) the ArbCom committee has already concluded should only be for a week. --Tbeatty 03:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Since Merecat is blocked, he will be unable to respond. An administrator has decided an indefinite ban is in order even though over a week has passed since nothing was done about the alleged sockpuppet account and there has been no disruptions by Merecat. --Tbeatty 21:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131 (talk · contribs)

I am conflicted about this RFAR. I believe Merecat (talk · contribs) has been ganged up on by a group of editors who do not like the fact that he has been editing articles like Rationales to impeach George W. Bush and Movement to impeach George W. Bush from a Republican POV, trying to steer the articles to some sense of neutrality. The RFA filed by Prometheuspan (talk · contribs) and the RFC filed by Nescio (talk · contribs) are examples of this behavior; in the RFC, the overwhemling majority of outside views either support Merecat or place the blame for the conflict equally on Merecat and his opponents. However, the revelation that he was posting from anonymous IPs to avoid a block for disruption, and was likely both the "Anon Texan" and Rex071404 (talk · contribs) are deeply troubling. I urge Arbcom to examine the entire situation, including edit warring, disruptive behavior and personal attacks made by all the parties.

A brief history.

I became aware while editing Killian documents that an anonymous user who was obviously a Republican was making edits from a number of IP addresses that resolve to two Texas ISPs, Everyone's Internet and The Planet. Stbalbach at first identified these edits as coming from the banned user Shran, but we realized the the Anon Texan (for lack of a better name) was a different user. See User:Stbalbach/anontexan for a list of IP addresses. From my experience the Anon Texan was aggressive in eliminating anti-Republican bias, and made edits without respecting consensus, but his edits were not overtly pro-Republican, and a case can be made that when most of the editors working on a highly political article share the same POV, respecting consensus will not eliminate that POV. At the same time, Merecat was involved in editing other political articles including Movement to impeach George W. Bush. I did not edit those articles but I gather his behavior was similar; aggressive removal of what he saw as anti-Bush bias. This resulted in the filing of the aforementioned RFC and RFAR.

On May 2, Rationales to impeach was nominated for Afd (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)). Merecat, Morton devonshire (talk · contribs) and Nescio all sent out messages to users who had edited the article or voted in the first AfD, urging them to vote in the second ("talk page spamming"). The Afd was marred by blanking of votes and other disruptions (including personal attacks by Prometheuspan) and was closed the next day by Cyde (talk · contribs) acting out of process. The closure was overturned at DRV and the article listed a 3rd time. Nescio, Morton Devonshire and Merecat were all blocked for 24 hours for "vote stacking" but since this is an unwritten policy and none of them was warned first, the block on Nescio and Morton was oveturned by another admin. Merecat's block was left in place, possibly because he was blocked by a different admin, who other admins were less willing to overturn, but it is also true that Merecat began sending out talk messages for the 3rd Afd while Morton D and Nescio did not.

During Merecat's block, two of the IPs previously used by the anon Texan resumed talk page spamming regarding the third AfD, and another Texas IP posted a complaint about Merecat's block to the admin who had unblocked the other two editors. So Merecat basically outed himself as the Anon Texan. A checkuser request was made and Mackensen confirmed that Merecat was evading his block and was also likely to be Rex071404. RyanFreisling (talk · contribs), who has been involved in diputes with Merecat over a number of political articles, began posting requests at WP:ANI and this RFAR to have Merecat/Rex071404 permanently banned from wikipedia for violating his ban against editing John Kerry, even though he acknowledges that Merecat's edits to John Kerry have not been disruptive, and that the Arbcom remedy should Rex resume editing John Kerry was stated to be a week's block.

I hope this summary is useful and I urge the Arbcom to accept the case to examine the behavior of all the involved parties. Thatcher131 02:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Woohookitty (talk · contribs)

I was one of the prior petitioners in this case. I don't really want to become involved in this again outside of this statement. To me, it's pretty simple. If it can be proven that Merecat is Rex, then he should be blocked because he's in violation of his arbcom decision. "Positively contributed for 5 months" isn't really an issue. Letting someone get around a block should and cannot be tolerated. --Woohookitty 03:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Nescio (talk · contribs)

Although only involved in discussions (monologues by him is a better word) with Merecat (talk · contribs) I feel the need to respond to Tbeatty and Thatcher131. Tbeatty points out that the RFC on Merecat is not entirely supported. This is true, but what he does not say is the reason. As is the case in his statement here, on the RFC editors misrepresent the facts or simply ignore what Merecat has done. For details and evidence of Merecat's behaviour see his RFC. Above Thatcher131 states that "Merecat, Morton devonshire (talk · contribs) and Nescio all sent out messages to users who had edited the article or voted in the first AfD, urging them to vote in the second ("talk page spamming")." This fails to mention that I responded (which was of course stupid of me) to the clear attempt at disrupting this 2nd AFD by two editors with opposing views. Nuance changes the message he is sending out. Then "Nescio, Morton Devonshire and Merecat were all blocked for 24 hours for "vote stacking" but since this is an unwritten policy and none of them was warned first, the block on Nescio and Morton was oveturned by another admin." Again, this is incorrect. Merecat was not blocked for what Morton and I did, related to the 2n AFD. His block was the result of him again starting the recruitment procedure in the 3rd AFD for which he must have noticed the mess that had been created, and the blocks following the 2nd AFD. That is why his block started later, and while the block on Morton and myself was lifted, the block for a different reason, on Merecat was continued.

This technique of leaving out details, or overtly misrepresenting the facts, is exactly what is wrong with the RFC on Merecat. In stead of addressing the presented case people respond by pointing fingers, as can be seen in Thatcher131's response here. Even if Merecat is guilty of what the RFC says, he argues that others are guilty too (paraphrasing what I think Thatcher131 is saying). By that logic no RFC, or RfAr can be filed since this argument of those without sin throwing the first stone applies always. Simply stated, the number of people commenting on my behaviour, but not on Merecat(!), while they have never discussed with me, or even took part in the disruptive behaviour by Merecat is worrysome.

Further, it is evident that whatever the intentions, if any editor violates policy, rulings, et cetera, his actions and not his intentions should be discussed. Just as in the RFC on Merecat, the logic presented here is that even if editors are violating ArbComm rulings we should ignore that because he is a good fellow and edits in the best of intentions. Clearly, having an ArbComm has become pointless if we adopt that rationale. Aside from that, I do not understand how using sock-puppets in this disruptive manner can be considered a good faith edit, and a positive contribution to Misplaced Pages.

Last, the suggestion, by Thatcher131, to investigate all participants on Merecat's RFC, and the relevant AFD's, is highly incendiary. Having seen the havoc in both AFD's mentioned above, for which the sockpuppetery was used, trying to spread the mess by implicating as much editors as possible in this debacle is not a very good example of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Nomen Nescio 09:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by mailer_diablo (talk · contribs)

I am not involved in the prior disputes, but I am the one who restarted the 2nd AfD (current) and made the checkuser request.

There's current AfD is in a whole lot of mass due to User:70.84.56.166 and User:67.15.76.187 mass-stacking user talkpages. The pattern of edits and the alleged sockpuppet tags on 70.84.56.166 and its "puppetmasters" were very fishy (in particular two users BigDaddy777 and Rex071404), hence me running through the checkuser process.

There is also a large amount of disagreement on whether merecat's actions are simply "notification of editors on important issues", or to try and "swing the consensus through vote-stacking", as we can see from the incident of Cyde's early closure that is recorded at admin's noticeboard. I would be very interested to hear how the ArbCom judges his actions on this, because I certainly think this constitutes the disruption of the AfD process.

I urge the ArbCom to accept this case mainly to :

1. Confirm if Merecat is indeed the re-incarnation of Rex071404/BigDaddy777
2. If (1) concludes to be otherwise, to determine if Merecat's actions (esp. on the AfD) require any form of remedies.

- Mailer Diablo 13:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Mr. Tibbs

In Rex071404's last arbitration case, I was the one who presented the majority of the evidence. As such I am very familiar with Rex's modus operandi. And I feel there is no doubt that Merecat is indeed a sockpuppet of Rex071404.

For example:
Creating obscure User pages for the sole purpose of "dialoguing" with a specific person is an extremely unusual behavior. But both Rex071404 and Merecat have done this.

Another example:
Compare the argument style of Rex071404 on the John Kerry talk page with the argument style of Merecat on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq talk page. Both make an entire new section and fill it with "rebuttals" of their opponents. Notice the long, winding writing style. Both writers very clearly love to hear themselves talk and seem to want to wear down their opponents by sheer volume of text.

Yet Another example:
Creating "hidden" UserTalk pages is an extremely unusual behavior. But Both Rex071404 and Merecat have done this. ((Added as afterthought -- Mr. Tibbs 21:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)))

I could continue presenting evidence, but frankly, I shouldn't have to. The identical behavior patterns and CheckUser results are more than enough to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Merecat is in fact Rex071404. Consequently, there is no need for an entire arbitration case regarding this issue. Merecat should be indefinitely banned for attempting to evade previous ArbCom rulings, and any user in the future who's CheckUser turns out to be Rex071404 should be indefinitely banned as well.
-- Mr. Tibbs 21:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Prometheuspan 18:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

To claim that Merecat was ever working for neutrality is in my opinion a bald faced lie. Merecat was full of ad hominems, straw man arguments, and abusive behavior towards Nescio, and the failure of Misplaced Pages to adress the seriously abusive behavior on the part of merecat is in fact what convinced me to become involved in the first place. Merecats abusiveness against me personally is a subject of the arbcom i filed, which was previusly mentioned. (though fallaciously invalidated.) Merecat was an obstructionist pov warrior, who cheated, lied, gamed the system, was abusive, deleted materials without due cause or justification, deleted materials solely for the purpose of strengthening his arguments from the discussion pages, stacked votes in vfds, stacked votes for rfcs, and etc. Merecat is patently and obviously acting in bad faith, which was evident to me (and should be evident to anybody) reading the rationales to impeach discussion page and its archives. This user should be banned permanently, and any socks discovered should be banned also. Prometheuspan 18:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Kevin Baas 17:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think any remedy should carefully consider the question: "How can a repeat of this be prevented?" That is, "How can the remedy be well enforced?" Kevin Baas 17:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Ral315

Katefan0 just blocked Merecat indefinitely. As long as community support is behind this block (and it appears it's headed that way), I see no reason to re-open the case unless to impose additional sanctions upon Rex for sockpuppeting. Ral315 (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Phil Sandifer

(Note: I know I'm involved in a dispute elsewhere with some of the participants here - if anyone feels like I should recuse as a clerk, please do feel free and I'll move this to a straight statement. That said, I remind that I also was one of the first admins to block Rex, and I believe my block of him was my first ever block, so I'd say I break impartial. YMMV, please feel free to object)

Summary: Merecat appears to be Rex. Merecat has edited articles Rex is banned from, though not particularly disruptively. Merecat is, however, being trollish and disruptive.

Comment: If Merecat is a sock of Rex, he can be shot without arbcom ruling. If the Rex ruling needs to be extended to a ban, that seems to me a straightforward motion in prior cases. In either eventuality, I suspect much sanity can be preserved without this going through to a full case, since it looks like a massive train wreck of a case based on the number of comments already submitted. Phil Sandifer 05:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Mr. Tibbs

Response to Clerk notes:

Phil, given the stink that Rex/Merecat is raising on his talk page. And some of the rather unusual suggestions by Tbeatty on that page, I am concerned that Rex/Merecat will simply make another sockpuppet and will we have to go through this entire gauntlet again later on. Given that the remedies of Rex's last arbitration case made it easier for the community to deal with him Rex circumventing Remedy 2 in particular strikes me as a real problem. How exactly would a motion be made to just add one more remedy to that case limiting Rex to one account? -- Mr. Tibbs 21:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved user Stifle

Can't he just be banned as a user that has exhausted the community's patience, or abusive sockpuppet? Stifle (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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

• Accept, but want to see some proof Fred Bauder 23:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Recuse. Neutrality 03:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• If he's already been blocked indef. for disruption, and he is indeed a sock of Rex, the block may as well stick. I'm not actually opposed to banned users coming back in such a way that we can't tell who they are because they're not editing disruptively, but it doesn't look like this is the case. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Reject in current form, per some comments above. Better dealt with as clarification of the previous case. Charles Matthews 13:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. As above. Jayjg 17:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

SPUI vs JohnnyBGood, PHenry and Rschen7754 and various other editors

Involved parties

SPUI vs JohnnyBGood, PHenry, Rschen7754 and various other editors

I request that Freakofnurture (talk · contribs) be added to this case as a named party. He has moved more than a hundred pages related to Washington state highways based upon his unilateral interpretation of what the "correct" article names should be, despite multiple admins warning that moving these pages pending the resolution of this dispute is a blockable offense. His edit summary seems to indicate that he believes that this is some sort of game, the object of which is to "pwn" whoever he's determined his enemies to be. —phh (/_c) 18:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Can I add myself to this case? I haven't move warred, but I'm involved in the Washington State Highway WikiProject, and I'd really like to do anything I could to get this out of the way ASAP. -- Northenglish 00:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• JohnnyBGood
• SPUI
• PHenry
• Rschen7754

Various solutions tried

Mediation (1 month ago), various discussions on AN and an RfC in addition to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject California State Highways.

Brief summary of dispute

In short, this dispute involves move warring over the naming of various state roads. Various attempts to mediate has not been suscessful and SPUI has refused an offer I have made for third party binding arbitration due to the fact that he insists he is right "I'm very leery of binding arbitration, as I know I'm correct. Thus I'll have to say no. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 19:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)." In the past, SPUI has made changes to the naming of the pages, and JohnnyBGood has reverted them pending lack of consensus. I attempted to offer mediation but various users have stated that after previous attempts it is almost pointless and ArbCom is the only way to settle this dispute -- Tawker 00:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not filing a statement in this party as I am not in dispute, I am only trying to find a solution here and it has come down to this. -- Tawker 00:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 1

I guess I'm party 1? I have move warred. Maybe I shouldn't have. But nothing else was working. My arguments were clearly detailed at Talk:State Route 2 (California). I still don't understand the arguments of the other side. Maybe it would have gone better if I did, but I really don't. The majority of people I've talked to, or that have commented out of the blue, agree with my names, but there are several editors that keep moving them back to "California State Route X", even claiming that that is somehow not only the correct disambiguation method, but also the correct name in real life. But that's all a content dispute, and outside the ArbCom's mandate. Which is why this will probably not result in a solution any more than the previous attempts.

For a specific example: State Route 66 (California). I was working on U.S. Route 66-related stuff, and saw that U.S. Route 66 in California was a double redirect - JohnnyBGood never cleans them up. I had two choices - either fix the double redirects to what I knew to be the wrong name, or move it back. I chose the option that I knew would make the encyclopedia better.

Another example, this time by Rschen7754 - .

Again, this is all content dispute stuff. So whatever. I move warred, because nothing else was working, and I knew I had consensus from real life and disambiguation conventions. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 01:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

A few months ago, SPUI moved the Massachusetts, Florida, New Jersey, and other pages to what he considers to be the proper disambiguation standard: "State Route/Road/Highway x (State)". He was not opposed there. A few months ago, SPUI removed the {{routeboxca2}} infobox from California State Route 15. He then proceeded to move the page to State Route 15 (California). He was reverted. He reverted back. He ignored discussions. He then proceeded to move all of the California State Route pages (over 200), and reverted after he was reverted, with no consensus for his position at WP:NC/NH. He then tried to massively redo {{routeboxca2}}. He was reverted. He tried to TFD {{routeboxca2}}. No consensus for deletion. He created his own {{Infobox CA Route}} and changed many articles to it. He was reverted. He reverted back. He spread this dispute to other states such as Washington and Rhode Island. He was reverted. He reverted back. In short, all 2,500+ articles are subject to become part of this edit war. Something must be done.

This is not a personal attack against SPUI by the way. He is a good contributor. We just don't approve of his methods sometimes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:PHenry

I regret that this unbelievably stupid dispute has come to this, but I think it's been inevitable for a long time and I am certain that it will continue until some kind of binding decision is made. During the course of this unpleasantness, I have found that every participant on either side that I've tried to communicate with has been interested in working toward a mutual common-sense solution with the sole exception of SPUI. If he were not involved, I have no doubt whatsoever that any dispute would have been settled quickly a long time ago. Unfortunately, SPUI doesn't "do" discussion—his preferred method of operation is to wear more-reasonable editors down through warring, hostility, and abusive behavior, until they give up and he gets his way.

I honestly don't care that much about which naming standard is settled upon. I have been a reluctant participant in these edit wars because I believe very strongly that one user should not be allowed to steamroll over everyone else simply because he's willing to be more obnoxious than everyone else. My opinions and contributions are valid, goddammit, and so are Rschen7754's and JohnnyBGood's and Atamir's and yours and those of every other good-faith editor on Misplaced Pages. And SPUI, who is generally a very valuable contributor, is not more valid than anyone else, and certainly does not have a license to disregard the process of consensus building through polite discussion and negotiation without which Misplaced Pages cannot survive. I've revert-warred with SPUI in defense of a position that I didn't even agree with, because the matter had gone through a deletion debate that his (and my) position lost, yet he refused to accept it. That's how strongly I feel about the necessity of respecting other people's input and contributions.

I urge—no, I beg the ArbCom to take this matter up, while apologizing for my part in dragging you into what our children's children will remember as one of the lamest edit wars ever. Under normal circumstances, there would be no need for a formally binding decision to be made here, but as SPUI made clear to me, he doesn't intend to stop warring, ever, not until he gets his way. This attitude needs to be stopped here and now. --phh (/_c) 03:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Locke Cole

I've been somewhat involved with this (and am a little dismayed that I was not informed this had been moved to arbitration). Specifically, I was involved in part of the California dispute, and also involved in the Washington State dispute. SPUI's behavior is, I think, understandable. Relatively new administrators such as Rschen7754 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) had been trying to enforce a "rule" they believe they created on WP:AN/I (the rule stating that there are to be no page moves of highway related articles). Rschen7754, who was involved in a dispute with me at the time, blocked me and refused to unblock me unless I promised to not move pages away from his preferred naming. I believe this behavior is, in part, why SPUI may have given up on discussion (not to mention the lack of interest by the opposing parties to listen to what he has to say).

To quote the Blocking policy, specifically, "When blocking may not be used", it states: Use of blocks to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. That is, sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute.

• 2006-03-31 05:03:31 – Rschen7754 demonstrates his involvement in the content dispute.
• 2006-03-31 06:24:30 – Rschen7754 reverts List of Washington State Routes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to his preferred names with the edit summary rv to version that does not link to 100 redirects.
• 2006-03-31 06:33:30 – Rschen7754 threatens me with a block for moving (renaming) pages to names he doesn't prefer, citing WP:ANI as "stating" that "any mass moves of highway pages are grounds for being blocked". He finishes with: "Move any more pages and you will be blocked."
• 2006-03-31 06:45:07 – Rschen7754 blocks me with the reason per WP:ANI- user was mass moving road pages with no consensus, was warned explicitly.
• 2006-03-31 06:47:21 – Rschen7754 leaves a note saying he blocked me claiming it is unbiased.
• 2006-03-31 06:58:21 – Rschen7754 offers to unblock if I promise not to move pages away from his preferred names "until this is resolved".

I urge the ArbCom to accept this case to look at the abuse of sysop powers by Rschen7754 and how this may have affected peoples interest in opposing his point of view. As per Raul654's suggestion below, having a binding decision on the content dispute might also prove useful, but I believe there's a deeper problem that needs to be addressed. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by JohnnyBGood

Just a thought, why don't we keep this confined to the naming dispute. If you have an issue with any actions of Rschen let's keep it seperate as all parties involved in this dispute have done things that violate policy in some form or another and bringing one in will lead them all to be dumped here, which will just cloud the core issue that needs to be resolved here. JohnnyBGood t c 20:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

While there may or may not be other policy violations, I'm concerned with the chilling effect Rschen7754's actions may have had on people who may have spoken up in favor of SPUI or been more open to changing their mind. The landscape of any dispute changes drastically when someone abuses sysop powers like this. I don't believe any other policy violations rise to this level in this dispute, and I believe this dispute may have been shaped differently had Rschen7754 not abused his powers. (Rschen7754 has also blocked SPUI, for the record). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well by the same token I could bring up how chilling and outright disturbing it is that SPUI, even when rightly blocked has been getting himself unblocked in under 15 minutes because he seems to have so many people with admin powers in his back pocket. I count no less then 6 times he was unblocked prematurely without acceptable cause in the first 7 listed here. Now THAT is chilling, especially when other users, myself included, who are blocked for the same infractions are either unable to get them lifted or it takes hours or days, rather then minutes as it does for SPUI. If Rschen is to be sanctioned then all of those admins who seem to be helping SPUI by wheel warring habitually should suffer the same fate as they also seem to have a conflict of interest. JohnnyBGood t c 17:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Raul654

I have an idea - would it be acceptable to both parties if, instead of accepting this case, we (the committee) simply offered binding decision as to the naming dispute? That is to say, both SPUI and JohnnyBGood give us a BRIEF explination for why their naming scheme is the correct one and the other guy's is not, and we come down in favor of one or the other. Raul654 01:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That was in short what I was thinking ArbCom would do in this case. Placing sanctions on any of the parties involved does not make much sense, I offered to do this in a non formal non ArbCom situation and it was rejected, hence it came here. I don't think a conduct case makes much sense here and would be a waste of ArbCom's time, I just want some way of stopping the move warring so we don't have to go through it all again -- Tawker 02:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As much as I'd assume the ArbCom is smart and would pick the correct naming, I don't like the possibility of the wrong one being chosen. That's probably one reason the ArbCom doesn't get involved in content disputes - it would have to apply to all editors to be worth anything. Thus, even if the four of us, or everyone currently in this dispute, agreed to make it binding, that's not going to keep someone in the future from moving them. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 01:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"I don't like the possibility of the wrong one being chosen." I think that pretty much says it all, honestly. --phh (/_c) 03:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

We avoid content disputes (emphasis on the word content) because we are not a panel of experts. That is to say, we lack the expertise to determine if a given sentence or paragraph is true, false, mistated, 'etc. On the other hand, it does not take a panel of experts to decide what the naming scheme should be. Raul654 18:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems reasonable, and I think SPUI could do a good job at explaining the situation. Though, like SPUI, I also have reservations about the binding nature of any decision like this. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be amenable to either approach, and offer to help JohnnyBGood create his explanation if he likes. --phh (/_c) 15:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with either approach. JohnnyBGood t c 18:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup. I think that someone else should give the argument though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Who would you suggest? --phh (/_c) 02:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Could we have a temporary ban on moving state highway pages until this is resolved? (For all parties involved) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

As per an AN discussion (its somewhere in the archives) move warring is a blockable offence, no need for an official ArbCom ruling IMHO -- Tawker 20:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, if SPUI and myself hadn't been unblocked repeatedly for move warring after only 15 minutes. I think in this case we need it clearly spelled out until this arbcom is complete.JohnnyBGood t c 17:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought too, until Locke Cole complained. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

So what is going to happen? We need a solution since SPUI has shown signs of wanting to move the Utah pages. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't approve of the Committee offering a ruling as the Arbitration Committee on the correct naming style. But if all parties are willing to let an uninvolved party such as Raul654 make the call and then promise to abide by it, I'd be perfectly happy to drop this case. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Who are "all parties"? If it's anything less than everyone who edits these articles or may in the future, it won't have any lasting effect. And if it is actually all parties, good luck finding them all. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 12:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

All parties are everyone named in this dispute. You, me, Rschen, Phenry, and anyone else involved in move warring. If anyone persists in the future we can point back to this arbcom's ruling and revert. If any new party persists after being warned there are channels for dealing with it including WP:AN/I. I think it is imperative we get outside arbitration on this... otherwise the move war will not come to a close because neither side has shown any willingness to compromise any further. I know arbcom doesn't usually mediate conflicts about style or content, but this is an exceptional case that has involved what is now a 3 month war that has just escalated in veritol and intensity. JohnnyBGood t c 17:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's the latest development, lads. Snoutwood (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Northenglish

IMHO, and the keyword there is my humble opinion, as I am quite new to Misplaced Pages, and have not been involved in any of the move warring, I would prefer to see the articles in question located at Washington State Route 3 (for example). I agree with SPUI in the sense that the legal name for such a road is State Route 3, and that people in the state of Washington refer to that road as "State Route 3". I agree with Rschen7754 and company when they state that people outside the state of Washington would refer to it as "Washington State Route 3", but SPUI claims that people who refer to the road as such are using a sort of disambiguation, and I agree with SPUI there as well. SPUI's main reasoning for titling articles as "State Route 3 (Washington)" is that it is the proper format for disambiguation on Misplaced Pages, and he is correct for the most part. Every article on a city that I have found is disambiguated with a comma, not parentheses--"Philadelphia, Pennsylvania", not "Philadelphia (Pennsylvania)"--matching conventional disambiguation outside of Misplaced Pages to ease Misplaced Pages users in searching for the articles. I think state route articles is another perfect case to use the disambiguation convention from outside Misplaced Pages. -- Northenglish 22:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As another outside party, I have just received this e-mail from WSDOT:

Thank you for your e-mail to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) asking about the official name of a state highway in Washington State. I do apologize for the delay in responding to your e-mail.

The official name is State Route #, not Washington State Route #

Again, I am very sorry for this late response. We do appreciate you taking the time to write to us.

Kimberly Colburn Customer Service WSDOT Communications PO Box 47322 Olympia, WA 98504-7322 (360) 705-7438 hqcustomerservice@wsdot.wa.gov

atanamir 23:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I agree that the official legal name of a state route is "State Route X" without the state name. (For some states, it might be "State Highway X".) But unlike SPUI, I don't think that's the only factor that needs to be taken into account when titling articles. -- Northenglish 17:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I third that. JohnnyBGood t c 00:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Accept for the purpose of binding arbitration regarding the style issue Fred Bauder 21:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC), see Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions/Numbered highways.

All right, question for Fred Bauder then... What is it you want us to see at that Talk page? All I see is a debate that reached no definite conclusion, just as I see at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject California State Highways and a number of other pages. Furthermore, the main article at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions/Numbered highways contains a gross inconsistency stating "The Florida state highway should be disambiguated by putting said region first," (emphasis mine), then using as examples "State Road 50 (Florida), not Florida State Road 50." More clarification on what you would like us to look at would be most useful. -- Northenglish 22:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by that talk page either. I am just suggesting that an imposed decision may be better than endless unproductive discussion. Fred Bauder 22:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, I agree wholeheartedly! I was just confused for a moment. -- Northenglish 22:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Requests for Clarification

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

Election

The complainant has never even sought mediation (there has been no survey, no 'third opinion', etc.), nor a request for an advocate, before bringing this RfAr. How is it that the case has been accepted? Are cases brought by admins subject to lesser restrictions vis-a-vis process?

Here's Phil's comment about mediation (he never pursued it after Robert's comment) . He did not follow thru on the possibility of mediation. Here's Noosphere's next discussion regarding possible mediation of disputes And again here's Noosphere, not Phil, seeking mediation after a round of fierce warring: and the continuing thread, ending in the removal of the mediation request due to a lack of interest .-- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"excuse me, but please let me point out that you all asked for a mediator: perhaps this is a good topic for me to help with. if I don't get something to do here, I'll just go back and say you case is closed because no one is responding. :-) Ted 01:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, mediation was skipped on this article. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"Where a dispute has not gone through Mediation, or the earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, the Arbitrators may refer the dispute to the Mediation Committee if it believes Mediation is likely to help." - from WP:AP. I imagine this is the reason. Phil Sandifer 18:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, Fred Bauder (who said it was his view that mediation should work) or another admin should have referred the dispute to the Mediation committee. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

But they are in no way required to. See "may" not "will." Phil Sandifer 18:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Fred's comment read ""There is a suggestion by RyanFreisling that mediation might be productive, see his talk page. I think that may be a much more productive solution. Having the arbitration committee take the sheep shears to the articles is not going to make for a very nice haircut. "

For you to claim that the 'Misplaced Pages process has spectacularly failed', don't you think you should have followed the process as closely as possible? Wouldn't that have been necessary for you to make that claim? How can Misplaced Pages process have failed, if it hasn't been attempted in good faith? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Merecat/Rex071404

As mentioned above in my request to reopen 'Rex071404_4', Merecat/Rex071404, who was banned by ArbCom from editing John Kerry and sockpuppeted as Merecat in order to circumvent the ban, has engaged in disruptive editing under the guise of Merecat, resulting in indefinite bans.

Rex' 6-month ban from Rex071404_4 has also apparently ended. Please extend the ban and widen it, in light of this willing violation of ArbCom policy and continuing disruptive conduct. If Rex can simply assume another sock, and violate a permanent ban, there appears to be no solution to his attacks on Misplaced Pages process. Please consider this, in order to minimize the impact of the next disruptive sock proven to be Rex. (update) Mr. Tibbs has above suggested limiting Rex to one account. Please advise on the correct course of action in light of Rex' willing circumvention of ArbCom. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Lou franklin: "Ineffective editor"

This is a matter of curiosity rather than confusion, but what was meant by "this grossly ineffective request for arbitration"? Being the one who brought that request, I naturally wonder whom/what that bit was directed at. Sorry for this rather belated request (I could have asked this weeks ago if I'd been paying attention in class). --Sam Blanning 19:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Lou stated on his talk page that he will "raise the red flag" about that article. Do you think this would eventually lead to additional sanctions and/or long-term blocks/bans? 16:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression, a gross error, that Lou franklin initiated the arbitration. We will not be changing the finding of fact, despite the error. Fred Bauder 14:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Crotalus horridus

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway

The enforcement for Crotalus horridus conflicts with the enforcement provided in the userbox remedy. Presumably the enforcement applies only to Crotalus's probation should that be invoked. Or can admins choose whichever they prefer? (And, if they can, could 5 two-week blocks result in triggering the year-block even though the remedy would not have been invoked since it limits blocks to a week?) -Splash 16:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, we (I?) didn't do that too well. The options are to remove the enforcement from Remedy 1 or to specify that the enforcement only applies to Remedies 2 and 3. I support the former. Sam Korn 17:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

<ping>. I guess it's not especially important since Ch appears to be abiding by it, but it's at least untidy to let it lie. -Splash 23:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman - Topical ban

Aucaman has made the following query on my talk page. I've given him my interpretation but it occurs to me that it would best be clarified by the arbitrators who voted on the motion in question. --Tony Sidaway 17:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you tell me how this is going to work? I have these specific questions:

1. How am I supposed to know which articles I can edit? Some articles under question: Kurds, Kurdistan, Middle East, Najis, Geber, al-Khwarizmi.
2. Those articles I cannot edit, can I still edit the talk page and participate in any (possible) mediation?

You can answer these questions directly or refer me to some literature/examples that illustrate how these bans work. Thanks, Aucaman 05:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether an article is related to Iran or Persians is to be decided by administrators, who have instructions that "relatedness is to be interpreted broadly so as to prevent gaming." Of the articles you list above, I'd say you can probably only edit Middle East without breaching the ban, and then only if you avoid the subject of Iran and Persians.

You can still use the talk pages, participate in mediation, etc. -Tony Sidaway 11:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony's interpretation is correct. Basically if there is any doubt, don't. However, I think you could probably edit Turquoise which while related to Persia, is not about ethnic or political issues. Fred Bauder 14:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al

Since the conclusion of the Arbitration case, StrangerInParadise (talk · contribs) has continued to assume bad faith and make disruptive edits with the StrangerInParadise account while maintaining a separate, older, user account. Thus, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al is modified to include the following remedy:

StrangerInParadise restricted to one user account

StrangerInParadise is restricted to one user account. Any sockpuppet accounts will be blocked indefinitely and the main account blocked for up to 48 hours if this is violated.

Support:

1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 14:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 14:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
4. James F. (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Charles Matthews 15:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Jayjg 01:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Archives

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (unofficial)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution