Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj (talk | contribs) |
Vanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj (talk | contribs) →[[User:Jguk]], ''et al.'': case unanimously rejected |
||
Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
*Accept. RfC is of concern. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 11:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC) |
*Accept. RfC is of concern. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 11:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC) |
||
==[[User:Jguk]], ''et al.''== |
|||
===Involved parties=== |
|||
<!--provide links to the user page of each party and to all accounts they have edited with. Briefly summarize case. No details. --> |
|||
* [[User:Jguk]] |
|||
* [[User:Jtdirl]] |
|||
* [[User:Mackensen]] |
|||
* [[User:Proteus]] |
|||
* [[User:Whig]] |
|||
* [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] |
|||
* Various other editors who need not be involved unless they choose to involve themselves here |
|||
====Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request==== |
|||
<!--provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration. --> |
|||
* [[User:Jguk]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jguk&diff=0&oldid=14357413] |
|||
* [[User:Jtdirl]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jtdirl&diff=0&oldid=14357476] |
|||
* [[User:Mackensen]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mackensen&diff=0&oldid=14357521] |
|||
* [[User:Proteus]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Proteus&diff=0&oldid=14357563] |
|||
====Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried==== |
|||
''If not, then explain why that would be fruitless'' |
|||
Prolonged discussion has taken place without resolution. A [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles|survey]] was completed which the respondants declined to accept the results of. A [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig|RfC]] was opened with respect to me but which may perhaps better be considered as a RfC on the respondants. |
|||
===Statement by Whig=== |
|||
Please limit your statement to 500 words |
|||
This is not a request for disciplinary action by the ArbCom, unless such action is deemed necessary and appropriate ''sua sponte'' to protect against continued abuse of RfC, and to deal with the making and restoring of personal attacks. Principally this is a [[NPOV]] dispute, and while the ArbCom does not generally rule on content, it may have authority to rule on '''context''' and moreover to judge whether consensus exists or ever existed to use prefixed [[Style (manner of address)|styles]] (as opposed to contextually providing them). |
|||
A relatively complete summary of the NPOV dispute already exists at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig]] and does not bear excessive repetition. (Note, this RfC has a consensus to close, and may (should) be archived.) In regards the opening of the RfC, I request that the ArbCom make clear that the purpose of such actions is to complain about users who have violated Wikipedia policies and with whom discussion has otherwise failed, '''not''' (as in this case) to harass an editor into withdrawing from a substantial NPOV dispute. In particular, [[User:Jtdirl]] who “certified” the RfC did not even make a token effort to resolve anything with me before or after the RfC was filed. |
|||
[[User:Jtdirl]] has also made personal attacks [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI&diff=13864939&oldid=13864938], which having been removed, were subsequently restored by [[User:Mackensen]] and [[User:Proteus]]. [[User:Mackensen]] also made personal attacks, which having been removed, were restored by [[User:Proteus]]. This is discussed in the RfC above, and I join them into this RfAr because there has as yet been no retraction or apology. |
|||
[[User:Jguk]] has declined numerous requests to withdraw the RfC, and opposed closing it despite a consensus that it served no proper purpose. [[User:Jtdirl]] declined to withdraw his certification and has made no response to my polite requests. |
|||
As to the NPOV dispute itself, I ask the ArbCom to review the record of the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles]] and determine whether this properly established a substantial sentiment (a majority opposing prefixed [[Style (manner of address)|styles]]) which does not require an arbitrarily large (75-80%) consensus in order to contest the prefixation of styles in biographical articles, such as referring to [[Pope Benedict XVI]] as “His Holiness” or [[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom]] as “Her Majesty”. |
|||
[[User:Whig|Whig]] 12:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
====Reply to Jtdirl==== |
|||
It is improper for Jtdirl to suggest that I have been in any way associated with doctoring his or anyone's remarks. While I regret that this RfAr has opened another forum for Jtdirl to allege deception on my part, I have not misrepresented or "defamed" him. A record of the correspondence that he protests is archived at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles/Vote Corralling]]. [[User:Whig|Whig]] 18:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
====Reply to Mackensen==== |
|||
My opposition to prefixed styles was crystally clear from the foregoing discussion on [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)]] and prior to that on [[Talk:Pope Benedict XVI]]. There has never been "duplicity" on my part. [[User:Whig|Whig]] 18:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by jguk=== |
|||
I have declined to close the RfC as there is no acceptance by Whig that, in retrospect, the poll he ran on prefixed style, was not suitable to the circumstances, and there was no acceptance of the comments made by a large number of people on his behaviour. Until that happens, the issues that gave rise to the RfC can't be said to be resolved. |
|||
Mind you, I'm not aware what he means by closing the RfC anyway - as far as I was aware certified RfCs never get deleted - all that happens is that people no longer choose to edit them, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 13:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
I have now seen Whig continue to promote the voting system that has caused so many problems and continue to edit as if his proposal obtained the consensus that it did not. These were the points complained of. It's clear that Whig's RfC should not be treated as resolved. However, at present, I think it is a dispute that should remain at RfC stage, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 16:50, 28 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
===Statement by jtdirl=== |
|||
I have declined to engage in any correspondence with Whig, nor do I intend do, given that he refused to withdraw an allegation that I was attempting to "corral" votes (by which he meant rig his ridiculous poll) even though it was untrue and was defamation. Many people clearly expressed their votes in the vote by writing ''first and only choice'' for their only preference. I pointed to those people ''openly their talk pages'', not secretly in emails, that Whig's discredited voting system registered both positive and negative votes, with how much hostility recorded against the options mattering as much as how much support. By not recording their opposition, they were unintentionally helping those options they clearly opposed. As the users in question seemed to base their votes on the principles of [[First Past the Post]] in which one votes for one option alone, I pointed out that in multiple choice elections people can vote per perference, or can tactically (a standard fact: hundreds of millions of people wordwide vote tactically in elections!) However, as I pointed out tactical voting has negatives as well as positives, and can backfire. (People used to multiple choice elections under, for example [[Proportional Representation]] know those facts automatically. Those unused to such elections evidently don't, so as a political scientist I pointed out the facts of how such systems work.) I left it ''completely'' up to them to decide (a) if they wanted to express their full preferences, and (b) what criteria they would choose to use, if they decided to express full preferences. |
|||
For that, I was subjected to continuous abuse by Whig, including lies about trying to rig his ridiculous vote. It got so bad that [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] intervened to defend me and urged Whig to stop.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Whig#.22Vote_corralling.22_discussion] Whig continues to make snide remarks about supposed attempts to "rig" his beloved vote (the results of which, through not based on a consensus, he tried unilaterally to enforce, to the fury of hosts of people). |
|||
In view of that, I do not intend to have anything to do with Whig, and certainly not reply to his requests to withdraw the RfC, especially as he has refused to accept in the RfC that his vote was not best practice, that it caused confusion and did not produce a consensus. His principle response has been to blame everyone else for ''his'' debacle. Far from making friends and influencing people, his behaviour (including adopting a 'you better ratify my decision or else' tone, by claiming that a lack of consensus on the proposed new rules would overturn the old rules anyway, so the choice was ''his'' rules or a free-for-all in which he and Lulu would bulldoze their demands through page by page anyway!) so infuriated people that people previously supportive of him, or his ratification, withdrew their support in disgust. <font color="#006666">'''Fear'''<font color="#FF6600">'''''ÉIREANN'''''[[Image:Ireland flag large.png|25px]]\<font color=blue><sup>[[user_talk:Jtdirl|(talk)]]</sup><font color=black> 16:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:''See below. Statement by Mackensen.'' It appears that Lulu, as usual, has doctored something to suit himself, this time my statement here. Whether he liked it or not, it was ''my'' statement and the Rfa team have a right to read it as ''I write it''. This sort of behaviour by Lulu and Whig, in removing things they don't like from pages (initially [[Style (manner of address)|styles]]), against the will of others, has been the whole problem. Ironically, while seeing fit to doctor a statement here, Lulu had no problem with launching a personal attack on Jguk on his user page, and then setting up a phoney ''this page is protected'' message to stop other users removing his attack on Jguk. Maybe you see now why Jguk, I and many other users are so fed up to the back teeth of the behaviour of Whig and Lulu and why Jguk proposed an RfC in both gentlemen. <font color="#006666">'''Fear'''<font color="#FF6600">'''''ÉIREANN'''''[[Image:Ireland flag large.png|25px]]\<font color=blue><sup>[[user_talk:Jtdirl|(talk)]]</sup><font color=black> 18:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
'''removed other people's comments'''. I know you don't like obeying Wikipedia rules, guys, but statements by a user are supposed to be just statements by a user, not, talk pages.''' |
|||
=== Statement by [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] === |
|||
There is no question whatsoever that Jguk, largely egged on by Jtdirl, and with support of a few other particularly fervent fans of using styles, have abused the RfC process (as well as creating spurious VfDs and other administrative ploys). Their misuse of administrative procedures is intended solely to intimidate those who disagree with them on a NPOV issue; in no case was any actual dispute identified, let alone any attempts to resolve it. |
|||
That said, this RfAr similarly oversteps proper administrative usage. The parties to this RfAr acted inappropriately and rudely (boorishly even). But the proper remedy for this bad faith is not to further the cycle of spurious administrative procedures, but to ignore them, let them cool down, and all involved and interested parties work on pages unrelated to the NPOV dispute that started the acrimony. |
|||
I do confess that Jtdirl deciding to use this very RfAr to start a ''new round of personal attacks'' comes close to justifying its existence (I removed the attack). But nonetheless, as childishly as he is behaving, it does not rise to the level of arbitration. |
|||
While I nonetheless believe this RfAr is excessive, I '''strongly''' urge Jtdirl to read [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] rather than carry on personal attacks, even in his own response to an RfAr against him. I would note particularly that: |
|||
:''Many Wikipedians [[Wikipedia:remove personal attacks|remove personal attacks]] on sight. Users have been [[Wikipedia:Banning policy|banned]] for repeatedly engaging in them.''. |
|||
It is true that [[Wikipedia:remove personal attacks]] is only a guideline, not policy; but I still feel it is appropriate to '''exclude Jtdirl's personal attacks on me''' from this RfAr. The truth is, I quite intended to simply ignore all further administrative silliness. Then seeing Jtdirl's newest personal attack on me, right in an RfAr against him (in which I was not even initially ''mentioned''), indeed probably provoked more reaction than I should have allowed (i.e. I added this statement). [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] |
|||
=== Statement by Mackensen === |
|||
I ''was'' on a much-needed wiki-vacation, but I can't ignore this. I am somewhat surprised that this case exists in the first place, and even more surprised that I have been named a co-respondent. It is true that I called Whig's actions duplicitous, and I stand by that statement. He did not indicate, before conducting the "survey," that he was personally anti-style, and I believe that the "survey" was biased against styles. I was not aware that a single personal attack (if it qualifies as such) merits inclusion in an arbitration case. I also doubt very much that endorsing an RfC, which I did and do not believe to be frivolous, is a matter for the committee. |
|||
As a further note, [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] deleted part of Jtdirl's statement on this page because he disagreed with it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=14364240&oldid=14364192]. I've never heard of such behavior. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 17:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:It's true that I deleted a nasty personal attack on me, per WP guidelines. The fact that Jtdirl would defend himself by writing more PAs doesn't speak highly; but I still don't think this RfAr is necessary. [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] 17:52, 2005 May 28 (UTC) |
|||
<!--Add additional statements if necessary, for each directly involved user. Comments by users outside the dispute go on the talk page.--> |
|||
===Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)=== |
|||
* Reject I suggest taking a break, editing some articles [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 15:22, May 28, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Reject''' - too content-centric to make for a reasonable case. -- [[User:Grunt|Grun]][[User talk:Grunt|t]] [[European Union|{{User:Grunt/euflag}}]] 17:52, 2005 May 28 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Reject''', per Grunt and Fred. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 03:05, 29 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
* Reject [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt]] 15:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
*Reject - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 10:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==[[User:KaintheScion]], [[User:ElKabong]], and all associated sockpuppets== |
==[[User:KaintheScion]], [[User:ElKabong]], and all associated sockpuppets== |
Revision as of 11:58, 30 May 2005
The last step of dispute resolution is a request for 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.
The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.
0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arb Com member votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.
This is not a page for discussion, and arbitrators may summarily remove discussion without comment.
- Arbitration policy
- Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
- Developer help needed
- Arbitration template
- Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents
Current requests
Template
Involved parties
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
If not, then explain why that would be fruitless
Statement by party 1
Please limit your statement to 500 words
Statement by party 2
Please limit your statement to 500 words
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)
User:Zivinbudas
Involved parties
Halibutt is bringing this case against Zivinbudas, on charges that he has failed repeatedly to abide by the three-revert rule, despite numerous warnings and blocks imposed on him as an effect of his actions. In addition, he frequently resorts to personal attacks and continues to wage revert wars. Zivinbudas has very strong Lithuanian nationalist feelings which he has been aggressively airing at most pages involved. Despite his views on the history of Lithuania being very extreme, and his failure to provide any sources backing them, he fails to gain consensus before making substantial changes to disputed articles, even if asked. Finally, he often bypasses the rules of Wikipedia and temporary bans on his account by logging out and continuing the destructive actions as an anonymous user. It is to be noted, that during his month-long stay in Wikipedia, Zivinbudas did not start a single article. All in all, Zivinbudas is constantly in conflict with both the rules and the principles of this encyclopedia.
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Zivinbudas has been asked several times to be more cooperative and less aggresive, both on his talk page and on the talk pages of the respective articles. In most cases to no effect. He was also reported in the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR several times for violation of three revert rule (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Finally, following his revert war on Indo-European languages a RfC process was started, of which Zivinbudas was notified. Yet, the only response was vandalisation of the RfC page by an anonymous user from the same IP range he has been frequently using ([5], [6], [7]).
After the failure of that process due to lack of cooperation from the side of Zivinbudas, it is clear that filing a request for mediation would be equally fruitless.
Statement by Halibutt
There is no question whatsoever, that Zivinbudas has been engaged in disrupting Wikipedia for over a month now. Although many of his edits are POV and even offensive, we were all hoping that with time he will learn the proper conduct and behaviour. However, this did not happen so far and there is little chance it will change in the future. Currently a large number of articles is blocked solely because of his behaviour (among others the pages on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Lithuania, Partitions of Poland, Vilnius, Demographics of Lithuania and Vilnius region). Both the average users and admins have to waste a lot of time to watch his edits, correct them and then see him revert the corrections or offend them seriously. In my opinion, this user is simply unable to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. Halibutt 03:56, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Statement by Piotrus
I support Halibutt's statement entirely. Further, I'd like to add that many, many hours have been wasted on reverthing Zvinbudas/trying to reason with him/preparing those requests/etc. Not only my, but Halibutts and others involved time has been wasted - the time, which I, for example, could use to prepare at least one more FA. Thus I move for
- 1) right to revert Zvinbudas, his future aliases and proxies as normal vandal (i.e. without regard for 3RR) until the time he sufficiently proves to us he is no longer a vandal
- 2) month (or longer) IP range ban on a range Zvinbudas is commonly using as a way to avoid temporary bans on his username, beacuse it is clear from his past behaviour that simply banning his username will cause him to return to us as anon, and he will continue his behaviour thus causing the vandalisation of the page's history in a prolonged revert wars. As it has been brought to admin's attention, the IP range Zvinbudas uses is large and would affect many Lithuanian users, however I think that whatever positive contributions anons from that range did (and I have yet to see any), time wasted by regular users on dealing with Zvinbudas, and edit opportunity wasted by protection of so many pages, by which regular users and anons alike are affected, greatly outweights the costs of such an action. Such a range ban should be extended whenever Zvinbudas returns vandalising again. If possible, a special msg for the IPs on that range should be prepared, explaining the reasons for this range ban and inviting anons to register.
In the end, I'd like to note that - with a few negligable points exceptions - not a single user has supported Zvinbudas revisions of history, nor has he provided a single source for his versions. This is cleary a case of one evidently mistaken and uncooperative user against the broad community, and I hope the final decision of the arbitrators will reflect the needs of Wikipedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Statement by DeirYassin
User Zivinbudas as well have added some useful information and corrections of mistakes to various Lithuania-related articles (example Klaipeda region http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Klaipeda_Region&diff=14179407&oldid=13997997 ). Also where revert wars happened, he in most places written interesting historical information in the talk pages which weren't known to me, but as I checked, were true; as he studies history, and there are not many Lithuanians able to contribute here and knowing these things well, I think he is useful. I agree that sometimes he makes an article POV, but sometimes that article is POV of other side at the start (due to lack of Lithuanian editors many articles have Polish, Belorussian and other POVs about Lithuanian history). However, such disputed can be resolved, as they were resolved on Talk:Confederation for example. Although insults and lack of reasoning - a problem, but I think it got better with time, at start it was mostly insults, while now there is more reasoning I think, facts and information, as well explainings if he does reverts. The problem with some unexplained reverts (fewer of them now though) comes from fact that certain information would not be doubted in Lithuania, therefore for some it might seem even "wrong" that someone doubts it and requests more information, especially immidietly after coming to wikipedia. And, there is a real problem with Poles deleting Lithuanian names (which Zivinbudas and I add in brackets together with e.g. German names which are already added there) of cities in Poland even if they used to have Lithuanian majority and such (example: Goldap), and even if they are very different from Polish ones and etc. while Poles at the same time adds Polish names to cities of Belarus, Ukraine, Kaliningrad Oblast, Lithuania, Latvia, etc. even to those cities where Poles never made even significant minority (examples: Panevežys, Siauliai, Jelgava, Kaliningrad); current arguements for that are like "there are more Poles who speaks English so more historical English sites using Polish names", which might make it seem to some that these people thinks of Lithuanian language as lesser;This is just an example of a thing which might annoy Lithuanian and I think things like this one is what causes Zivinbudas to write for example anti-Polish sentiments and push more Lithuanian POV as a 'retalliation'. Not saying that such retalliating is good, but I think it changes with time. DeirYassin 05:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
- I am afraid the Talk:Confederation is far from resolved. Zvinbudas is ignoring both my proposed compromise, and my request for sources, and thus the relevant pages stay protected, while he moved on to vandalise new pages in the past 3 days since the Talk:Confederation was active. Yes, he has corrected a few minor errors, but his positive contributions pale comapred to the amount of fictional (not backed by any source!) ideas (I'd estimate the controversial inserts are at least 90% of info he adds), not to mention that most of his time is spend on revert wars, not meaningful contribution to articles or talk. I really wish he was a more reasonable user like you, unfortunately, this is not the case. Besides, why won't he came defend here himself? Of course, if he does come here, we are bound to hear some lithuanian insults or - if we are lucky - his rant about Polish administrators conspiracy to thwart him... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
- I'm afraid his behaviour whether a month ago or today is way from anything acceptable. He still uses anonymous access to circumvent blocks and most of his activity is limited to aggresively starting new edit wars (much of which he does anonymously). Also I don't think it's really a matter of Polish versus Lithuanian POV, but rather his way of conduct, as all the other Poles and Lithuanians on Wikipedia get along well and are able to collaborate fruitfully. In fact his attempts to conflict Poles and Lithuanians (e.g. when he signs his statements with different signatures, pretending that he is "many Lithuanians") are VERY harmful. He put many articles at least a month backwards but what's worse he tied up lots of otherwise valuable wp resources, and I doubt if his input is worth it. His conflicts on wp are not limited to Lithuanian/Polish issues and his contributions are minor, controversial and dubious, as he rarely cares to support his claims with any sources. (why do you think he studies history, btw ?). In summary: I don't see any progress in his behaviour or it's too slow to be noticed. Wojsyl 07:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
- Signing with different names only happened at the start, when he first came to Wikipedia and did not know how to register a username presumably and how to sign. Once he registered a username (Zivinbudas), he signs everything with this username; recently even when he writes something to talk page when he forgets to login he later logs in to resign it as Zivinbudas. And he told me that he studies history. DeirYassin 08:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Comment
Because of Zivinbudas' breaking of the 3RR on four pages in one day, he is now blocked for several days by User:Noel. Details of the case are available here. Therefore it might take some time for him to reply (if...). I believe it would be fair to ask the ArbComm to take that into consideration. Halibutt 09:22, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)
- Accept. RfC is of concern. Ambi 11:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
User:KaintheScion, User:ElKabong, and all associated sockpuppets
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
I advised Kain on all 3 talk pages suspected to belong to him and his sockpuppets. I have discussed the issue with User:SlimVirgin, User:Zscout370, and User:Jayjg, and all agreed to assist with the case if the behavior continues, which it has.
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
Numerous users have discussed the issue with this user on his Talk pages. See User talk:KaintheScion and User talk:ElKabong. He has been warned multiple times to refrain from personal attacks and 3RR violations but has not done so. Also, a RFC was attempted. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KaintheScion. No change in behavior was observed as a result. Multiple 24-hour blocks have also been imposed for 3RR violation.
Statement by Firebug
This user's editing habits are extremely problematic. He has little regard for the 3RR, and has been blocked on several occasions for this. He routinely engages in personal attacks on other users in edit summaries and on Talk pages. He has been advised multiple times on his User Talk pages that this is a violation of Wikipedia policy, but continues to do so. He is fond of calling other users "liars" and "vandals" and has accused multiple editors and administrators of bad faith and POV-pushing with no justification. He has made false reports of vandalism on WP:VIP when users made edits he disagreed with. A look at his contributions show that nearly half of them contain insults or obscenities in the edit summaries. Equally problematic, this user utilizes abusive sockpuppets. A check run by User:David Gerard indicates that User:KaintheScion and User:ElKabong are one and the same individual. I strongly suspect, based on editing habits, that User:Enviroknot is a sockpuppet as well.
Statement by SlimVirgin
ElKabong (talk · contribs) (aka Enviroknot (talk · contribs), KaintheScion (talk · contribs)) and 66.69.141.11 (talk · contribs) has caused considerable disruption with his personal attacks on article and user talk pages, and his editing-by-revert. Since May 7, the three user names and the IP address have jointly been blocked three times for 3RR, once for vandalism, once for block evasion, and once for violation of the sockpuppet policy. During the blocks, the personal attacks, often highly abusive, continue by e-mail, directed at the admin who blocked the account.
ElKabong often edits the same pages as Yuber, and has subjected him to personal attacks, including calling him a "lying, Islamist f***" at Talk:Islamofascism. [11] Two examples of personal attacks on my talk page from ElKabong are "Screw you, LIAR" [12] and "ElKabong NOT KaintheScion get it f***ing right you idiot." [13]
Regarding Environknot, I recently blocked User:66.69.141.11 for evading a block by posting while ElKabong was blocked, as the pattern of edits strongly suggested they were the same person. I received an e-mail in response to this block from a Cranston Snord, with the e-mail address "environknot at ..." and the same 66.69.141.11 IP address. This address resolves to the University of Houston, Texas; the IP address of the first (known) sockpuppet of this user, KaintheScion, also resolves to Houston, Texas.
If the committee decides to take this case, a tempban from editing articles related to the Middle East or Islam would alleviate the disruption. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:20, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Statement by Zscout370
My issue with Kain/El is that he likes to attack me by using my scouting past. He does so with his edit summaries and also by vandalizing my user page. This edit, [14], he added this to my talk page: "A Scout is supposed to be TRUSTWORTHY. It's a pity you are not." He has done that, mainly since, along with Firebug and SlimVirgin, keep on adding in evidence that KaintheScion was a sockpuppet of ElKabong. When he saw that I reverted his edit ([15]), he reverted back and used this edit summary: "Scouts are supposed to be TRUSTWORTHY, Zscout. They should rip that badge off your chest." I believe his personal attacks are getting way to much for any Wikipedian to bear, so that is why I am supporting Firebug and SlimVirgin in building this case to you all. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Statement by Jayjg
User ElKabong/KaintheScion has engaged in a series of needless personal attacks, often laced with profanity, against both people with whom he disagrees on article content, and any admins who point out that he is using sockpuppets. I have made a number of attempts to convince him to stop this behaviour ( [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]), trying to use self-interest to motivate him. However, my attempts were met with more invective and justifications for his behaviour ([21] [22] [23] [24]). I think this editor's actions indicate severe and continuing policy violations that warrant a rapid appraisal by ArbCom. Jayjg (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Statement by Enviroknot
I will take the accusations made against me one at a time, since it is obvious that these users are not interested in the betterment of Wikipedia but in pursuing some personal/political agendas.
They completely ignore Wikipedia policy on the matter, particularly this portion, and instead have added me to their list of supposed sockpuppets for the "crime" of not agreeing with them:
Keep in mind there can be multiple users who are driven to start participating in Wikipedia for the same reason, particularly in controversial areas such as articles about the conflict in the Middle East, cult figures, or Wikipedia:Votes for deletion."
Firebug's statement that I am a sockpuppet is ridiculous on its face, but that has not stopped this user from making these attacks. Further, without even bothering to message me, without bothering to ask me a single question, and without any evidence, he defaced my user page with a sockpuppet template.
Likewise with Yuber, who made the initial accusation that I was a sockpuppet; I believe that this has nothing to do with me, and everything to do with the fact that Yuber was attempting to gain an advantage in content dispute with his false allegation. Anything more I would say on Yuber would be material for an RFC of its own; the basics regarding Yuber's behavior are well spelled out in the KaintheScion RFC, including comments which Jayjg has made about Yuber's substandard behavior.
- Additional: regarding this edit, it appears that Yuber is reaching. I ran a search on "Yhulkop" the user, intending to warn them of this RFAr, and the search came up blank. Who are they, and what do they have to do with this matter?
- Additional 2: it appears that garnering this sort of attention from Yuber is very easy.
As for Slimvirgin, her first email to me was an abusive accusation that I am one of these other two users, which I find disheartening. A quick look back in her edit summaries showed me that she has been hounding these two users for some time. The same seems to be true for a number of users, particularly after looking at ElKabong's page. I cannot believe that there is not something that these users are doing that is goading ElKabong to continue.
As for ZScout, I left a message on his user page when he started jumping in on Yuber's bandwagon, accusing me of being a sockpuppet. His response was to post a message telling me to weigh in on the KaintheScion RFC; after reading the RFC, it was clear to me that it had not been initiated in good faith, so I saw no point in doing so.
Regarding Jayjg, while I believe he meant well, his choice of wording in his messages to these two users is very poor; he essentially states that even if they have valid complaints, their expressing of the complaints is against Wikipedia policy. It appears that the mere expression of belief that Admins or Editors are behaving in bad faith is being considered a "personal attack" while similar comments by the others are not, and this is definitely a double standard.
In fact, the only editor who I would say has behaved with decorum in these incidents (after reading KaintheScion and ElKabong's comment pages) is Knowledge Seeker.
The quickness with which these users accused me of being a sockpuppet of these individuals indicates to me that they are pursuing some hidden agenda; whether it is simply the pushing of a POV on certain articles, or whether it is something larger, I cannot say as I do not have enough information.
Incidentally, my IP address comes from Roadrunner, that is, Time Warner. I'm sure I need not inform you that they hand out their IP addresses by DHCP, nor do I need to point out precisely how large a user base they have. Enviroknot
- At this point I would also like to register my disgust with the conspirators who feel they have some right to deface my user page with no evidence, and especially my disgust with Yuber who, far from having "tried to cooperate and compromise", has a long history of creating revert wars as well as getting himself banned for 3RR violations thereby.
- See Also: Statement by Jayjg regarding Yuber in Talk:Kharaj What, yet another article in which he can continually delete well-sourced information that doesn't agree with his POV, while simultaneously making claims of his own which simply don't match the sources provided? That's an appealing thought. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- See Also: Statement by Yuber in Talk:Saudi Arabia, clearly false Grace Note sees it my way. I was the one who originally added the mutaween section!!!! Then Kain came here and changed it to found in MOST muslim nations. I told him that's totally false and he got into an edit war with me. I told him only Nigeria, Iran, and Saudi have religious police and he still wouldn't believe me.Yuber(talk) 21:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC) Factually, the Mutaween section in Saudi Arabia was created by ElKabong 1, and then Yuber immediately attempted to start a Revert War against its existence 12, following by reverting every edit made to the entry. After his edit wars had caused the page to be protected, Yuber vanished; after admin Nixie had unprotected the page, Yuber returned the following day and immediately began making the controversial edits again, leading to more edit wars.
- I have no agreement with the language ElKabong was using, but Yuber's behavior is CLEARLY not in good faith and the behavior of the admins in the matter did nothing to help the situation, as they behaved in a manner as to indicate they were taking Yuber's side. Enviroknot 03:49, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Statement by ElKabong
I think this message I received today says it all.
You ought to cut a deal with this guys, and do it very quickly, or this will be the end of your time on Wikipedia. Arbitration is a rigged game: you play, you lose. I don't know whether you care or not, but I just wanted to give you that bit of advice. Everyking 05:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
If it's a rigged game, and it obviously is, there's no point in playing. And as long as a bunch of POV-pushing Islamists and power-mad Admins are persecuting me, there's no point in being here. You can all GFYS.
Incidentally, there IS no sockpuppetry going on, though I'm sure David Gerard will keep lying out his ass regarding that.
I'm removing the sockpuppetry bullshit from Enviroknot's page. It has no business being there. Firebug and Mel Etitis, fuck you for putting it on an innocent user's page.
Statement by Yuber
ElKabong/Enviroknot/KaintheScion has been waging a "war" against Islam-related articles over the past few weeks with many different sockpuppets. I have tried to cooperate and compromise with him on several articles but he has only responded with personal attacks and ramblings about how I am an Islamist. Please see the RFC for his sockpuppet KaintheScion here [25]. I feel there is nothing left for me to say as the people that have made statements in this request have basically covered everything. That RFC provides even more evidence.Yuber(talk) 03:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/1/0)
- Accept; personal attack injunction and/or injunction on editing outside of case pages likely. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:55, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
- Accept, per Grunt. Ambi 00:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- Recuse for now - I have a pile of evidence to add on the sockpuppetry and the nice email I've been receiving - David Gerard 10:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- For now, see [26] and [27]. In short: ElKabong = KaintheScion = Enviroknot = "Cranston Snord" = the IPs using these names - David Gerard 10:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
- Accept -- sannse (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- Accept Fred Bauder 02:21, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Accept ➥the Epopt 15:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Involved parties
Netoholic is bringing this case against Cantus, on charges that he's failed repeatedly to abide by a previous ruling against him, continues to revert war, fails to gain consensus before making widespread changes, has performed vandalism, has misused anonymous proxies to bypass restrictions placed on him, fails to input edit summaries (particularly when his edits represent major changes), and is generally a persistent disruption to this project.
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Cantus - notified on Talk page
- Netoholic - I am aware. -- Netoholic @ 08:05, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
- I'll notify netoholic's mentors too. Kim Bruning 09:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
- I've seen it. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:54, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus (Aug 2004 case)
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus vs. Guanaco#Remedies (Nov 2004 case)
- request on his talk to use edit summaries (which Cantus blanked immediately)
Statement by Netoholic
While I don't look forward to or enjoy bringing this case, I feel it is necessary in the best interests of the project's editors. I would say "the project", but frankly it is the constant stress and rework required where Cantus is concerned which is the most damaging aspect. This user has learned nothing since his previous Arbitration involvement.
- Cantus has broken his revert parole on numberous occasions and has been given blocks of various lengths (Block log). These do absolutely noting to help him avoid the problems leading up to revert wars. After a block, his usual first actions are to re-revert each and every change. Please note this recent report where hs is shown to have broken the parole four times in one day [28]
- Wherever Cantus is in disagreement over a page, "slow revert wars" often start. No meaningful dialogue is happening, but Cantus persists in reverting at the rate of about once a day.
- When blocked, or to avoid breaking his parole, Cantus has employed anonymous proxies to evade detection. For example, the histories of "Developed country" and "Template:Europe" show IP addresses which are reverting to Cantus' preferred version. In Jan 2005, Cantus employed anon proxies to edit war with Gzornenplatz [41].
- 200.83.181.18 (talk · contribs), 200.83.186.180 (talk · contribs), and 220.110.164.82 (talk · contribs) have recently been used to perform edits which revert directly to Cantus' prefered versions.
- Cantus fails frequently to submit edit summaries (contribs). Many of these represent reverts or major changes which were not noted.
- On May 8/9, Cantus made a change to a very commonly used template (see Template talk:Infobox Biography#Death information). Before gathering further opinion, he implemented that change. At first, the change was made just to the template, but that broke all the articles. After User:PRiis fixed the template back, Cantus reverted the template to his version, and proceeded to make an alteration to about 250 articles without leaving edit summaries. This was all done before even 24 hours had passed since he first made his proposal.
- Cantus vandalized User:Netoholic's user page [42]
- Cantus' user page (as of today) has a misleading message indicating he is no longer with the project [43], but this is far from the truth.
I ask the Arbitrators to accept this case so that his status can be corrected as necessary. I also ask that an immediate injunction be placed, banning Cantus from editing any pages except his user space and pages related to this case. -- Netoholic @ 08:05, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
- To Ambi
- I'm intentionally limiting my evidence to occurences after the last Arbitration case involving him. The patterns are the same as noted twice before in Arb cases, so I'm not sure what sort of further dispute resolution is recommended by you. -- Netoholic @ 09:19, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
Statement by party 2
Ok, so now that you've been blocked from editing the Wikipedia and Template namespace, you feel so shitty that you want everybody else to suffer from your same punishment? I mean, bringing stuff from four months ago as evidence and declaring previous ArbCom rulings as steps in dispute resolution? This is all really sad, and I await for the arbitrators' quick dismissal of this baseless request. —Cantus…☎ 08:33, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/3/2/0)
- Reject. Please pursue other avenues of dispute resolution first - most of these are either not recent (and thus have been dealt with by prior cases) or are too minor to stand on their own. Ambi 08:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
- This could be a dispute of substance. Before accepting or rejecting, I'd like to hear the opinion of Netoholic's mentors on whether it seems not a bad idea. Cantus should also note that Netoholic is not presently restricted in the manner described - David Gerard 11:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
- [Now] Accept. Note that Cantus has violated his revert parole again and is currently on a 24 hour block (username and IP) - David Gerard 08:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- Recuse for obvious reasons. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:51, 2005 May 14 (UTC)
- Accept. -- sannse (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
- Recuse, due to my current involvement as Netoholic's mentor. →Raul654 22:42, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Reject - A clarification request seems more appropriate. If such a request were made, then I'd suggest that admins be more willing to impose week long blocks for serial episodes of one-revert-per-day behavior. --mav
- Reject ➥the Epopt 23:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- Accept to consider slow revert wars Fred Bauder 10:58, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Requests for Clarification
If you need to clarify the precise meaning of a previous decision of the Arbitration Committee, your request should go here.