Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | WLU-Mystar

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Note - I added some headings as placeholders for wikilinks, if these need to be altered, or have been altered, please let me know so I can fix the wikilinks. Thanks, WLU 18:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

1 Motions and requests by the parties
- 1.1 Motion/request by Mystar
- 1.2 WLU
  - 1.2.1 Neither of us should edit Terry Goodkind
2 Proposed agreement
- 2.1 Template
- 2.2 Template
3 Proposed temporary injunctions
4 Questions to the parties
5 Proposed final decision

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Motion/request by Mystar

I have a wonderful suggestion, motion, and request for settling the Goodkind conflict in an easy manageable manor. Seeing as how WLU has such stated disdain for Goodkind, has chosen to call Goodkind silly names and labels on WLU's user page, And how by WLU's own admission has not read Goodkind's works and states that she/he would not like them if she/he did read them, I have a wonderful suggestion.

WLU refrains from editing any pages having to do with anything Goodkind. Which would include past works and any future works by Goodkind. In turn I will refrain from editing the Lupus pages, Cats claw, Untomatosa(sp) at all. I will refrain from editing or commenting on them. This would serve several proposes. As WLU has indicated she/he is worried about editing conflicts on thus pages, and as WLU has such a stated vehement distaste for Goodkind. It would also serve to eliminate the conflict. As WLU has already so stated with Runch and Omni on the SOT wiki project, WLU can be assured that things don’t get placed that are not proper.

It really is a win-win for all parties involved! Mystar 19:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

WLU: Would you be willing to agree to this? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, apparently not. Too bad. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Just because WLU wishes to toss the baby out with the bath water doesn't mean this agreement should go down the tubes. As I said, I'm more than willing to forgo any of the pages WLU has stated. BUT we cannot allow one user to force a policy based on her/his dislike for me or Goodkind. It really is a matter of control. If WLU cannot control the Goodkind page, then WLU wants to maek sure that I have no ability to edit it. ~sighs~ how petty is that. Mystar 21:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WLU

My ideal scenario for the outcome of the arbitration case (with the above in mind) is as follows:

WLU is barred from editing any pages related to the Sword of Truth novel series, including novel pages, characters, items, etc. If he does so, he should be blocked.
Mystar is barred from editing any pages from this date forward which WLU has edited within the past week. (Allows for accidental edits to the same page, which could happen - pages where I am a frequent editor will be obvious from the history)
Both Mystar and WLU are barred from editing the Terry Goodkind page.

I am quite willing to agree to never edit The Sword of Truth page proper, or any of the novel pages ever again (basically a continuation of my past actions as I haven't touched any of the pages for months as far as I remember).
I would prefer to be able to 'keep' at minimum the Malazan Book of the Fallen pages in 'exchange' for the Sword of Truth pages. (and A Song of Ice and Fire, the Barbara Hambly page, the Uncaria tomentosa page and the Lupus erythematosus page would be nice as well, but I acknowledge their greater potential for conflict).

[edit] Neither of us should edit Terry Goodkind

I do not agree to a unilateral block of the Terry Goodkind biopage. That is, I do not agree to being blocked from the Terry Goodkind page if Mystar is still allowed to edit that page. Considering Mystar's actions on the Terry Goodkind page on the recent past as well as the months of July to September 2006 (see here for some examples, all taken from the Terry Goodkind talk page), I believe either one of us being able to edit the page is begging for one or both of us to be blocked on an ongoing basis. Regards to the TG biopage, I think Runch and Omnilord (or others) acting as proxies is a far better solution than allowing Mystar (and myself) to edit the page directly. If I apparently dislike Goodkind too much to edit the page, Mystar is too close. Should Dick Cheney be allowed to edit George W. Bush's biopage?
I also consider Mystar's implied insult of my ability to remain NPOV absurd, particularly considering the failure to provide a single diff which demonstrates any vandalism on my part of Terry Goodkind's page proper. Admitting to disliking something or someone does not mean I am incapable of retaining NOPV. If anything, I believe I have demonstrated a remarkable degree of NPOV editing considering my feelings on Mr. Goodkind and his works.

I am completely unwilling to budge regarding the Terry Goodkind page. I think either of us being able to edit that page will inevitably cause conflicts. WLU 20:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Case in point, neither one of us can resist editing. Though these ones are both fine, as time passes I can see incredible potential for future conflict. Already the itch is there to fix the webarchive link, the capitalization and fact tag. WLU 20:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  - And given the dispute over the external links, I can't see this set of edits as anything but aggravating and provocative. And I can give detailed reasons why (the bookstandard link has less information, why is it on the page when the content is identical but of poorer quality to the comingsoon.com link). This is the kind of thing that will lead to conflicts, as I am incredibly tempted to rever the article to the version which uses fewer external links as references, and Mystar will inevitably revert back, and then it's an edit war and we'll both have reasons and it'll never get resolved. And this is aggravating and provocative as well one, since it is stolen from my user page less than two hours after I created it and contains an obvious (to me) cheapshot (which will doubtless be met with an 'aw shucks I don't know what you're talking about'). I would prefer a maximum of separation because already, the case isn't even closed and it's already starting again. WLU 20:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes jpgordon too bad indeed! We see here how unwilling the other party is to have it any other way then her/his own way. i.e. "if I can't edit Goodkind then I refuse to allow mystar too! Keep both of us away..." ~SIGHS~ Can we please grow up and act like rational adults here? Please! A relatively simply solution that would settle all the conflict! Again I state with WLU's greatly displayed disdain of Goodkind, it is a wish choice to have WLU refrain from editing these pages. After all, it is not me who was going about calling Goodkind a moron etc. diff available if needed. This is part and parcel to the whole owning of pages issue. WLU cannot let it go.

As I have so stated it was I who started the project. User Runch, Omni and many more are all on board with it. Ask Runch, it was my idea to start the project, and I asked him to spearhead it rather than me, so that WLU would not throw a fit. And raise a stink. The real issue isn't that WLU wants to edit the Goodkind page; it is that WLU wishes to keep me from editing it in any form. As I stated I'm more than willing to stay away from any pages WLU wants to keep to her/his self other than the Goodkind. Sword of Truth pages. I am more than happy to never edit any ASOIAF, malazonthingy, Lupus etc.

But as we see, it is WLU stating "Already the itch is there". This is not the statement a person makes who has any kind of restraint. We are working on the pages. Runch was at it yesterday and will be soon as well today. Again as Krill (I think it was) stated with al the myriad of article and pages out there WLU has no end of other pages to work on. Looking at WLU's user page history and statements with regard to Goodkind as a person and author, it is more conceivable to think it is WLU who should not be editing those pages. I'm not the one slandering any author, calling anyone names and posting negative things about people/Goodkind. That is what WLU has done, and now WLU wants to keep "me" from editing Goodkind, simply because it is a form of page ownership. It is that simple.

I'll stay away from any other pages WLU wants to keep other than the SOT, Goodkind pages. Easy, simple and ends all this conflict in one easy manor. Mystar 20:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok this is getting more than stupid! Clearly...I do mean clearly WLU has some serious issues. The problems is not me! The problem is WLU seems to think she/he owns these pages? WLU having just placed "Could you let Mystar know so he leaves the Terry Goodkind page alone? It's petty but it's wearing down my teeth. WLU 20:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)" clearly shows her/his problem is of a personal nature. WLU cannot mantain her/himself. As I stated the solution is easy, as I have laid out above. Mystar 21:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

They've both been a source of extensive conflict on the Terry Goodkind page. While Mystar is one of the founding members of the Sword of Truth Wikiproject he also has a huge conflict of interest (one of the biggest sources of conflict with myself, WLU and others) as he is a personal friend and follower of Terry Goodkind's, is the Head of the Official Terry Goodkind fanclub, his officially santioned fansite , Terry Goodkind's MySpace page, etc. WLU's and MyStar's edit are often is direct conflict with each of and I've seen both of them revert edits seeminly because they were made by the other. I can't see a fair way to both avoid conflict and remain fair without restricting both of them from editing the pages. Just my two cents. NeoFreak 21:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Mystar is one of the greatest sources of information for Terry Goodkind related material. He knows inside and out what is true and what is not. Mystar's relationship with Mr. Goodkind is only an asset to the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia because he can correct nonfactual information better than most. WLU has admitted to not knowing anything about, or even reading Goodkind's novels beyond the first one, yet they have consistently tried to edit the pages to sound negative on the sole reason that WLU does not like Goodkind's first book. Because Mystar is usually the first responder when someone enters incorrect information, WLU has taken it upon themself to attack Mystar's integrity at every chance.

Being the individual that introduced Mystar to Wikipedia when I noticed the Goodkind articles on Wikipedia were very lacking, and often contain drastically incorrect information, I got Mystar involved well over a year ago so that the integrity of the articles could be brought up from the muck to an acceptable or even exceptional level. However, this has been a very trying experience for anyone who has trying to make possitive contributions because of individuals such as WLU who's only editing purpose has been cited as being to shame and defame Goodkind.

This is the other reason why I involved mystar instead of just handling the article myself at the beginning. There is a group of people who are out to do nothing but create a slanderous (libel) image of Terry Goodkind in any way possible, and the potential of doing that is greatest on an open edit encyclopedia, like Wikipedia.

It is quite obvious what WLU is attempting to do. My gut is telling me WLU is trying a kamikaze at Mystar to remove him from the editing scene so others may slander and deface the articles at will. Take it or leave it. I've been dealing with slander vandals on too many sites for too long. I'm getting very sick of it, so much so that I have considered not using Wikipedia for anything, including reference lookup.

In this case, removing Mystar from editing privileges on the Terry Goodkind articles would be a huge mistake, and largely a loss to the entire community of Wikipedia readership. Facts would go by the way side in leu of opinionated references, such as the inchoatus blog. Omnilord 22:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please watch the personal attacks and assumption of bad faith on the parts of others unless you have proof otherwise. MyStar's edits you view as "correctional" others have viewed as biased and "protectional" soley of his friend Goodkind. I simply stated some facts, try not to interject your defamatory statments on others unless you have proof. NeoFreak 22:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the wrong section, but it's just easier to respond to and saves my preview some time. WLU
Mystar is not a reliable source - if he has referenced information it can be added by anyone with the reference, but insider information on the basis of a personal relationship is not a reliable source for information to be added to a biopage. I could say I've had an extensive correspondence with Mr. Goodkind and therefore I should get to add information as well on the basis of that relationship. There is no way of verifying claims like this, which is why they are barred from inclusion. Since it is not independently verifiable to all users, information such as this should not be included on the page. Mystar's personal knowledge of Mr. Goodkind's life can not be reflected on the Terry Goodkind page.

This is where all the confussion keeps coming up. Mystar is not a citable resource, but he can point out where something is wrong so that people know what needs to be corrected, or he can edit WITH a citable resource to correct the information that others would not even know is wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omnilord (talk • contribs).

His close relationship with Terry Goodkind places him in conflict of interest regards the biopage.
Mystar is free, on the basis of this arbitration outcome, to add to any and all of the Sword of Truth pages. At no point did I ever object to his right to do so. In fact, in response to Mystar's request, I made it very clear that I am quite willing to leave the SoT pages in his hands free from my interference
Is the current Terry Goodkind page slanderous? I don't think so, and it is the version I've been protecting from vandals for months.
What is 'positive' for dedicated fans can be 'fancruft', OR or POV for non-fans. In many ways, non-fans are better to decide if a contribution is biased or not, because they are not biased.

I have seen more not-fans having a negative bias than no bias. You mean individuals who are neutral on the whole issue of reading novels...I hope. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omnilord (talk • contribs).

Me 'kamakazi-ing' Mystar does not prevent other editors from protecting the page. Runch is still around, NeoFreak as well, both of whom are well capable of reverting vandalism and adding content, as can you, Omnilord - none are barred except myself and Mystar. Slander, libel, etc. will be removed. This is not a message board, purely negative and unsourced content will be removed. Inchoatus is not on any of the SoT pages, because of conscientious editors like yourself.

I don't have the time under normal circumstances to apply any meaningful amount of time to working on articles any more. If I did, there would be many more edits counted. As it stands, 10 hours out of my day are devoured by something called work, another 10 for sleep, and that leaves me 4 hours for "other." I haven't read a single book in 6 months. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omnilord (talk • contribs).

There is a complete lack of diffs showing me making any slanderous, libelous, pejorative or otherwise harmful edits to Terry Goodkind or any of the Sword of Truth pages. For all of my obvious statements of dislike towards all things 'SoTruthy', I've never dedicated time towards ruining any of the pages. I've always justified my contested changes to pages. I think that this shows the belief I'll go on a bender and destroying all the Terry Goodkind pages is unfounded. And even if I did, I would be blocked shortly after, and the changes can be easily reverted.

hense my not entering anything on the Evidence page. I don't have the unlimited amount of time to scronge two years of diffs on 20-some pages to find them. I know they are there, panning them out is another matter I just don't have time for.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omnilord (talk • contribs).

Whoever Mystar and Omnilord think I am off-wikipedia, I am not that person. You've never met me, you've never read my postings on a message board, you've never seen my IP attached to a comment on a message board, because I've never posted on any SoT, Goodkind or ASOIAF boards.
I invite Omnilord to scroll through my contributions and use count tools here and here to see - my contributions to SoT pages are minimal, a fraction of my total contributions. Let it go, I'm not out to destroy Goodkind on wikipedia.
Mystar is not barred from editing The Sword of Truth page, only Terry Goodkind, Lupus erythematosus, Uncaria tomentosa and Barbara Hambly, as am I.
A final note to Omnilord - looking through the pages as a result of the arbitration case, I realize that my interactions with you were probably far more aversive than I realized. For that you have my apologies, and I'll do my best to avod bugging in the future. I still think that you are a good, if inexperienced editor, and you have never let your appreciation of Goodkind or friendship with Mystar tip you to the point of incivility, hostility, personal attacks or otherwise. And as I've said before, I appreciate your efforts to reach compromise solutions that were acceptable to opposed and acrimonious parties. Also, it's {{unsigned|userid}}. WLU 23:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the wiki-tag pointer! Omnilord 00:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally - though I'm guilty of it too - it's considered bad form to break up previous discussions (see here; it's unfortunate that the heading involves the word abuse, I'm only pointing to interweaving rebuttal, the rest do not apply as your Wikiquette is quite good)

Mystar can point this out (including the reference) on the SoT wikiproject. He is not barred from the wikiproject or the other SoT pages, just barred (like me) from editing the Goodkind page directly. He is not allowed to comment on me, but he can comment on page content. See Proposed decision
Re bias - everyone's biased, what is 'patently obvious' to a fan can be seen as over-reaching, hyperbole or POV to someone who knows nothing about the subject. I wish I could give an example but I can't think of one (and I tend to edit the pages I see bias on anyway). Try looking at the history of Ole Ivar Lovaas, it's not too long but there's a lot going on. But it's pretty much the source of all flame wars and message board disagreements between fans of different authors competing over which author is better. Which is why wikipedia relies on reliable sources, verifiability and NPOV through consensus
My sympathies regarding your busy schedule. A quick way of reverting is installing Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups by the way, it's responsible for upping my edit count by about 50% as of Jan. 07. Makes reverting a one-click action. though it is a bit tricky to install.
My diffs as WLU only go back to Aug. 30th '06, and the difficulty in finding the slander diffs probably relates to them not being there. All of my issues are on talk pages, not mainspace. I don't add crap to wikipedia. I make mistakes, I have different opinions, but I haven't edited to make a point since July when I started reading policy and realized my error. I invite you to look through just the Goodkind mainpage at just my differences for slander, I don't think it's there, but many vandal reverts are. Anyway, I still think your contributions to wiki are good, I still respect your willingness to dialogue and I appreciate the efforts you have made to accomodate my point of view when you thought it had merit. I've given barnshines to Captain Crawdad and NeoFreak, I'd happily put one on your page as well, but I don't know how much it means coming from me.
Final point, this is very, very off topic for the page - if you think there's any merit in continuing, I would rather do so on our talk pages. WLU 02:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed agreement

As I read this again we see the lengths that WLU is willing to go to make this her/his personal crusade. How much more evidence of personal bad faith and desire to control a page do we need? 19:12, 22 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Terry Goodkind (→Influences - rem as per naming conventions)[1] WLU edits the Goodkind page. Fine no big problem?

Then I edit the same page removing an inaccurate link, correcting the pertinent information. SUDDENLY! WLU runs in a panic to [jpgordon] asking that I be blocked [2]. Could you let Mystar know so he leaves the Terry Goodkind page alone? It's petty but it's wearing down my teeth. The problem is that WLU had already stated that she/he assumed the case closed [3], [4] and [5]. The real problem lies in WLU's assertion to jpgordon in an attempt continue to cause conflict.

My question then is if WLU assumes she/he can alter the page (as she/he did) it is then "ok" and all is well, however "I" edit to remove inaccurate information and correct for better wording, and suddenly mystar is in the wrong. And someone must be told, as it is "wearing down WLU's teeth".

1 The case was/is not closed (WLU assumes to edit the page we both supposedly are to refrain editing, yet WLU assumes it is ok)
2 mystar edits (in good faith) and WLU wishes to assert the binding of the case for me, but assumes it doesn't apply to her/him.
3 WLU once again makes it a personal issue with regard to her/his inability to keep cool or remain neutral Could you let Mystar know so he leaves the Terry Goodkind page alone? It's petty but it's wearing down my teeth.

Clearly a double standard and WLU shows us again how personal it has become in her/his comments of "I can see incredible potential for future conflict. Already the itch is there" [6]. WLU then goes to show that no matter what WLU is unwilling and unable to work for or toward any kind of amicable solution and makes such a disturbing statement "I am completely unwilling to budge regarding the Terry Goodkind page. I think either of us being able to edit that page will inevitably cause conflicts"[7].

4 By WLU's own admission (see WLU's statement above)"What is 'positive' for dedicated fans can be 'fancruft', OR or POV for non-fans. In many ways, non-fans are better to decide if a contribution is biased or not, because they are not biased", which I find rather amusing considering the amount of work and page owhership of the Malazon, ASOIAF and a few other fantasy pages. It would seem again here that what is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. Meaning that its all good for WLU to act inthat capacity, just not mystar... YEt we see a clear bias against Goodkind from WLU. Calling Goodkind a moron [8], [9], a generally crappy author, even stating that she/he has anagenda in wanting to smear Goodkind. This is not the kind of editor that can be considered unbiased.

The only conflict is that WLU must own this page, well any page in which "I" edit. WLU refuses to acknowledge the validity of any of my edits, which is not only assuming bad faith, but also attempts at edit warring. WLU is willing to concede that I be able to edit the SOT pages, but only if it suites her/him. WLU is not an arbratrator, nor does WLU make the policy. BUT WLU is assuming that very role in her/his demands.

This whole case has been "tit for tat" with no real harm ever being done. The only problem is that WLU refuses to allow my edits validity. That is not my problem. Editing the SOT pages and editing the Goodkind Bio page are all part of the same topic. Editing one is really no different than editing another. Except that for WLU it is a means of asserting a control of me, and controlling the page (again page ownership if not indirectly). WLU saying that she/he "already feels the itch" is a clarion call to understanding with regard to what is really going on here. It is not about the content, it is about control.

The solution is easy. As I suggested and it seems acceptable to everyone except WLU. I'll forgo ALL the other pages WLU is working on. Malazon, ASOIAF, Lupus, Cats Claw etc. and WLU refrains from editing anything Goodkind. IF I have need to edit the Goodkind bio page I'll post the proposed change on the talk page, for the group consensus before any change is made. This not only assures that any edit I would make is given due consideration by the project group or any editor who wishes to make comment. Simple and easy, and would end any idea that my edits are not well placed or unnecessary. This solution is more than fair especially considering that the committee has found me no more at fault that WLU. SO WLU assuming to make demands upon this counsel is absurd. Mystar 05:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was stupid of me to make the correction. But replacing the valid press release link from comingsoon.com with the less useful, completely duplicated, pointless second link from bookstandard.com just to illustrate a point still maddens me and looks to me like Mystar trying to get in the last word. I still oppose either of us being able to edit the Goodkind biopage and henceforth will try to conduct myself as if the arbitration case were closed and enforcement in place. Otherwise I'd go in and correct the duplication of mini-series (three times, only needs to be once), replace the unnecessary link, add the word 'television' in front of the first mini-series and remove the jarring use of capitalization for the last instance of 'Mini Series'. Which would then be reverted, and anything I said to justify it would be ignored. WLU 12:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Stalking

1) It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith. (Note that everyone is expected to assume good faith in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary.) Once an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring is appropriate, but constantly nit-picking is always a violation of required courtesy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek. Kirill Lokshin 21:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

And we see from my post and WLU's own evidence that any edit I've made is incessantly nitpicked! Checking a few of her/his contribs was called for as I already stated due to WLU's statements of wanting to see Goodkind smeared. I made attempts at good edits and no one else had any problem with my edits other than WLU who did and does nitpick every little thing. Not just with me, but others as well Mystar 13:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Courtesy

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgment while enforcing this policy. Personal attacks are not acceptable. See Wikipedia:Civility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

[edit] Incivil behavior

1) Both User:WLU and User:Mystar have at times engaged in incivil behavior toward each other.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be good to add some diffs here. Paul August ☎ 16:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the evidence provided by both parties should suffice, no? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A few representative ones, if we want to stick them in: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Kirill Lokshin 20:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As I've stated I agree with Jpgordon. I can find no evidance I've been incivil to user WLU. I've not named called, taunted or scampered about posting incivil and inflamatory postings on my user page or gone to try to get people to gang up on anyone, unlike my accuser, who has done all these things to every degree, and I have yet to respond in kind or manor, rather I've been (as wiki guidelines perposes) silent and refuse to enguage user WLU, which only inflames her/him more that she/he cannot control my thoughts or opinions. Again, I have stoped far short of inflammatory name calling or incivility with this user. I wish the same could be said of WLU Mystar 05:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Not posted incivil or inflammatory postings on my user page [15]. The refusal to engage means a refusal to address my points and edits, which means Mystar is reverting or changing without good reason. I'm 'inflamed' because despite carefully laying out my reasons for changes as clearly as I can, they are ignored. I still don't know why that second reference to the SoT miniseries is in the external links. The silence and refusal to engage is why I'm angry. WLU 12:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No incivility on my part. Humor yes, but no incivility, secondly and more importantly, again my WLU's own admission WLU cannot handle the situation and refuses to cool down, as she/he should do. We see WLU saying she/he is inflamed and angry PLEASE note WLU's emphasis on both the angry and inflamed, both unbecoming of a neutral editor, which clearly show poor judgment and ability to interact fairly and neutral bias. We do not see me reacting in any sort of similar manner. Further, I refuse to engage in warring with words. If I do not post a response to WLU it is only because it is futile and serves no purpose other than to give thus user (WLU) more the rant about. Mystar 15:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Inflamed is in airquotes, for ironic intent. So if Mystar refuses to "engage in warring with words", or what I call discussing the edits, does that mean I can see this as a passive acquiescence to make the changes I have discussed? Failure to address my substantive points when they are phrased neutrally, but making changes anyways is not vandalism, but the article does point towards disupte resolution. Which is where we are. As I've said repeatedly, I would like Mystar to either address the points I raise on talk pages, or cease reverting edits I justify on talk pages. Failure to do so really looks like page ownership to me. WLU 15:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Findings of fact often have either a couple of the most representative diffs or a link to the appropriate section of the evidence page. 128.151.71.18 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stalking

2) Both parties accuse the other of stalking. Both are correct to some degree.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I respectfully disagree that I have engaged in this action unlike my accuser who freely admitted to stalking me. Which I might add neither bothered me nor posed a problem in my mind. The format that is Wikipedia lends itself to such actions by its very format and nature. To accuse someone of something everyone does to some extent is simply unreasonable and unwarranted IMHO. It is a normal and regular action that people read the history of a page, see changes, and check contribs. When I or someone else see a mistake, error and a thing that needs fixing, or even if we look and see something that is of interest, we edit to add our edits to enhance and build that article. Wikistalking occurs when a user follows another to each and every edit, and attacks, or does harm to the said user or page. I've done neither. I have attempted to build, enhance and place pertinent information to many pages.Mystar 05:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I admit that I did so once. And according to his own definition, it wouldn't be wikistalking, because I saw mistakes and a lack of content (for 3 weeks where I didn't touch the page), and fixed them, adding considerable content and references, then merged it with the pre-existing page. And Mystar has followed no-one else that I've seen, just me. WLU 13:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm, except that you still seem to be stalking me. Or how else would you be aware of my activities in the Killed in Action pages? Seems to me you cannot deferintiate between honesty and only wanting people to see your truth Mystar 15:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never edited the Killed in Action page. WLU 16:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

uhm, the term stalking doesn't need more of a defination than to follow, Stalking is after all following which is what you are doing. ANyone may edit anything they see a need or situation to. Mystar 01:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Problems with other editors

3) Neither party seems to have any serious history of problems or issues with other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As we have seen stated. Very early on, I did in fact have a problem or three with a few people seeking to do damage to the Goodkind pages, as referenced and acknowledge by Neofreak himself, who states he was and is aware of that outside force. Also I admitted to my fault and made apologies to appropriate parties. We then proceeded to set up and continue to work on the Sword of Truth Wikipedia project. Since that time, other than WLU's continued bad faith efforts to discredit me, I've been nothing if not the picture of civility and aplombMystar 05:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] WLU

1) WLU shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Mystar, on any page in Wikipedia. Should he do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3. Keeping the parties apart should be sufficient here. Kirill Lokshin 20:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Regards the edits below (this set), I have two points:

1) I agree that the Goodkind page will doubtless be problematic, but I have to point out that it is not restricted to that page alone. A Song of Ice and Fire came up recently, and Lupus Erythematosus may come up in the near future. At minimum, my feeling is that any restriction that apply to the Terry Goodkind page should apply to Lupus as well.

2) When users other than myself edit the page Mystar generally lets the changes stand, even if the change is identical to one of my own. (evidence: ASOIAF [16] to [17], Terry Goodkind [18] to [19] finally [20]) Should I (or both of us) put in a request for comments rather than move to the talk page every time there is a contested edit? It's a bit tedious, but it's the best bit of problem-solving I've come up with since the arbitration started. WLU 14:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me add a few items here. Let us be crystal clear on the Terry Goodkind pages. As Neofreak stated [21] that as I also stated (with proofs) that outside elements were at work to discredit and vandalize the Goodkind pages. We clearly see some of the extent of that from user WLU who has been extremely vocal about wanting to do harm to Goodkind, his reputation and even goes so far as to place may offensive statements on her user page [22] & I politely asked for user WLU to bring her/his user page into line with a more NPOV face, which was rebuffed with "well show me policy then....No? Well up it stays!" Later WLU knowing quite well the conduct unbecoming removes it, [23] But I think this gives a crystal clear view into the intent to disrupt, cause consternation and discord, and yet WLU wants to have "me" removed from editing the Goodkind pages, where I've made countless excellent edits on content, summary, fact of information and keeping vandals at bay. Again the problem is not me.

WLU clearly states as fact As for wanting TG shamed, I'd say I've downgraded to wanting at least the fact that his books involve strong and explicit violence, torture, etc [24]

Regardless of what claims WLU wishes to assert as to my making the Lupus pages a mess, my editing of the Lupus pages, Cats claw etc, did not make them worse. Many of my changes are still intact, format, statements, just rewritten by WLU. I ask any admin to read my edits on the pages. I made good edits and contributed to them with information that still stands to this day. The only person who had any problem with any edits I made to them is WLU, who made a war out of it. Lupus and Lupus SLE are two differing types of the same disease. This is also why they are listed separately. My daughter died if this horrid thing, my wife suffers from it to a great degree. I live it, so I happen to know the effects and depth of the disease. Doctors, specialist etc. within the Rheumatoid profession will also attest to this fact. So stating that they are two differing this is in fact quite correct.

As to ASOIAF, I ask any admin to look at the links provided. I added my vote to consensus of Kevin on the matte, and then I allowed it to drop. Not worth more grief. As for the other link again, I ask an admin to look at it independently, you will find nothing wrong with my comments or my edits. Looking further we have WLU claming vandalism where none exists. [25] and when I was attacked for reverting a simply and honest discussion on a talk page where it is meant to be, [26] and WLU insisted on removing honest and pertinent posts on a talk page...where it is meant to be place. I direct you to any admin who will attest to the fact that the user jamhaw committed no act of vandalism, rather this is more of WLU's page ownership problems.[27]. JWSchmidt, Lars, Cowman_109, as well as several other Admins have all look that over and said the same exact thing, WLU was page owning. WLU acted inappropriately.

I have very little time to devote to this kind of tomfoolery. But I would suggest that some admin look into WLU's edits and find out for themselves that any edit that WLU doesn't care for, no matter how good it is, or how honorable a user is in making it, WLU will list it as vandalism and berate said user. Is this really that way we want to treat newer users?

As WLU has stated she/he has no knowledge of the books other than reading a few reviews. This does not constitute being able to edit with any kind of knowledge as to content and or specifics to the pages. WLU has also made many attempts at, and succeeded in slandering Goodkind on Wikipedia, attacking his character and name-calling. Is this the kind of use you want editing a page of someone they openly profess to hold the highest distain for? No I think not. Again At my suggestion Runch, Omni and I have started a Sword of Truth Wiki-project, and since this has been started we have been working on consensus and collaboration for the good of the pages and Wiki as a whole. This kind of cooperation and inter action can only be a good thing. Mystar 05:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Is either party going to be restricted from the Goodkind pages? If not who is allowed to edit these pages? These pages are catalyst for conflict and unless clear guidlines are set up to keep these two from bumping heads there this will just end in blocks. NeoFreak 08:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Depending on interpretation, "interaction" could extend to editing on Goodkind pages per se. An alternative, in the form of a clarficication or even a supplementary remedy regarding the editing of Goodkind pages, might be beneficial. Daniel.Bryant 08:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

My biggest concern was the disagreement that will come about over edits that they'll both make over the Goodkind articles. How can you resolve issues if you can't interact? If they are both allowed to continue to work on the Goodkind articles then conflict is inevitable. NeoFreak 08:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You make a very good point, and one I suggest the Arbitrators will consider before drafting their final remedies prior to voting. Daniel.Bryant 08:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mystar

1) Mystar shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, WLU, on any page in Wikipedia. Should he do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week.

Comment by Arbitrators:

As above. Kirill Lokshin 20:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I guess I am a bit surprised at this. I have never attacked WLU, yet I have been the target of WLU's vicious game of words, taunts and insults. I have refrained from any kind of name calling or slandering and have refused to engage to prevent further edit warring; yet you seek to block "me" should I cross paths with WLU?

Frankly, if that is the case then the same should indeed go for WLU, as by her/his own admission has engaged in these kinds of actions, not me....Mystar 04:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Problematic articles

1) For the purpose of the above remedies, any edit by either WLU or Mystar to one of the articles over which they had previously been in conflict (including, but not limited to, Terry Goodkind and Lupus Erythematosus) shall be considered an interaction with the other party.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Somewhat crude, but I don't think we can really assign particular articles to particular parties here. Kirill Lokshin 22:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

If I'm reading this correctly, this would bar both of us from editing (at minimum) Terry Goodkind, Lupus Erythematosus, Barbara Hambly, The Sword of Truth, Uncaria Tomentosa, is that correct? Or is it more 'if WLU and Mystar end up in conflict over an article, then ban'? Would reversion of vandalism count? Would I be better off reading the Everyking decision than asking questions? It does seem a bit harsh and I can't say I'm happy about losing the ability to change UT and LE, but I've no right to complain as I'm the one who brought the case. With regards to edits to pages like TG, should either feel that something should change on the pages, we can make our thoughts known through neutral proxies whose behaviour has been better than ours - Runch and Omnilord spring to mind as two who would be quite able to make quality contributions without conflict. WLU 00:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

[edit] Evidence presented by WLU: Mystar commenting on users, not content

[29], also claimed as an example of wikistalking
[30]
[31]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I note that this is a response to Alienus, who was ramping up to a community ban. Not sure why this constitutes "stalking"; perhaps WLU might elaborate. But the characterization isn't correct. Alienus' comment had been about his personal experience; I venture that it is perfectly acceptable to respond directly to it.
Yes, it does seem as though Mystar harshes WLU there
Mystar seems perfectly reasonable here.

If these are supposed to be the most damning, there's not much of a case here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

WLU - replying on a point-by-point basis, trying to get the numbers to match the comments above

I can't comment on Alienus as I haven't had any interactions with him, he got banned before I got a userid. I consider it stalking as Mystar had no other contributions to the page, checked Alienus's contributions, then posted a reply. I realize my definition of wikistalking is looser than the one cited in WP:Har. It's the pattern that aggravates me, the 9 instances where I contribute to a page then Mystar is the next editor, not posting personal attacks after every one but always there. This is after a month of acrimonious discussion on another page, where we found each other's mere presence aversive. And that its still happening, below on the Robert Jordan talk page.
No comment
There are a total of 27 in this category, I chose these three examples for a variety of reasons. The first one demonstrates that it's not reserved solely for me, and note the comment 'Again like so many other places you make an assumption based on your system of personal view', the like of which I've heard from Mystar many, many times. The second stands alone of its own merit. The third I chose because it was posted after the arbitration case began. It also touches on an issue I haven't brought up as I was under the impression the arbitration committee doesn't like to decide on content disputes, but it is instructive to consider this particular example in its entirety as it is one of the most frustrating things about dealing with Mystar - the defence of and reversion to poor-quality editing without addressing the concerns I raise.

Much of the reply may look reasonable, but he ignores the reason why I think the link should be removed and instead states that he thinks I removed the article because I abhor Goodkind. The actual reason, which I discuss is that there is a duplication of information in the two links within the article. One is a reference, a second is an external link. Both deal with the exact same content obviously sourced from a press release about the Sword of Truth series being turned into a TV series. The links are substantially identical, only the wording is different, and I can't see anything in the second that merits inclusion within the article. Which I have repeatedly stated. I've asked Mystar what information necessitates the second link being included, and the reply was being accused of terrorising the page. Also note his original reason for reverting my removal - [32]. In the edit summary, "Not exactly... The referance leads to other information with regard to the facts". Despite the edit apparently being about information and facts and instead of pointing out this information in the references themselves (which I can't find, and if such information exists should be as a reference, as I've also pointed out), Mystar quotes the EL policy to keep the link. I believe his justification is 'because it relates to the page it can stay', ignoring the fact that it is the same information twice. Again this is characteristic, often when I make and justify changes Mystar will revert without addressing the substantive nature of my justification. I can provide examples if the arbitration committee is willing to look into it (again, since it's more content than talk stuff, I didn't think you would), another example can be found here.

Perhaps I chose the wrong examples as I do have more evidence regarding commenting on users, not content, here's Alienus again, here's another, another, here's one on a different page. I tried to keep the links to a minimum and cover as broad a range as possible, but I can provide many more. If the committee think it would be helpful, I'll transfer the complete list from my talk page to the evidence page. I included item number 2 is the most representative, since the rest are qualitatively similar I didn't add them to the evidence page to reduce the reading load for arbcom (ironic considering it required me posting a tremendous volume of text to justify it).

All the other categories of evidence are similar - there are many examples, I chose a demonstrative subset that spares too much reading. If my points are better illustrated through a complete listing of all relevant examples, I'll gladly put them all on the page. WLU 15:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Mystar's comments

Again with WLU's assumptions as to what or how I did why thing. As I've stated. No such thing as Wikistalking from me ever! It is more than crystal clear by anyone that no matter what WLU will twist anything in an assumption of guilt on my part. As for WLU's again assumption of abuse on Jordan’s talk page, As I have already stated, several admins have in fact looked at jamhaws post and found WLU to be in the wrong and that jamhaw was not violating or comiting any wrong doing, rather that WLU should not have reveerted. Again another example of the fact that WLU's page ownership.
While some may see it as harsh, it is not. Again as we see from comments Neofreak made, and by WLU's own admission there was a push from some people from outside Wiki to do harm to the Goodkind pages, then we have WLU immediately stepping in to also do said harm. Again by WLU's own admission he/she has an agenda, seeing me banned for nothing more than supporting Goodkind and wanting to see Goodkind smeared (her own words). What is truly amazing is that WLU somehow is incapable of seeing the incivility in his/her own actions with regard to this. WLU contends that because I am friends with Goodkind I cannot be a neutral source, yet with so much vitriol, animosity and wanting to see Goodkind's name smeared, he/she assumes that he/she "is"? I'm sorry but I think we can hardly see it that way. The rules apply to all people or they apply to no one.
reasonable indeed. I can and will say this. Again I am fallible, but to the best of my knowledge, I have never called anyone a moron, and idiot (and WLU just did it again), or outright berate someone as WLU is continuing to do. Making statements such as he/she has made in my response, and in her/his rebuttal continues to do such, are far again worse than any of my alleged infringements. As we see " == You are an idiot. == Now, I know this violates the NPA policy, but I think you're too much of a coward to do anything. [2]

Yup, that's me, and I did it. I still think he's an idiot,"... personally how is it that WLU can continue to get away with such incivility and bad faith? Mystar 04:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

WLU's comments on comments, much of which has been said before in evidence

[edit] placeholder heading

1) I think it is up to the committee to decide if it's wikistalking, they may have something to say regarding Jamhaw's post, and I don't know what the admins said 'cause there's no record.

2) I do think it is harsh, and other users have commented as well [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]. Also, I don't frequent message boards, I'm not a girl and I think Mystar's extremely close relationship with Terry Goodkind puts him dangerously close to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself.

3) Yup, I said it, and I've added comments elsewhere why I think this (here). There should be consequences for what I've done, I admit that, and when I started arbitration I knew it would come up. I hope I've put up enough evidence of why I'm as frustrated as I am. I've made no other comments like that to anyone else, 'cause no-one else is like Mystar. WLU 18:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Evidence presented by WLU: Mystar editing another user's comments on a talk page

Comment by Arbitrators:

WLU says, "Mystar pastes a reply in the middle of a weblink supporting my edit." I don't think so; I don't think so at all. Take a look at the rest of the diff; the same phrase occurs below. It looks to me like Mystar accidentally pasted the text into the wrong part of the edit box, probably after navigating back and forth from it to copy the text from an editor or something. Hard to see it as deliberate, since the result is pretty broken. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
In this one, it appears Mystar is correcting a quotation. Someone else inserted the quotation, certainly, but what fault is there in correcting it?
A not uncommon newbie mistake -- attempting to archive a talk page and getting it wrong. It was fixed four minutes after it happened, Mystar was chastised, and apologised.
Changing a title on your own talk page. Allowable.
And changing a title on an article talk page. Happens pretty often. We generally don't treat these the same as changing the actual comments.
You guys were edit warring on an article talk page? That's just lame.
Again, on Mystar's user talk page. Mystar removes an external link from your comment. Doesn't change the meaning; no harm no foul.
And another title change.

None of this evidence demonstrates any bad or bad-faith behavior on Mystar's part. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mystar's edits 4–8 were all innappropriate. Paul August ☎ 05:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As is been my point. It really matter not what I do, WLU will (as we can see) try and twist anyting I do into something I'm doing wrong. As I've said, I am not familure with codes, software or much of linking etc. But that doesn't stop WLU from harping on me or anyone else that he/she finds doing the same thing. Unfortunatly we cannot all be as up tp snuff whrn it comes to nagvating this place Mystar 04:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No being code-savvy is one thing, but what about the 10 other instances? I don't think these are slips of the finger. Once is an accident, and I'll admit this one perhaps isn't the best example, but 10 times is something else. WLU 18:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think link 3 above is supposed to be this one, and I agree with the comment. WLU 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

2) Sure, I'll agree to this. I think more helpful would have been a note saying the comments were being changed.

4) I'll understand the point that this is his talk page, sure, but the differences between the two headings isn't exactly minor. I see a difference between changing a heading to be more accurate, but changing it to editorialize...

5) If a new reader came to the page, the section that I'm asking for comments on is now titled "Critical attacks", a substantively different section title than "Critical reception". And given the content of the following section, 'Critical attacks' is pretty inaccurate - there's praise and valid justifications from Terry Goodkind in the section as well. Mystar also removes the references tag which would allow people to read up on the references themselves and decide if they are worth including. I don't think it's good practice to change potential section headings because you don't agree with them, particularly when the change hugely alters how the following section will be percieved.

6) Super lame. If Mystar disagreed, then state why and leave the original info up for others to see. If no-one agrees with me, it doesn't go in. By removing the references, he's removing individual's ability to decide on their own. And titling the section "WLU's attempts at more Critical attacks" gives a very different, much more hostile sense than the original "Critical reception". WLU 20:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Question for Paul August - inappropriate behaviour for the pages where the diffs occur, or inappropriate evidence for the arbitration case? WLU 21:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Evidence presented by WLU: Mystar sockpuppeting

[48], [49]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Forgetting to sign in—and then acknowledging it—isn't sockpuppeting by any stretch of the imagination. Kirill Lokshin 18:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Obviously not "sockpuppeting". Could be part of a pattern of "stalking". Paul August ☎ 07:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Not even close to sockpuppeting. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

WLU - Mystar admits to it after I ask if it's him. He didn't come clean spontaneously. I find it suspicious (and irritating) that he anonymously checked my contributions, then anonymously reverted an edit, though I admit I have no proof of nefarious master plan. The wikistalking, then revert wars are the main aggravations for this particular set of edits. And I think this is a very clear example of wikistalking. Since he was not logged in, he did not have a watchlist to check, which means he'd have to check my contributions for that day. WLU 15:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

uhm,,,,,huh? Again ~sighs~ WLU assuming nefarious deeds by me where nothing is even close to the truth... I regularly check many pages; the Jordan page is among them. When seeing this event occurring, and discussing it in the Wiki-en chat room, I reverted it and when asked I provided proper policy statements. As I've said time and time again, the problem isn’t me, WLU simple refuse to see the truth for what it is. Again jamhaw's post was valid and stands as such. WLU is simply (unfortunately) taking a high hand, as with many he/she does.

Also if I may, Wikistalking only occurs when someone is followed then attacked, which I have not done. As I have also said Wikipedia is a place where anyone can edit anything. I made good edits and never have I been accused of foul language or deliberately vandalizing or harming a page with malice or intent. Mystar 04:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to this at length elsewhere. And if Mystar never again follows me to a new page and he's never been to before, I'll assume the wikistalking is resolved. But 11 times turning around and finding him right there, right after me, immediately after a long and acrimonious period on the Terry Goodkind talk page, it may not be the worst kind of wikistalking but it's still damned unpleasant. I'd say it violates the spirit of the wikistalking case, if not the letter, but I'm biased because I find it subjectively unpleasant to interact with him. WLU 18:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Evidence presented by WLU: Mystar's punitive use of policy

[50], [51]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I can't see how an AFD nomination could be punitive, unless it were clearly made in bad faith; and a peer review request simply can't be punitive, regardless, as there are no negative consequences from one. Kirill Lokshin 18:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Nothing here shows any bad behavior. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

These could easily be attempts by Mystar to harass WLU. Paul August ☎ 17:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

WLU - regarding the peer reviews, the actual comments made for the review are more instructive. Barbara Hambly and Cat's claw. Despite Mystar's accusation of page ownership, I always give a rationale for any changes that are contested, and he usually fails to address them. After contesting my changes but not providing a valid reason why, he solicited other users for comments. WLU 16:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

WLU - regarding the AFD. A page related to the Sword of Truth was nominated for deletion, one which clearly failed WP:NOT (it was a copy and paste from a geocities list, with OR as well). The reason why I think the AFD for the T'lan Imass was made in bad faith are:

It was nominated for deletion within an hour of Mystar's contributions to the High D'Haran page
It was nominated for deletion slightly more than 12 hours after it was created (my first edit creating the article here, Mystar's nomination here, time stamp says 12 hours, 29 minutes after it was created), giving no time for it to be expanded.
Mystar would have to wikistalk me over to the page in order to nominate it, as it could not be on his watch list.
From Mystar's comments on the AFD page for both the High D'Haran (and again) and the T'lan Imass pages, it seems Mystar thought it was a combination of a vote and personality contest. There's no rationale here beyond 'I want it', and 'I don't think it's important'. Without proper reasons for the nomination, I fail to see how it is anything beyond spite.
Note this comment by an uninvolved user. It's comments like these that support my thinking that the relationship between myself and Mystar isn't helpful or normal for wikipedia. Were it not for comments like this, I'd be more concerned that I'm doing something wrong. I know I've messed up in the past, and in the recent past, but when all of our contributions to the same articles end with hectoring and someone throwing up their hands rather than actually discussing, and when other users support my edits, I'm less likely to think I'm wrong and more likely to think it's harassment. WLU 16:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated all along WLU simply wishes to twist anything I do into something horrific and nefarious. She/he berates me and makes wild accusations for not following the proper procedure, and then when I do, WLU does the same thing? Attacks me and tries to twist my actions for attempting to ask for help into something horrible! SO can we call a double standard a double standard please? In an attempt to stave off a battle with WLU, I (as I regularly do) discussed it with several people and admins in the Wiki-en chat room, I asked for help, as I was told I should do in light of WLU's page ownership (their words not mine) and I also believe I read was the proper thing to do. Yet here again we see WLU's bad faith and trying to attack me for taking the proper route. I'm sorry if I just don't get how WLU can attack me for trying my best to follow the rules. Again the problem is not with me. You do not see me tabulating every dang post she/he makes and trying to twist it into something grievously harmful. I call a witch-hunt what it is...Mystar 04:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Unverifiable chat rooms, apparently with extremely uninformed admins. I address this at length here. And I'd venture that Mystar is not tabulating every post because there really aren't that many to tabulate. I've put a lot of effort into this because much of it is vague and nebulous without the proper context, but it is voluminous. WLU 18:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

These could easily be attempts by Mystar to harass WLU. Paul August ☎ 17:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not so, they were attempts to circumvent an edit war and a war of words with WLU. Asking for assistance, asking for an admin to come along side and offer advise, is helpful not harmful.

As to WLU’s accretions Unverifiable chat rooms, apparently with extremely uninformed admins."" It would seem that WLU is unaware that there are logs and that also the so-called "uninformed admins" are the same admins who edit on a regular basis here. The admins on the IRC channels are there for just this specific reason. Anyone at any time may enter the IRC channels and ask any of these admins their self. So rather than continue to edit war I simply asked for help in making the situation clearer and help in making sure I was indeed not doing anything inappropriately. Not harassment at all. I am amused however at the fact that anyone who does disagree with WLU finds themselves slapped with various tags and attempts to bend any policy to fit WLU's postings. That to me is in fact a punitive use of policy. I have only asked for a comment on one occasion I do believe Mystar 05:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If there are logs, please point them out to me so I can see the original context of the comments provided by admins regarding the various pages. The admins are uninformed if all they hear is 'This guy I know who regularly owns pages just reverted a comment on a talk page, can I revert it back?' Mystar's own portrayal of my actions is part of the information they use to guide their advice. As above, I've responded at length here. Who has had a tag slapped on their page in appropriately by the way, can I see a diff? WLU 13:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Admins have logs not me. and you make a serious mistake is assuming that converstaions go the way you state. Any admin clearly will state that he/she reads the diff's and checks the material before answering any questions....lol... I find it amusing that you again make assumptions that are unfounded. It shows again your inability to understand anything buy your own narrow preceptions. As I've stated, asking any of the admins that police the IRC pages (as part of their admin job) for advise or clarification wil result in that material being studied and discuissed, only then, as these admins here well know, does any kind of comment get made. Mystar 13:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Evidence presented by WLU: Mystar's personal attacks/incivility against users other than WLU

[52]
[53]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Snarky comment, but not a personal attack.
Not in the least bit a personal attack.

--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

None of the items entered into evidence by WLU under this heading come to the level of personal attacks. Though many of them are strongly worded, they are strongly and civilly worded, on the whole. Strongly disagreeing with someone and telling them why you disagree with them is not per se incivil. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

WLU - not personal attacks, but I see them as incivility. Also, the snarky comment means he's not addressing the actual question (there's no reply). And again, this is two out of 13. As above, they are representative minority out of many more. WLU 16:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason I put the 'commenting on users, not comments' first is because it's my biggest problem with Mystar, avoiding discussing actual issues. Each time Mystar is uncivil to another user, he's also not answering questions, replying to comments, or justifying edits. I could ignore the jibes if he'd actually respond to my points. WLU 18:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me ask a question here... Why would I wish to have any kind of conversation with WLU knowing that she/he will make it out to be an incivility or attack against her/him? Lets get one thing here clear, to the best of my knowledge I have not and will not attack someone with personal insults or belittle them, call them names or taunt them, which WLU is still doing even in this forum. SO how is that allowed? I have turned my head and ignored WLU as I haev more important things to do that to wast time builting some kind of case or tracking down every single post or remark she/he makes. even when her/his "I think you're too much of a coward to do anything" taunt is clearly an attempt to inflame me into some kind of battle. I've got thicker skin that than and frankly have little time for such childish behaviour. HOWEVER, we can see that WLU has tons of time with which to do just that.Mystar 04:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if building a case is wasting time or not, I will say that you don't have many diffs to support your stance whereas I'm discovering new ones all the time. And this is taking lots of time away from actually editing wikipedia, which frankly I'd rather be doing and it would be doing if Mystar would a) stop following me and b) reply to the substance of my comments. Other's have had many things to say about Mystar, here and here. There may be duplication between the two links. WLU 18:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we are starting to get a very clear picture here. Nothing I've done is an attack. The key is in WLU's own words but I see them as incivility. I cannot control how WLU chooses to perceive comments, nor do I care how this user does choose to read or view my comments. I see many editors using vulgar language, name calling etc. Even calling other users name on user pages and what? Nothing! Yet simply put This user by her/his own admission again is stalking me I will say that you don't have many diffs to support your stance whereas I'm discovering new ones all the time. And this is taking lots of time away from actually editing Wikipedia, which frankly I'd rather be doing, so the only way WLU would have to do that is to stalk me. Secondly I'm finding new ones all the time clearly shows us that it is WLU’s position to assert control over anything I post. Lastly and most importantly, if Mystar would a) stop following me and b) reply to the substance of my comments. Again we see the clear picture here. It isn't me, it is however WLU who simply wants to control me and force me to play her/his game. There is no policy that declares that I must be forced to reply to any user, least of which, one that I have no desire to engage in any kind of dialogue. So WLU twists and builds a case in an attempt to force me to alter my opinions and my ideas, and to dialogue with her/him. Sorry that simply doesn't wash. I submit that again this is WLU's problem not mine. You do not see me harassing every post trying to twist it into some kind of attack or incivility. The proof is in the pudding. Mystar 05:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement "There is no policy that declares that I must be forced to reply to any user" is horribly, horribly troubling. If Mystar refuses to engage in a dialogue with other users, that means he will not reply to their comments, will not take their opinions or evidence into account, and will not listen to what they have to say, which means the talk pages are essentially useless. If Mystar does not reply to the substance of other user's arguments, he is essentially becoming a wikipedia of one. It means he will not work towards consensus. And from what I've seen on a variety of talk pages, this has been true in the past, though his recent work on the KIA page indicates he does try to work towards consensus. WLU 12:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

…sighs… Again lets not allow WLU to twist my words into what she/he wants them to say for her/his benefit. I have dialogue with many users, but no one is forced to interact with or engage another user, especially where one such as WLU has shown page ownership and incivility. I care not to have any dialogue with this user and the sad fact is this user WLU seeks to force control over me to do so. I'm sorry Wikipedia was not founded on that principal and will not ever do so, lest it implode. As we see when anyone least of all me, disagrees with WLU or edits her/his work snide and sarcastic commentary follows, as WLU also again freely admits to. Sorry again the problem is not me, as we can see by my ability to interact with other users. Mystar 13:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As said before, I am not trying to control what Mystar does and posts, but if he is not engaging in dialogue, if he is not addressing other contributors (including my) points, but reverts anyways, isn't that ownership? WLU 15:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Evidence presented by WLU: Mystar's personal attacks/incivility against WLU (me)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yeah, shouldn't have been editing WLU's userpage
Yeah, vaguely threatening. And pretty silly to harp on an editor's anonymity here. In cyberspace, nobody knows you're a dog.
Yeah, kinda harsh
Slightly intemperate language in the middle of a heated argument.
A harsh characterization, but hardly an attack.

--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

WLU - five out of 20. I'm seeing from the reactions of the arbitrators that perhaps I could better have placed this under commenting on users, not comments or something similar. I also referenced this above in the 'crappy editing' idea. And again, incivility rather than personal attacks, and a consistent pattern of incivility. It's aggravating to have him constantly hectoring you with this kind of language - this is the rule, not the exception in my mind. WLU 16:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

1 Yet Wikipedia clearly states that even user pages can be edited, I simply remarked at WLU's incivility, and it was the only time I did so.

2 & 3 Not a threat at all. As I stated NeoFreak also stated that an off Wikipedia group was working out and working on doing harm to Goodkind's page. It is then when WLU first appeared. I also run two message boards on my server, it is also noted that WLU's IP was logged as the culprit in several attempts at vandalizing my message board and attacking me and Goodkind out side of Wiki. I was simply stating that IP's can be traced and the culprit found out. No threat was made let along inferred. I do also believe that Wikipedia has a policy whereby an IP can be traced back to discover the place or direction a person attacking the site is coming from. Again, no threat was made.Mystar 04:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

WLU - I'd love to see my IP, as I've posted exactly one comment on a message board in my life, and it was on a Malazan Book of the Fallen message board, soliciting contributions for the Malazan pages on wikipedia because they're pretty light. I've never, ever posted on a Sword of Truth/Terry Goodkind message board. And even if it were true, point out where I've vandalized Terry Goodkind's page, where I've posted attacks, where I've slandered his name (barring my user page, which I changed after your comments, at length here). If anything my user page edits indicate that when a policy is pointed out to me, I try to address it.

Also, what happens off wikipedia is irrelevant to this discussion I believe.

I have edited Mystar's user page once to remove vandalism after I followed an anon IP that posted comments on the Terry Goodkind talk page (here) WLU 18:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have WLU's IP logging into my server. I have WLU's attempts to access information on the Terry Goodkind site. SO that statement by WLU would then be inaccurate. I have contacted the appropriate parties. I have spoken with the host where one of WLU's IP's stem from and they have assured me that it will not happen again. I can and will offer my ISC tech’s proof to any admin who wishes it. I run several companies from my server, including my investment company. Having appropriate security and firewalls is nessary, and being able to verify an intrusion a must in my business. We know that according to WLU's own words, I suggest that you not trust me in the future, and I for one take people at their word.Mystar 06:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother replying to this comment, I consider it irrelevant to the case. WLU 13:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed not, as it only proves further that as you have stated by your own words, I suggest you not trust me in the future, You stated that you did not visit other message boards, ~shrugs~ I have irefruatable proof that you have and recently and also tried and access files. As it is off Wiki, I understand that it doesn't speak to this case, but it does in the fact that it just proves my assertions that you have an agenda, which you admidited to, and that you cannot be trusted, which you also freely admidited to.Mystar 13:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

WLU - the regular contributors to the Terry Goodkind page may also have comments regarding both of our conducts. They include User:Runch, User:Omnilord, User:NeoFreak (who has already commented), User:Paul_Willocx, User:Brendan Moody. Mystar has also had conflicts with User:Alienus, who I believe is now banned from editing. I have a high opinion of all of them and trust them to be neutral in their comments (barring Alienus who I've never had contact with).

My biggest complaint, as show by placing it at the top of my section on evidence and having the greatest number of examples on my talk page, is Mystar's failure to engage in real debate. Because I am usually not faced with a realistic rationale for edits, in my eyes they all look inflammatory, posted solely to aggravate me or because he really, really wants his information on the page. I can't know if this is true or not, but if he actually responded to the points I make on talk pages, if it looked like he was really reading what I wrote and adjusting his edits accordingly, I'd probably be fine with the whole thing. I'd find him aggravating still, I'm sure, but I could put up with it. WLU 19:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

WLU's tentatively final statement

Neither of us are perfect, many of the complaints are tit-for-tat, and I know my conduct has been far less than exemplary. I admit to it, and know I'm going to have to answer for my actions. I knew this going into arbitration. My only non-defense is that I've put up with months of being followed, being accused of bad faith, being faced with poor editing (which is then protected by revert wars), mocked for poor editing, consistantly told that I hate Terry Goodkind and that was my sole reason for editing wikipedia, had my intelligence insulted many times, had my comments ignored and had a variety of policies unleashed on me with (I believe) bad faith. For the month of December 2006, I had a mostly Mystar-free time that I quite enjoyed and was very productive. In this time when Mystar wasn't following me around, I made no changes to the Terry Goodkind page, and a few very minor changes to The Sword of Truth page that I discussed with users, and which have remained until today, all the while adding more than 500 edits to my total on non-Terry Goodkind and Sword of Truth pages. These are hardly the actions of a 'mad woman on a delusional witch-hunt' (should be mad man on a delusional warlock hunt) out to smear Terry Goodkind and Mystar's name. They look more like someone contributing fruitfully and enthusiastically to Wikipedia in their spare time. When pulling this case together, I had the chance to look over many of my contributions, and Mystar's, to Wikipedia. They have reinforced my idea that Mystar is disruptive, and I'm amazed I didn't lose it before now. I have found other user's comments on his behaviour particularly heartening, as many of them are experienced, some I've worked with on other pages, and all set a good example of patience, tolerance and respect for policy, an example which I've fallen short of more than once. Even the individuals I've disagreed with, especially Omnilord, I still respect - I don't think Omnilord likes me much but despite this, he has always stated his concerns clearly, never taken a personal attack, listened to my ideas and adapted them to fit onto pages when he felt they were worthwhile and generally applied the five pillars to an admirable degree. I think Mystar and myself both could do to follow his example.

Both Mystar and I have things to add to wikipedia. I will be happy if I never have to interact with Mystar again, but if he is going to contribute to the same pages as me, particularly if I was there first (a rather lame, gradeschool condition), I want him to read my comments, reply to their substance, and please stop using the words "distaste/hatred/loathing/abhorence/disdain/dislike/disgust at/of/with Terry Goodkind/myself" in his replies to me. Ultimately everything on Wikipedia stands or falls on its own merit, as judged by our peers and our rationality, not by our past contributions and not by our opinions. WLU 20:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Mystar's comment below (this diff), he does have a point. I'm using 'the I word' as a shorthand and out of frustration. What I mean is I believe Mystar is a poor editor, particularly when dealing with pages we both contribute to, and he fails to address my substantive concerns in edit summaries, talk pages and other mediums that are used to communicate regarding the pages. I'll change my previous statements to reflect this. It's less pejorative and more clearly conveys my difficulties and frustration with him. WLU 15:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

With regards to changing my posts - I'm altering wording and trying to make my points more clear. I've added some headings to allow wikilinking. I don't believe I've altered the substantive content of what I've said since my original posting, except in cases where I'm withdrawing my evidence/statements upon either comments from the arbitrators or further reflection. All of my points should read linearly from top to bottom. WLU 16:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[edit] Incivility and incessantly changing these pages

You will forgive me but I and some others are having a problem following WLU's reasoning. I am at a loss here, as I read the instructions and understand them, why is it that WLU is allowed to attack me with such vehemence in here? Calling me an idiot and even now still an idiot? I request some intervention here. Also as I read the instructions, it states to keep your posts short and to the point, why is it that all I see is WLU rambling along and hypothesizing? The rules do not call for this type of conduct. Also is the fact that seriously... WHO can follow any of this? WLU seem to think that changing her/his every post almost every hour is ....what? A good thing? How can I or anyone else be expected to follow any of this with WLU making rants, dissertations, hypothesizing and generally being disrupting by constantly changing her/his posts? I would respectfully ask for some clarification please. Mystar 13:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_WLU-Mystar_Workshop_959f.html"

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Motion/request by Mystar

[edit] WLU

[edit] Neither of us should edit Terry Goodkind

[edit] Proposed agreement

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Questions to the parties

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Stalking

[edit] Courtesy

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Incivil behavior

[edit] Stalking

[edit] Problems with other editors

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Proposed remedies

[edit] WLU

[edit] Mystar

[edit] Problematic articles

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Analysis of evidence

[edit] Evidence presented by WLU: Mystar commenting on users, not content

[edit] placeholder heading

[edit] Evidence presented by WLU: Mystar editing another user's comments on a talk page

[edit] Evidence presented by WLU: Mystar sockpuppeting

[edit] Evidence presented by WLU: Mystar's punitive use of policy

[edit] Evidence presented by WLU: Mystar's personal attacks/incivility against users other than WLU

[edit] Evidence presented by WLU: Mystar's personal attacks/incivility against WLU (me)

[edit] Template

[edit] General discussion

[edit] Incivility and incessantly changing these pages

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search