User talk:WLU/arbitration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Arbitration

[edit] Arbitration case

Note to Mystar: Please don't modify this text, or at least only modify your own sections. If you would prefer, begin a similar one on your own talk page. WLU 21:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WLU v. Mystar

Initiated by WLU at 14:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Posted notification on Mystar's talk page here. I have also sent an e-mail to him to alert him away from wikipedia, at this address: mystar@chartermi.net

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  1. Informal mediation Other users have tried to moderate between us (though also other editors), notably Paul Willocx, Runch, Figma.
  2. Discussion with third parties I had an extensive e-mail discussion with User:Armedblowfish, I am in the process of confirming this.
  3. Failed mediation request, also note Mystar's reply

Summary statement:
Disputes between myself and Mystar are acrimonious and disruptive to pages we are involved in.

[edit] Statement by WLU

As I moved away from the Terry Goodkind page, where I first started editing, Mystar has been monitoring my edits and I believe his actions constitute harassment. I have made it clear to Mystar why I am frustrated with his edits. Here is a less civil one where I document everything he's done up to that date that irritated me.

The list below is representative, but not exhaustive. A complete a list is found here.

Actions include:

Editing comments on talk pages
  • One, Mystar pastes a reply in the middle of a weblink supporting my edit.
Commenting on users, not content
Personal attacks/incivility (has been warned before, and other users are reluctant enter dialogue with him. Note Mystar's reply).
Personal attacks/incivility against me
Personal attack/incivility against other users
  • One, changes 'enrage' to 'annoy' in next edit
  • Two
Wikistalking
Meatpuppeting
Sockpuppeting
Abuse of policy
See also

I have been uncivil as well. Recently I posted this (though there are others) after months of repeated warnings, comments and attempts at discussion without any change in his behaviour.

I don't really care if Mystar continues to add to wikipedia or not, and his straight contributions of content can be good, but I am really, really sick of continuously being confronted by his bellicose manner and tendentious edits.

[edit] Mystar diffs by category and chronological order

[edit] Commenting on users, not content

[edit] Editing other's comments on a talk page

[edit] Personal attack/incivility against me

[edit] Personal attack/incivility against other users

[edit] Wikistalking

[edit] Sockpuppeting

  • first, admits to it here (skipping one edit he made). The content I removed was completely irrelevant to the discussion and I originally removed it because the user had vandalised many previous pages.
  • Also, since he was not logged in, in order for Mystar to have seen my reversion he would have to had checked my contributions, making this another example of wikistalking.

[edit] Punitive use of policy

[edit] Meatpuppeting

[edit] Miscellaneous, including poor quality editing and erroneous statement

  • Liana was referenced, and had its own wikipage
  • Removing a paper reference for a scientific journal
  • Uninvolved user commenting on Mystar's editing here
  • One of many edits which don't make sense or are incorrect here, changing a wikilink into a redirect that takes you back to the original wikilink...
  • Also on Lupus, this edit came after this comment on the talk page discussing why I reverted his earlier edit, which broke the introductory paragraph into three sections, two of which were duplications of sections below. It also removed information on diagnosis and treatment from the introductory paragraph.
  • Also on Lupus, this comment by Mystar is in reference to this edit by me. The sentence I added summarized and introduced the paragraph on treatment and contained no information that was not discussed below.
  • This set of edits I just find condescending and irritating, but strictly speaking there is no unequivocal attacks or incivility here. Given our past history though, and my edit count being nearly four times his, I seriously doubt there is good intentions behind it.

[edit] Past contribs under anon ip

Special:Contributions/68.188.220.8

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel.Bryant 01:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lupus edits

  • Mystar breaks intro paragraph into three sections, duplicating information below in the article (i.e. now there's two treatment sections in the article) here.
  • I justify my changes on the talk page here and revert to previous version, keeping edits made in between here
  • Mystar reverts, and incidentally accuses me of edit warring here.
  • I revert again point to my reply (on the talk page) and emphasize the duplication of sections a second time.
  • Mystar ignores my reasoning, reverts the page again and again accuses me of edit warring. Apparently here he's finally read my reply, but the next edit breaks the section up again. At this point I'd given up looking at the page for a couple days, and my next edit is to put in the reference to House (tv show), which is called fluff. It's not the most critical contribution, but WP:MOS for medical does allow for it. I leave it alone.

WLU 15:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omnilord thing

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Omnilord&diff=next&oldid=80088806

[edit] personal attack warning

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=prev&oldid=73158199

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=prev&oldid=73399360

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mystar1959

[edit] stuff

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=63604265

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=64119558

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=64156116

[edit] dislike goodkind = bad person

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=64158133

[edit] missing the point

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=prev&oldid=64388635

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=64406046

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=64411577

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=71938845

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72620803

[edit] bad faith

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72321511

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72327959

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72338071 (other address)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72446587 ditto

[edit] I'm not the only one

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72477278

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72615288

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72629980

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72632669

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72645801

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72651879

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72730681

[edit] failure to take steps to reduce conflict

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72731082

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&diff=next&oldid=72956263

[edit] users, not content

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WLU-Mystar/Workshop#Evidence_presented_by_WLU:_Mystar.27s_personal_attacks.2Fincivility_against_users_other_than_WLU

[edit] new stuff

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WLU-Mystar/Workshop#Stalking

I am super, super curious to know the path of logic would lead to me smearing Terry Goodkind on the Cat's Claw, Lupus Erythematosus, T'lan Imass, Eccentric and Concentric contraction pages.

[edit] missing the point (2)

[2]

Not sure what this proves. For one thing, there are a variety of links on the Terry Goodkind website that use Mystar's website as sources - somewhat natural that my IP would show up. For another, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one with this IP, as it is a pretty generic one with a very popular internet company. Plus I'm pretty sure it changes fairly frequently. If Mystar blocks mine, he might be blocking a variety of people who live in the same city as me, and it might not even block me. And I never said that I have never visited the site, I said I've never posted any comments, which I haven't. And this is just about the most pointless bag of letters I've ever read. What does it prove? And how have I intruded? By reading the website and never, ever posting something?

[3]

That's why I called it PA/incivility. And the statement "I'm discovering new ones all the time" originates in the search through the diffs of the TG talk page, among others. And if I was still finding diffs in Mystar's current contributions, that's problematic and evidence of further ill-faith. How am I controlling Mystar's posts? Am I following him to pages and posting comments? Is his fear that I might read something offensive or uncivil making him be more civil? Hardly problematic the second.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terry_Goodkind&curid=1708642&diff=108367864&oldid=108348029

Oh my fucking God, it has to be deliberate.

[edit] Therapy

wow

awesome

I guess this means the other 3000 edits totally unrelated to Terry Goodkind are an elaborate beard, not to mention the complete lack of negative contributions to the Terry Goodkind for months on end. I'm just biding my time, cackle cackle. My ultimate plan was to sign up for a userid on wikipedia, wait the 30-50 years for Mystar to die, then BAM, single-handedly ruin Terry Goodkind's reputation with a few keystrokes, all apparently occurring subconsciously as I completely lack a memory of consciously deciding to do so. I am a frickin' genius.

I love the admission that this has absolutely nothing to do with the case. That's the best thing in the world.

[edit] TG talk page external links

http://www.bookstandard.com/bookstandard/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002878399 1Spider-Man director Sam Raimi, and his producing partner Joshua Donen, will develop a miniseries based on Terry Goodkind’s bestselling “Sword of Truth” series. Production will begin within a year, with Wizard’s First Rule, the first book in the series. 2Goodkind, who has previously turned down film offers, was struck by Raimi and Donen’s idea for a miniseries. 3“It’s a dream come true to work with someone of such remarkable vision, talent and ability,” Goodkind said in a statement released today. “Given Sam’s sincere love for these stories and his determination to only make great films, this mini series will be a watershed event.” 4Phantom, the latest in the ten-book series, was released last week, with the 11th set for release in early 2007. The ninth book, Chainfire, was released in January 2005 and has sold more than 235,000 in hardcover and mass-market editions, as tracked by Nielsen BookScan. 5Raimi is currently wrapping Spider-Man 3, with Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/tvnews.php?id=15750

A "Spider-Man" franchise director Sam Raimi and his producing partner Joshua Donen have optioned rights for Terry Goodkind's bestselling "Sword of Truth" adventure series, published by Tor Books.
B Having been approached by Hollywood a number of times over the past decade, Goodkind was never convinced that his 400,000 word novels could be successfully compressed into worthwhile feature films. In a meeting at the author's home, the renowned director and producer instead conceived of a groundbreaking mini-series. Within two hours Goodkind was sold on the concept and negotiations commenced. Ten months later the deal was finally concluded.
C "It's a dream come true to work with someone of such remarkable vision, talent, and ability," Goodkind said. "Given Sam's sincere love for these stories and his determination to only make great films, this mini-series will be a watershed event."
D All of Goodkind's novels have been international bestsellers. Translated into 20 foreign languages, there are over 10 million copies in print. The "Sword of Truth" series began with "Wizard's First Rule" in 1994. The 10th novel in the series, "Phantom," is on sale now. The 11th and final volume is under contract and will be published in 2008.
E Raimi and Donen hope to begin production of the opening mini-series, "Wizard's First Rule," within the next year, to be followed by ensuing volumes of the epic novels. The development process will begin while Raimi completes Spider-Man 3.

1 and A are the same information. 2 and B are the same information. 3 and C are the same quote 4 and D are different information about book publishing. Of the 2, the coming soon is the better info for the TG page as it's got information about the number of languages and copies in print. 5 and E are the same information.

There is nothing in the book standard link that is not in the coming soon link in greater detail. There is no reason to have this link in the external links.

[edit] awesome

[4]

[edit] oh yeah, it's personal

[edit] recent terry goodkind

first removal

first talk page posting

first revert

second removal

second revert

second talk page posting

third removal

first talk reply

third revert

final removal by uninvolved user

third talk page posting

second reply

fourth posting, moved from arb case

fifth posting with verbatim comparison

insane reply

sixth posting

seventh posting

[edit] recent ASOIAF

changed title

Mystar reverts with spurious reason

Other uninvolved user reverts

[edit] Old lupus

intro sentence to treatment section

Mystar's addition of fact tag

Mystar's challenge on talk page

my reply (and follow-up)

other user's comments

I remove fact tag

What I don't want is to have to pull in other editors every time I add info to one of Mystar's pet pages and he starts reverting me out of pique.

[edit] stalking

[5]

As a courtesy, I make a point of not editing pages that Mystar make changes to unless it is one that is already on my watchlist. This is because I know how aversive it can be to be followed by someone you don't respect or like. On top of that, many of the changes Mystar made worsened the pages and I had to fix the mistakes. Not to mention stalking me to a page, then slapping it with a spurious AFD tag out of pique.

[edit] therapy (2)

My reply to some of the statements. It's a waste of time to post these on the arb page itself, so they're mostly a way of venting without the arb committee having to read even more.

Well, let me add a few items here. Let us be crystal clear on the Terry Goodkind pages. As Neofreak stated [6] that as I also stated (with proofs) that outside elements were at work to discredit and vandalize the Goodkind pages.

Except this hasn't happened.

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 [7] & 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!"

On my user page, not the TG page. Where was I vocal? That there is no diff means this comment is pissing in the wind.

Later WLU knowing quite well the conduct unbecoming removes it, [8]

Showing I read the policy and decided that it did apply, that I am amendable to reasonable discussion.

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.

What, 6 other people also had problems with the edits? Both of us being blocked means no conflict, and I believe I've reverted far more vandals than pretty much any other long-term editor to the page.
Also, I didn't suggest the arbitration ruling, that was the arbitrators.
Also (ii), the edits were generally not seen as excellent by other editors, including myself.

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 [9]

So what?

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.

I think they did.

Many of my changes are still intact, format, statements, just rewritten by WLU.

When they were worthwhile, I re-worded them to remove plagiarism and left them up.

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.

Showing that I don't remove good information. Unlike Mystar. Also, the arb committee doesn't deal with content disputes and they aren't going to go fishing without diffs.

The only person who had any problem with any edits I made to them is WLU, who made a war out of it.

Yup, 'cause I think many are low-quality edits and there are never reasons given.

Lupus and Lupus SLE are two differing types of the same disease.

No they are not.

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.

Show me a reference.

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.

There was no reason to revert the title.

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. [10] and when I was attacked for reverting a simply and honest discussion on a talk page where it is meant to be, [11] 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.

Jamhaw's edit (if it is actually him) make no sense. There was no discussion or reply.

[12]. 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.

They've never told me directly so I have no way of knowing if this is true or not.

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?

Show me a diff. I don't know how honor can impact a page. I think these generalized statements are absurd and patent nonsense.

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.

And I never have.

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.

Lots of people write articles about others they don't like on wikipedia. Critical commentary is allowed as long as it is referenced, balanced and NPOV.

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.

Spent more time following me around than on the wikiproject.

[edit] I don't make the decisions

[13]

[edit] amends

[14]

I don't remember amends

[edit] mentors

[15]

I don't think I need a mentor, and I think it would be a waste of time. Though a mentor might help with understanding each other's rationalization of edits.
What biting?
Admins might think it is ridiculous, but the arbitrators don't.

[edit] no edits

[16]


As WLU has stated she/he has no knowledge of the books other than reading a few reviews.

Talk about incivility, how many times do I have to say I'm a man?
Repeatedly said I've read WFR

This does not constitute being able to edit with any kind of knowledge as to content and or specifics to the pages.

Haven't edited a Sword of Truth page in a good long while.

WLU has also made many attempts at, and succeeded in slandering Goodkind on Wikipedia,

Where have I successfully slandered TG?

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?

As long as I keep my contributions to the mainspace pages NPOV and can back them up with references, doesn't really matter what I think, just what I post.
I am not maintaining a 3000 post beard in order to hide a larger agenda of smearing TG.

[edit] other editors

Regarding Mystar's interactions with other editors (discussed here), currently it seems to be less of a problem, though it has in the past (links are for subsequent diffs, not necessarily comments):

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/WLU-Mystar/Workshop#placeholder_heading - diffs in second point

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/WLU-Mystar/Evidence#other_people_have_problems_with_mystar

as well as this comment.

Again, currently it is less of a problem, particularly since the Terry Goodkind page has settled down.

Irrespective, I'm satisfied with the potential outcome of arbitration.

[edit] Outcome

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so choose. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

For this case, there are 13 active arbitrators and none are recused, so 7 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[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.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Way too strong. We have an ongoing problem with baseless accusations of stalking.
Abstain:

[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.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Incivil behavior

1) Both WLU and Mystar have at times engaged in incivil behavior toward each other; for example: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21].

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Stalking

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

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC) per principle above.
Abstain:

[edit] Problems with other editors

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

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. On the workshop page User:NeoFreak, claims otherwise. Paul August ☎ 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I did look in the direction pointed by NeoFreak and was unconvinced. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed remedies

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 WLU do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (note slight change of "he" to "WLU" to make clear who this remedy is referring to.)
  6. Paul August ☎ 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Mystar

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

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (see note in previous remedy)
  6. Paul August ☎ 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Previously problematic articles

3) 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.

Support:
  1. Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Paul August ☎ 17:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

[edit] Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Majority in this case is 7. As of now, all principles, findings and remedies pass 8-0 or 7-1. Thatcher131 01:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

[edit] 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.

passed 7-1 at 12:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[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.

passed 8-0 at 12:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Findings of Fact

[edit] Incivil behavior

1) Both WLU and Mystar have at times engaged in incivil behavior toward each other; for example: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26].

passed 8-0 at 12:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stalking

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

passed 7-1 at 12:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with other editors

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

passed 7-0 with one abstention at 12:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remedies

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 WLU do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week.

passed 8-0 at 12:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mystar

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

passed 8-0 at 12:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Previously problematic articles

3) 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.

passed 8-0 at 12:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcement

[edit] Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

[edit] Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. Close, looks like we're done here. Kirill Lokshin 03:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Close. Paul August ☎ 03:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Close. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Close. Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Close. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 08:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/l/u/User_talk%7EWLU_arbitration_7be8.html"