Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WLU-Mystar

Case Opened on 01:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 12:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

You may add to the as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Requests for arbitration.

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 evidence below has been re-formatted and posted on the evidence sub-page. The substance is the same, the presentation has changed.'''


 * 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
 * One, against other user, this is also an example of wikistalking
 * Two


 * 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
 * One
 * Two, also threatening
 * Three, note my reply
 * Four, also refers to me as a girl after I made my gender clear here


 * Personal attack/incivility against other users
 * One, changes 'enrage' to 'annoy' in next edit
 * Two


 * Wikistalking
 * Wars and Light and Shadow
 * Suggestion box (stalking another user)
 * Eccentric contraction
 * Concentric contraction
 * Barbara Hambly
 * Heroes Die
 * Uncaria tomentosa
 * Lupus erythematosus
 * There is also the edit in the section "Commenting on users, not content", above and abuse of policy, and sockpuppeting below.

Meatpuppeting - not in evidence page, removed by WLU
 * Here


 * Sockpuppeting
 * Here, admits to it here (skipping one edit he made). Since Mystar was not logged in he would have to check my contributions making this another example of wikistalking.


 * Abuse of policy
 * Deletion - page created only 12 hours previously, also wikistalking
 * Peer review
 * Cat's Claw (as peer review above)
 * Barbara Hambly (as peer review above)


 * See also
 * Uninvolved user on Mystar's behaviour
 * This comment by Mystar is in reference to this edit by me adding a summary/intro sentence.

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.

Statement by Mystar
WOWzers! As I read over the list of compiled allegations, I am amazed at how WLU has twisted about 99% of every edit I’ve made into some kind of attack against him/her or some kind of stalking event! Let me say first off that contrary to WLU’s stated belief in his/her edit counts being higher makes him/her more important, that is in fact not the case. However this is exactly what some of my point will be. This user assumes too much and extreme bad faith from the start.

To start I’ll quote one of the users (Neofreak) I’m accused of being “uncivil” to: “There is a debate about Goodkind, fiercely fought and widespread across SF&F fandom, but as it is a POV and matter-of-opinion discussion, it is perhaps not entirely relevant” WLU started attacking me long before he/she even had a user name. This was in relation to several people from the ASOIAF message board discussing vandalizing Goodkind’s bio page, as Neofreak has already refered to. I have the logs and I have the proof. One user was banned from this message board for that very action. Due to that fact WLU started in.

I have never disagreed with the fact that early on I was not familiar with Wikipedia and how it works. As a matter of fact it still baffles me at times. I have always stated that early on I was not civil at times HOWEVER I did apologize where it was warranted. And have learned to be civil. Notwithstanding returning a barb or two when attacked by WLU. WLU wishes to take every little thing I’ve ever done and twist it into a cause. Where Moody and I have had our differences I’ve long ago apologized. Runch and I as well have a good friendship and have moved to setting up and working on The Sword of Truth Wiki project. Feel free to talk to Runch. He will attest to the fact that I was the originator and co-author of the project. Further to that point since we did start this project the edit warring has ceased and we have gotten much accomplished.

Am I strong willed and a stanch supporter of my work? Hell yes! That, however, is not a reason for WLU to attack me or continue to [be un civil to me as they are.

Abuse and attacks
First off lets look at the current example of WLU’s bad faith and efforts to not only insult but also extreme incivility. When I asked kindly and politely, WLU altered it by going further to inflame. page User:WLU "“I want to see Mystar banned 'cause he's been wikistalking me, 'cause he doesn't engage in actual discussion with anyone who disagrees with him, 'cause he uses Wikipedia policies punitively (and improperly), 'cause he's generally a crappy editor and 'cause he's generally disruptive." You could argue the same about me, but I don't think this holds in recent months. Anyway, I'm happy enough if he just ameliorates his conduct to civil and reasonable. 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. It was my main reaction to reading WFR, and the reason I stopped reading at that point”. WLU 19:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

More abuse and blatant attacks aimed at inflaming me to respond with attacks. == 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.  Also Get a clue, you suck at this, read the policies and actually justify what you are editing. WLU 12:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)” More:
 * WLU “Just being catty at this point”
 * WLU admitting to abuse “I think editing for content might be seen as tendentious, much like me editing a Sword of Truth article for content”.
 * WLU Admonished for attacking me
 * WLU admitting to snide behavior
 * WLU admitting to breaking his/her word “Your point about me breaking my word is tiresome, irrelevant and frankly laughable, and won't prevent me from editing the page further. I suggest not trusting me in the future, that might be best WLU 12:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)”

Current situation
The latest situation, the reality is that WLU deleted a users opinion and statement on a talk page. I saw this and was in the IRC chat room at the time, we (an admin and I) discussed it. There was no reason to revert jamhaw’s question and statement. Again WLU deems the pages her/his to do with as he/she pleases. WLU went apeshit and demanded to know why. SO I kindly and politely responded, with the help offer me by said ADMIN in the IRC chat room.


 * WLU admits to having his/her “other” IP blocked “And in reply to your alter account comment, I have only one user account, the WLU one. I have access to two computers that I edit from (one of which has been blocked from anonymous editing, I assume because of the TG page” WLU 18:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have asked WLU to take a less hostile tone with me “Secondly WLU, I am going to ask politely that you take a less hostile tone with me. I stated the facts as they are. Call Tor if you wish, call Harper Collins UK and they will tell you not every publisher reports to them. If you don't like that, it is not my problem. I have source material that you are not privy to. So me I am free to make public, some I'm asked not to. I do think however that my well-known association with Goodkind' gives my points creditability. If you disagree, that's not my problem. Mystar 02:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)”
 * WLU Acknowledging WLU’s attacks “so I do apologies for the barbs that Mr. Willocx pointed out below. His comments are warranted and I am appropriately castigated. WLU 20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)”

I’m greatly amused at the “alleged” Wikistalking issue WLU is raising… Untrue! Were I wikistalking WLU why am I not editing everything WLU is editing? As a matter of record WLU long ago openly stated that WLU is Wikistalking me: "“I am not completely innocent, I have insulted Mystar before and regularly check his contributions to make sure they are accurateWLU 12:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC) ”."  
 * 22:58, 8 October 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Werthead (I'm sick of Mystar)
 * 22:54, 8 October 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Paul Willocx (I'm sick of Mystar)
 * 22:52, 8 October 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Brendan Moody (I'm sick of Mystar)
 * 22:51, 8 October 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Omnilord
 * 22:51, 8 October 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Omnilord (I'm sick of Mystar)
 * 22:50, 8 October 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Runch (I'm sick of Mystar)
 * 22:49, 8 October 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:NeoFreak (I'm sick of Mystar)

 "Again, sure I've been a jackass in the past, probably ongoing, but what do you think about what's there? Can you honestly say it's worth discarding wholesale? I can still write about things I disagree with or dislike, and it's not like everyone else will let blatant vandalism or abuse will stand. Thoughts? WLU 02:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)"

As to the alleged “Meatpuppeting”
I asked for people to take an intrest in Wikipedia. Moody discussed it with me, and how it could be misconstrued, so I altered it and thanked him for helping me. Again at that time I was not aware of what Meatpuppeting was, or how it could be applied.

And “Sockpuppeting”? Good God! I didn’t admit to it! Hell I simply reverted blatant removal of an honest opinion of a person. I regularly check ASOIAF pages and I happened to see this. I asked an admin in the IRC chat who agreed that he saw no vandalism and that it should be reverted. WLU went apeshit…asking me to provide cause and back it up. I did so, FIRST clearing it with the same admin in the Wikiperia-en chat room. Who also helped me make sure my points were valid. I would love to show this conversation, but as logging in the chat is forbidden I have no loggs to show. Suffice it to say, I did not engage in any kind of “puppeting, but rather proper editing. My edits on articles, well I stand by them. I offered up references, facts and good content.

May I add Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia (as explained at Introduction), and so anyone may edit its articles.

As to Uncaria tomentosa, I look at my edits and see good quality edits. My first edit was bold and as per wiki stance I added what I thought was an interesting factoid. Secondly my second edit is still mostly intact. I edited for factual content and it still stands today, though WLU has tried to change it time and time again. I finally stopped editing that page rather than seeing WLU have another hissy fit. When I was rebuffed by WLU I asked an admin to look it over and said admin agreed with my edit, that it looked ok… When I was attacked by WLU I asked according to advise from an admin on the IRC chat room for such things and asked for a peer review, as per correct wiki procedure. 

Barbara Hambly
As an avid reader I am quite familiar with her and her work. I edited some incorrect information and specifically some wording that was an assumption on the part of WLU.

Placing unsourced assumptions is not proper, so I edited in good faith. When placing some specific wording it was not sourced so was not applicable. I still find the internet blog of a fan rather dubious as such is not allowed on other bio pages… Lupus erythematosus etc.

I edited in good faith and offered up my edits. As anyone is able to see however, WLU is a strict page owner, No one let along me is able to edit behind him/her.

In closing
The fact of the matter is WLU is incapable of interacting with me. That is not my problem. This is not a message board and I do not have to interact with any user if I choose not. And in choosing not to interact is not considered incivility. I have no problem editing with WLU. I have over looked WLU’s attacks against me. My skin is thick enough and I can ignore WLU’s barbs and taunts. I see a great deal of chafe from WLU on this whole thing. Kinda like the pot calling the kettle black. Every story has two sides and both are slanted to each person’s intent. However, as I’ve said, I’ve long ago made amends to users like moody, Runch and Neofreak…as for Alienus, He was the original problem, but as he is blocked, he is no longer a problem.

In short, I’m still rather new. I’m still learning. Do I make a mistake and post in the wrong place, yeah, do I make mistakes, hell yeah. BUT they are honest mistakes and I always seek advise from the proper sources. Do I have a long way to go? Of that I’m sure! BUT being condescending is not one of my problems. I am not responsible for how WLU wishes to perceive my posts/edits or me. WLU wishes to control how I think and my opinion. When I was un sure I asked for peer review, as is proper, yet I see in WLU’s rant that my asking for peer reviews is somehow wrong? So I can’t win for loosing huh?

Again I’m not the problem. By WLU’s own admission he/she simply wants me banned because WLU can’t stand Goodkind, and because Terry is a close friend, has transferred that hate to me.

Further, I stunned that by WLU’s own admission is and has an extensive record for being openly sarcastic with anything he/she feels is in direct conflict with his/her opinion. Though admittedly WLU has just removed several statements from his/her user page is telling indeed. I value honesty and integrity above all else. I for one will not change my values or my honor. As it seems to me, the real issue is that WLU wishes to control how "I" post or edit. Citing Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is not a battleground, Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals". "Don't be afraid to edit—anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better".

I thank you for your time and Patience Mystar 01:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

 * Accept. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 23:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. Kirill Lokshin 23:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 12:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
= Final decision = All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

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)

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 Civility.

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

Incivil behavior
1) Both WLU and Mystar have at times engaged in incivil behavior toward each other; for example:, , , ,.

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

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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.