Case Opened on 17:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on June 30, 2005 12:02 (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 worked on the proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties[edit]

Statement by AlexR[edit]

I request arbitration against Njyoder for persistent incivility and aggressiveness which poisons the climate on the pages he edits. He has in both Bisexuality and Gender (those are the two I was involved in; see other examples below) shown the same pattern - information he dislikes is deleted, and restoring it a "violation of policy" or POV or whatever, in any case, not allowed. Disagreeing with him is inevitably followed by personal attacks. His style is highly disruptive, and while he does occasionally have a valid point, those are drowned by his habit of deleting everything he doesn't like (instead of improving it) and becoming highly insulting if anybody suggests any other solution to the problem then deleting.

Since the matter on Bisexuality seems to be over, I'll concentrate on the Gender case for now; however, his behaviour is consistent and therefore references to Gender should only serve as the main example.

Gender and Talk:Gender[edit]

From Gender, Njyoder removed large parts of the content, on 15. May 2005, 16:49: [1]. Edit comment was: "removed sentences that don't make sense, removed dictionary explanations of etymology (this is not a dictionary), removed POV, made it a stub - [from last edit] gender=sex as per general consensus" Given these rather questionable reasons, the fact that there was no explanation on the talk page, and his previous behaviour, I merely reverted that as "vandalism" [2]. There were a few more reverts on both sides, currently the article rests (in the Njyoder version) because of this Arbcom request - there seems to be absolutely no point in debating the matter any further. This is confirmed by the talk page:

14:41, 17 May 2005 [3] " Marking them as vandalism when they're not is a violation of Wikipedia policy."
16:19, 17 May 2005 [4] "I just noticed that AlexR, without even consulting the talk page, tried reverting the same thing he did before." (Well, he hadn't used it, either.)
Article went RfC on 21:15, 17 May 2005 [5]
18:41, 18 May 2005 [6] Claims that User:Arbor already explained his edits sufficiently on the talk page ( [7]); only, how can anybody know whether Arbor and Njyoder did indeed agree there? Also:

"He [AlexR]] took it to RfC without even bothering to make the slightest attempt to explain why he wrongfully reverted my edits as vandalism (a violation of wikipedia policy)." and the rather odd:
"Another POV etymological statemet: "Gender is also evolving in this usage from noun to adjective: it is increasingly being seen as an attribute (like color) rather than as a distinct entity in itself." is completely unsubstantiated. I've never heard anyone say "that color is male/female." A color being preferred by a gender doesn't make it a gender in itself. This usage is non-existant."

22:14, 19 May 2005 [8] Reply to User:Axon: "Are you kidding me? ... If you can't even acknowledge that, then you're ridiculously biased. ... All you're doing is reinforcing the fact that you don't want to cooperate and follow wikipedia guidelines in settling a dispute. Additionally, I don't have a history of "controversial edits." That's completely disingenuous to say. ... Please keep on making yourself look bad."
22:27, 19 May 2005 [9] Reply to me:

"You're deliberately ignoring what people have already reached a general consensus on, please stop lying to make a point." and
"One might oppose a certain analysis of gender, but I've never heard of anyone actually opposing the concept except those from exremist left-wing branches of feminism, the types oh zealously believe that we should use gender neutral terms like "zie" and "zir." Your assertion is not only wrong, it's the opposite of the way it is." (compare gender-neutral pronoun) and
"Instead, in bad faith, you iniated an RfC against me as a hissy fit. The general consensus is AGAINST you, accept it and stop inserting your POV everywhere."

05:54, 24 May 2005 [10]

"This is why I think he should just be banned from gender and sexuality articles, he refueses to conceded even the most blatantly obvious cases of POV."
"I've tried this with him in the past, whenever I call him on absurd factual errors, he cries and whines and refuses to provide sources. He's probably the single biggest POV pusher in gender related articles." (compare [11])

Attempts by Njyoder to actually answer the questions brought up cannot be found.

Bisexuality[edit]

My initial RfC on 28. April 2005 [12] changed by Njyoder on 29. April [13]. Given that his initial removal of the Kinsey statistics [14] followed a debate with me and others on #wikipedia, I was under the misapprehension that this was a somewhat personal matter, hence the wording of my initial RfC.

At any rate, same pattern - deleted what he didn't like, became highly insulting when the deletion was reverted, and was nowhere willing to compromise. I kept out of the debate somewhat, since I still did not want to fuel it by what is maybe a personal conflict. (Although since he treats everybody who disagrees with him the same way, maybe this is less personal than I fear.)

For the complete debate, see Talk:Bisexuality#Prevalence of bisexuality and cultural practice of it and Talk:Bisexuality#Kinsey.

Third gender[edit]

On Talk:Third gender he also claimed that it had a "POV-bias" and that the article was "non-notable", although so far he has refrained from editing the article itself. The comment includes this rather ... surprising ... statement:

"Also, a quick google test shows that "third gender" only gets 19.2k hits, it's an uncommon term. This should be redirected to an merged with the Gender article, it is not worthy of its own article." [15]

(Talk page conists only of three edits, hence no use in providing diffs)

Other pages showing Njyoder's less than mature behaviour:[edit]

Talk:Vole - completely unrelated topic, same style, see for example [16]. Also calling 10k of hits "not notable in the slightest"
User:Njyoder/bishonen
Talk:Circumcision; for example from Talk:Circumcision/Archive 5, [17]:

"I suggest that he simply be banned from modifying this article (and all other circumcision related articles) as he's demonstrated nothing but his inability to remain neutral and civilized."
"...proceeds to incorrectly call anti-circumcision people a "minority" fringe group despite the majority of the world not practicing ritual circumcision."

Comments regarding his statement[edit]

Regarding the alleged "tag-team":
This "tag-team" does not exist - I only became aware of User:Axon during the debate on talk:bisexuality at all. (I have a terrible memory for names, though, so we may have met before.) I dunno, two articles in about two weeks hardly do make a "tag-team", do they? Besides, it seems we are thrown together here simply because both of us, independantly, disagreed with Njyoder on his handling of those two articles. So I am asking Njyoder for more evidence on this "tag-teaming". -- AlexR 16:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "see talk page":

Article: 16:33, 15 May 2005 Njyoder
Article: 16:49, 15 May 2005 Njyoder (removed sentences that don't make sense, removed dictionary explanations of etymology (this is not a dictionary), removed POV, made it a stub - [from last edit] gender=sex as per general consensus)
Article: 20:31, 15 May 2005 AlexR (Revert from vandalism)
Article: 14:45, 17 May 2005 Njyoder (rv to my previous version (plus included minor edit) which is not at all vandalism -- see talk page)
Talk: 14:41, 17 May 2005 Njyoder (Do not revert non-vandalism as vandalism)
Talk: 15:30, 17 May 2005 Arbor (→Do not revert non-vandalism as vandalism) That is the edit in which Arbor tries to explain Njyoder's edits [AR]
Article: 15:56, 17 May 2005 AlexR (Revert widespread removal of content)
Article: 16:15, 17 May 2005 Njyoder (rv - what part of "see talk page" don't you understand? - stop pushing your POV everywhere through misleading edits and refusing to be civil unless you want to be reported for wikipedia policy violati)

Taken directly from the histories of gender and talk:gender, edits by others omnitted for brevity. All times shown are MEST, UTC +2
Given that the statements have become very lenghty in parts, it would be perfectly OK to move some of them to the evidence page, once it is opened. -- AlexR 16:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen[edit]

Njyoder's debating style on Talk:Gender won't come as a surprise to anybody who saw his personal attacks at my request for adminship, 1 May to 8 May 2005. Njyoder's interest in my unworthiness to be an admin subsided after the vote, so the matter wouldn't be worth bringing to the ArbCom's attention for its own sake, but I'm submitting this statement to widen the scope of the point AlexR is making about general incivility. (Although now that I've seen Njyoder's response to Snowspinner's offer of mediation, I reckon that's the entire RFAr right there.) I don't know why I was singled out, as I'd had no contact with him previously. I took him to be trolling, rather than airing any grievance against me personally, and following this perception, I didn't respond to his posts. (Anybody who did jump in to defend me got more aggression from him.) The only factual basis for animosity from Njyoder towards me that I know of is that I made fun of him on #wikipedia (briefly and, as I think, mildly) during an IRC session where his behavior got him kicked and eventually banned from the channel. OTOH, that was well after Njyoder had begun his crusade against me. (I'll be happy to quote these IRC remarks of mine, if it's proper to quote #wikipedia on Wikipedia at all). I supply a few egregious diffs below, but arbitrators can get the flavor of Njyoder's "debating" style more simply by taking a look at the talk page for my RFA, which is dominated by Njyoder and which gives a context of polite editors making reasoned appeals to him.

14:05, May 1, "humorous" RFA vote: Njyoder votes Strong 'Oppose to my RFA, giving as the reason: "She raped me with a series of rolled up Wikipedia print-outs :-(". [18]. Many users on #wikipedia IRC ask him to remove the sentence about rape. He refuses repeatedly, and User:Sj removes the sentence after a few minutes. [19]
20:43, May 3, posting #wikipedia logs: Njyoder creates the talk page for my RFA and pastes in extracts from the #wikipedia log claimed to "further incriminate her ... decides to go offline in a private medium with kim to spew vitriol so that she doesn't further incriminate herself." (I quite often often talk privately with Kim Bruning on IRC—Njyoder wasn't on that occasion, or ever, a subject between us.) [20],[21]
21:27, May 3, aggression: Sannse politely asks Njyoder not to post extracts from the #wikipedia log: "You probably missed my comment earlier on channel—posting logs from #wikipedia is against the channel policy" [22], and he responds: "Sannse, I suggest you take your POV, and dishonest pro-censorship behavior elsewhere... I suggest you read the Wikiquette, Wikilove and NPOV articles so you can better understand the wikipedia policies that you are violating...if you continue this ridiculous childish retaliatory behavior on both IRC and Wikipedia, I'll get a comitte to come in and review you to have your admin status revoked." [23]
19:08, May 7, accuses me of kissing my own ass: "Why the heck should she 'get credit' simply for her ability to garner votes? ... Somehow, I don't think kissing your ass to the top is a valid qualifier for being an admin." [24] (I deny being capable of this acrobatic position.)

May 27: addendum put in after Njyoder added his statement below. 1) Since Njyoder continues to insist that the #wikipedia log from early May "incriminates" me, I would really appreciate it if the arbitrators read what I say on it—I'm sure they have access to the full log. My nicks were bishonen, bish, and bishfreak, as far as I can remember, maybe bishzilla also. I know that #wikipedia isn't supposed to be posted or used in "evidence" on wikipedia, but if Njyoder's statements on this page are going to create a suggestion in anybody's mind that I abused him on IRC, I think it's fair my actual words should be read. 2) Njyoder now claims two "jokes" against me. There's his Oppose vote because I "raped him with a series of wikipedia printouts" (this diff shows it—please note that the sentence is no longer visible on the page, having been removed, not by Njyoder, as being too offensive). And now me auto-ass-kissing my way "to the top" is claimed to be "literally a joke" also. Never mind the injunction against personal attacks (David Gerard below), can I please have an injunction against jokes from Njyoder? Bishonen | talk 19:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Axon[edit]

I have found Njyoder to be a highly combative and uncivil POV pusher whose hostile attitude on talk pages does not encourage civil discourse or resolution of the various edit wars (see above) he is frequently party to. Rather than attempt to resolve issues he prefers to make threats and accusations of POV. It is particularly strange he seems to quick to attack me as I've only edited the pages infrequently, mainly keeping my contributions to the talk pages. Nyoder seems to find even the expression of a dissenting view intolerable.

"Tag Teaming"[edit]

I would just like to add the following statement of Nathan's accusation of "tag teaming" and "wikibullying" he has made against AlexR and I. Firstly, the invented "crime" of "tag teaming" is not actually against wikipedia policy (unlike personal attacks and incivility) - any discussion is permitted on talk pages so long as the principals of civil discourse and wikiquette are met and it is relevant to the topic of the article.

Secondly, the accusation of "wikibullying" seems unfounded given that I've only ever really edited the talk pages in question. I originally encountered Nathan on Bisexuality where is terse and belligerent remarks naturally caught my attention. More recently, I noticed the Gender and Third gender page had been listed on the LGBT notice board (a perfectly valid wikipedia project for anyone interested in LGBT topics, both for and against, on Wikipedia) so I went along to add my own remarks and comments to help with the discussion. I'm not sure what in the above constitutes "bullying".

If Nathan has any evidence of incivility of personal attacks I or AlexR have made against him he should present them on the evidence page instead of making vague accusations of "wikibullying". Axon 09:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by njyoder[edit]

Why so hasty to reach arbitration? I find it a bit silly that aribtration was jumped to so quickly. Basically, there was an RFC on one article that is still being worked on by several people (gender). There are parties other than myself, AlexR and Axon working on it, so I don't see why that would even be necessary to mention.

Yes, I was given a request for mediation when I initially edited the gendern article (IIRC). I denied the request because I simply don't see the point of it. The only edit I've made that has actually stuck in any of those articles was the single edit I made in gender, that's it. So in other words, he launched a request for arbitration over a single article which is still being worked on.

Why was bishonen even included? Another thing that is bothersome is that somehow Bishonen became a party in this. I stopped talking to her for weeks, so the only conceivable reason that she became a part of this was out of a personal vendetta. My only involvement with her was on her RFC, where I voted against her. Considering that I've never so much as bothered with her since, it's a absurd that she's even included.

Am I being blamed for not having all the time in the world? In any case, I'm only replying to this because I've been busy lately and just want to make this statement. This request for arbitration was actually made after I had stopped editing for a while. Unlike AlexR and Axon, I don't have all the time in the world to do stuff like this.

AlexR and Axon are well known for tag-teaming gender and sexuality related articles and they frequently engage in wikibullying to shut out others' views. If you look at any gender/sexuality article, you'll notice they're some of the biggest POV defenders there, trying to keep an obvious extreme left-wing bias in the articles.

So basically, they've taken advantage of the fact that people like me don't have the time for all of this. If I had the time and motivation to do so, I'd bring an request for arbitration against both AlexR and Axon for this tag teaming nonsense. Of course I don't and they know that, which is why they can actually get away with one against me. It even took a while for me to reply to this and I'm just doing it to get this absurdity out of the way.

It seems they also dug back quite a bit, even into old archives of articles, which suggests these guys have way too much time on their hands. If that isn't indicative of something, I don't know what is.

A lot of this "evidence" is just plain absurd

AlexR

He makes various misleading and lies statements:

information he dislikes is deleted, and restoring it a "violation of policy" or POV or whatever, in any case, not allowed.

I was referring to him reverting an edit I made as 'vandalism.' I made an edit on the gender page which clearly did not fall under any definition of vandalism (he was the ONLY one there who thought it was--everyone else realized it was not) and he reverted it. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't deliberately reverting an edit as vandalism when it's not against policy? At the very least that would qualify as bad faith.

the fact that there was no explanation on the talk page

This is flatly wrong, there WAS an explanation on a talk page, it was just provided by another user and not me. Someone else (arbor) had provided a good explanation, so I didn't see reason to provide one of my own. Instead of reply to arbor's explanation on the talk page, AlexR just reverted it again. Again, this is an act of bad faith.

Marking them as vandalism when they're not is a violation of Wikipedia policy.

He quotes me saying that, I don't see what's wrong with me saying that. He reverted an edit I made as vandalism, when it clearly wasn't. How does that even count as evidence agains me?

I just noticed that AlexR, without even consulting the talk page, tried reverting the same thing he did before." (Well, he hadn't used it, either.)

See above about the talk page.

Claims that User:Arbor already explained his edits sufficiently on the talk page ( [28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender&oldid=13835017)); only, how can anybody know whether Arbor and Njyoder did indeed agree there?

I don't even see how this is valid complaint. Given that I told him to see the talk page, isn't it IMPLIED that I agree with the statements already made? The fact of the matter is SOMEONE gave an explanation. It dosn't matter that it's not me personally. He refused to reply to that explanation until after I reverted and point him back to it again. Refusing to reply to an explanation on the talk page just because I didn't write it is silly and childish.

I was under the misapprehension that this was a somewhat personal matter, hence the wording of my initial RfC.

THis is some fine backpedalling on his part. He started an RfC using a VERY POV statement suggesting this was some kind of personal battle. I actually went back to the RfC and de-POVed it. The fact that he thought it was a personal war to begin with suggests that he was acting in bad faith.

"Also, a quick google test shows that "third gender" only gets 19.2k hits, it's an uncommon term. This should be redirected to an merged with the Gender article, it is not worthy of its own article."

That's nice that he quoted that, but I don't see how it's relevent in the slightest. It is my opinion that the article should be merged and redirected, what's wrong with that?

calling 10k of hits "not notable in the slightest"

Ok, so I don't think 10k hits are notable.... So what? There's no official metric of what makes something notable, so he's just arguing over an opinion.

I suggest that he simply be banned from modifying this article (and all other circumcision related articles) as he's demonstrated nothing but his inability to remain neutral and civilized.

Ok, this one is priceless. He dug back months into archives from circumcision to find this and worst of all, he found something that I was totally right aobut. The person I was referring to ended up being banned from all sex/sexuality related articles for one year. The guy I was referring to was known as "friend of robert," "Robert the bruce" and through other usernames. PRactically everyone agreed that he should be banned, including the admins who banned him. If it's a crime to be right, then lock me up.

Attempts by Njyoder to actually answer the questions brought up cannot be found.

I have no idea what he's saying here. What questions haven't I answered? I address everything that is said when it's asked. Unless he's referring to the absolutely most recent set of NEW questions asked, this is baseless. I haven't edited the gender article in a few days because, well, I'm busy and don't have all the time in the world to reply to the numerous stuff that's in there.

The rest of them are just me pointing out his POV, which hardly warrant arbitration. Basically, general consensus had already been reached, with the help of the consensus of all the major dictionaries, that the use of the word gender to mean sex was a valid usage. AlexR was defending someone's POV statements in the aritcle that said that gender is used incorrectly as sex and that "to dismay" it's a popular usage (which is kind of a contradiction anyway). AlexR refuses to acknowledge that that was a POV statement and refuses to acknowledge the general consensus reached on gender=sex. That reeks of POV pushing.

Bishonen Look at this one from Bishonen, which is literally a joke: "Why the heck should she 'get credit' simply for her ability to garner votes? ... Somehow, I don't think kissing your ass to the top is a valid qualifier for being an admin." [45] (I deny being capable of such an acrobatic position.)

She even hypocritically used evidence of something I did on IRC against me, while simultaneously condemning me from using evidence from IRC (which is not against policy in the first place). Bishonen is only complaining because I found incriminating quotes from IRC that made her look bad.

Axon

This just seems to be him complaining that I made personal attacks, I don't see why that's arbitration worthy. I'm also tired of writing this out, so I'll stop here.

Additions

It seems Bishonen is playing a game she played before online, the "lets deliberately misunderstand people and play dumb to get out myself out of it" game. I was referring to the fact that Bishonen took a comment of mine about her kissing the ass of other (shocker--that requires arbitration!) and responding to it with a joke of her own about not being able to kiss her own ass (not sure why she'd do that since clearly I wasn't referring to her doing that). Yes, since she is so insistent on making jokes here, I'm sure she's taking it seriously. AGain I ask, why is she even listed on this in the first place? Aren't arbitrations supposed to be about settling disputes? Considering I stopped talking to her the instant her nomination was over, I don't see what the dispute is exactly.

AlexR wants evidence of tag teaming? Every single gender/sexuality related article I've edited the main page or talk page of, they've been there. That's bisexualty, Third gender and Gender. From looking at their list it seems they also have Homosexuality and Wikipedia:LGBT_notice_board in common as well (the later was used as a recruitmet point). If you actually look at the talk pages of bisexuality and gender, you'll notice that all AlexR and Axon do is basically repeat eachother's statements, somewhat rephrased to express I agreement. If I or someone else doesn't reply to them both, no matter how redundant and annoying, then it's seen as being non-cooperative. And even then they still repeat themselves after I've clarified myself, there is no winning with them. Either you agree with their stubborn, unchanging and irrational view points, or something is wrong with you.

-Nathan J. Yoder 10:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/1/0)[edit]

Accept. This is stupidly obnoxious behaviour. I'll be moving for a temp injunction against personal attacks if it's accepted as well - David Gerard 23:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. -- sannse (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept as DG. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 02:30, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
Accept. Neutrality^talk 03:30, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Accept. Ambi 06:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Fred Bauder 10:35, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Accept ➥the Epopt 23:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction[edit]

1) If Njyoder makes an edit that any administrator considers constitutes a personal attack, he may be blocked for up to 24 hours.

Passed 5 to 0 at 21:28, 2005 May 29 (UTC).

Final decision[edit]

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