Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

AC Elections December '06

Hey. Just throwing this out there:

Last year we started thinking about the elections in October, and we ended up with was a huge mess in December. An open voting system, postponement until January, candidates dropping out mid-race. So, I think we should start thinking about what we'll do now (not even full-blast, maybe just slight suggestions) so that we don't have the disendorsements disaster of 2004 or the open voting mess of 2005/06. What does everyone else think? — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Already started some time ago;Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Elections/December 2006.Geni 02:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm looks like I missed that. — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Timetable for arb com action?

The RfA on the user Terryeo was accepted on April 3. I've never been involved in one of these before, and I'm curious when active discussion by the arbitrators is likely to begin, and roughly when a decision can be expected. I hope it isn't a breach of protocol to be asking. The user's behavior has not moderated (indeed, he is currently subject to a 24 hour block from an admin due to his disruptive actions yesterday), and it is my belief that his continued agressive policy violations and "wikilawyering" are draining the good will of the Wikipedia community in the areas in which he edits. BTfromLA 21:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You can typically reckon on an arbitration case taking two months or so from start to finish. Some are much shorter, some are longer. In the meantime if a user's activities, say on Scientology-related articles, shows a pattern of disruption, you could propose a temporary injunction in the appropriate place on the Workshop page. --Tony Sidaway 05:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Fred Bauder 14:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The arbitrators usually discuss cases privately through email, not on the wiki. The most you'll typically see is some brief comments from them during the workshop and voting phases. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for this info. BTfromLA 14:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

He's back, evidently.

I believe that everyone here remembers User:Jason_Gastrich, right? Well, the bad news is that he just might be back. While I cannot immediately discern the validity of this assertion, the user User:MiddletonPriorsShropshire has claimed in his edits to the Louisiana Baptist University article that he is, in fact, Jason Gastrich. His edit essentially consisted of an unexplained deletion/blanking, so I'm not sure. I believe we should look into this matter further.

Mister Mister 17:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Or we could just indefinitely block him. In fact, Curps already did. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Well then, that problem is solved.

Sorry if I didn't do something right, I'm semi-new to editing and such.

Mister Mister 20:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Question

Arbitration is described as "the last step in the dispute resolution process", but I see that the arbitration archives contain no content dispute cases; rather, they contain only "criminal trials", resulting in users being banned from editing on account of their inappropriate conduct. I was considering going through the entire dispute resolution process to end a certain content dispute, because I'm pretty sure the parties will never reach a consensus unless a binding decision is imposed. I would like to know if this is actually possible. --85.187.44.131 19:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom traditionally rejects content disputes, but accepts issues where editors need a binding resolution to interpersonal conflicts. I would suggest making the request for arbitration - after all, the worst they can do is reject. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. --85.187.44.131 17:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Case opening templates

I've created the following templates for opening new arbitration cases (based in part on Tony Sidaway's work) that I'd like the arbitrators to consider using:

• Template:ArbComOpenCase (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — Main case page
• Template:ArbComOpenCase/Evidence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — /Evidence page
• Template:ArbComOpenCase/Workshop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — /Workshop page
• Template:ArbComOpenCase/Proposed decision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — /Proposed decision page

All of these accept the case name as the first parameter, and all of them must be substd. The Proposed decision template has the added ability of automatically calculating the majority (if you provide some additional, optional, parameters). If the arbitrators do use these, I strongly urge redirecting/deleting the old templates to avoid confusion when updates need to be made.

Questions/suggestions welcome. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 22:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

IIRC Fred Bauder edited the clerks' procedural page to discourage the usage of such templates. I also think usage of the templates messes up the timestamping in HTML comments for temp injunctions and the like. Johnleemk | Talk 04:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you mean this edit right? Do you happen to know what it was that he had to fix by hand? And ewh, I just noticed the HTML comment thing.. I'll see if I can find a workaround. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 06:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have had to add extra templates in each section. The method was producing only one template per section. Fred Bauder 07:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fred; yeah, it looks like Tony Sidaway's template literally omitted them. The template I created has the extra templates intact. I'm still working on the HTML comment issue Johnleemk mentioned above, but if that's not a show stopper for the arbitrators I think the templates should be ready to use now. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 08:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Something a clerk writes != Clerk writings

• Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Tasks
• Reversion of subsection

I'd changed what is clearly a personal opinion under the heading "Clerk notes" to reflect that it was a statement without official credence. It's not a summary of anything other parties have said, and clerks aren't Junior ArbCom. Statements like Tony Sidaway's here are only one step short of "Reject - Not an arbcom concern" and are exactly why there was such strenous objection to the creation of the office.

The Clerks page says "The Clerks assist the Arbitration Committee by reviewing and summarizing evidence submitted on evidence pages; helping write the decisions; and opening and closing cases which have the required number of votes." The section created by Tony Sidaway is not any of these things, and thus is by definition not a clerk's action.
brenneman^{L} 03:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the principle that we should separate editors from their hats is a good one. I'm sure Tony meant well, but agree that this should have been put under his name rather than the Clerk's office. Probably it was just force of habit. Nandesuka 04:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My notes on this case as a clerk are on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and pertain solely to the applicability of the request in the context of the dispute resolution framework. My notes on this as an editor are on WP:AN/I and give my personal opinion on the proposed mentorship. Note the marked difference in nature and tone. Do not interfere with clerk notes. --Tony Sidaway 06:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge Wikipedia:Blocking Policy has not yet been amended to allow blocking for "interfering" with clerk notes. - brenneman^{L} 06:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

All things being equal, it probably isn't a good idea to engage in edit warring on the arbcom-related pages. --Tony Sidaway 06:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless I've developed some new onanistic wrinkle on a military term, it's impossible to have an "edit war" by myself. Thus you've blocked, without warning, someone whom you considered yourself to be in a content dispute with.
brenneman^{L} 23:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ani thread

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request for review of "clerk" actions

I've started an area for discussion here. - brenneman^{L} 07:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Threaded discussion moved from 'Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others re Biological psychiatry'

I moved this threaded discussion here. If you want your point to appear on the main application, please make it as a brief non-discursive statement, and provide whatever evidence you can.

This behaviour spans multiple articles, such as anti-psychiatry, anti-vaccinationist, psychiatry and numerous others. In fact, an RFC against Ombudsman dealing specifically with external links has already taken place (here). JFW | T@lk 21:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That RFC doesn't appear to be related to this dispute, though. I'd recommend taking it there first. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

If the primary concern at issue here pertains to safeguarding the Wiki's credibility, then adherence to npov policies should take precedence over the disruptive hounding, badgering and character assassination mindset that has plagued the Wiki's medical articles. A number of medical journals have witnessed their credibility plummet in the wake of revelations about their reckless publication of fraudulent clinical trial research studies, which have rightly been described, in many instances, as little more than marketing propaganda.

Too often, thanks to certain of the Wiki's more relentless editors, the opinions of mainstream medical authorities are presented as incontrovertible facts, while hard evidence to the contrary is marginalized or simply deleted wholesale. One of the Wiki's ongoing, unmitigated problems revolves around the fact that certain editors tend to gang up to ensure the Wiki is basically immune to the questioning of mainstream medical industry dogma. The first priority of medicine, in stark contrast to the dubious premises underlying the propagandistic mass marketing of neuroleptic drugs and vaccines, is to avoid perpetrating harm upon the patient.

Vaccines and neuroleptics, in many if not most instances, are marketed on the basis of protecting the community, and the profit driven marketing of such programs rarely bothers to weigh the costs and benefits to individual patients. Such marketing falls well short anything approaching a rational discourse that would assure informed consent, presenting a huge void that the Wiki could and certainly should help fill. While it is widely and justifiably accepted that the polio vaccine helped eradicate a serious threat to public health, a few instances of real benefits accrued via herd immunity hardly justifies the mind bendingly vast expansion of vaccine schedules in recent decades. Single minded profiteering and propagandistic marketing of vaccines, courtesy of big pharma, has resulted an autism epidemic and millions of additional vaccine injury cases. The doublespeak of big pharma endorsed 'destigmatization' campaigns, designed to reduce social resistance to psychotropic interventions, provides further evidence of the manipulative marketing of neurotoxins.

The lobbying, corruption and dangerous deceptions, orchestrated by big pharma to promote the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, provides another egregious example of the abuse of power that now defines an undeniably greedy industry engorged with a trillion dollar annual cash flow. When asked point blank, at recent legislative hearings, whether or not ADHD is actually a disease (or not, as the evidence overwhelmingly indicates), big pharma apologists could not come up with any response at all.

In effect, the licit drug cartels willfully vilify enormous swaths of the population as sufferers of mental illness, often portraying their victims as prone to violence, in order to expand their markets for palliative neurotoxins. Such disingenuous marketing ploys, which are leveraged by the rigidly hierarchical medical community, are aided by a code of silence in the mainstream media, where reporting on certain medical controversies can equate with career suicide (as intimated in a recent report in the Columbia Journalism Review[1] - thanks to Jfd for the link). These facts indicate that medical authorities have completely lost sight of what many still consider the first priority of medicine, not harming the patient. In order to safeguard the credibility of the Wiki's medical articles, it would seem, reflecting knowledge relevant to the protection of the well being of patients (and informed consent for that matter) is just as important as espousing the purported benefits of mass vaccination campaigns and mass mental health screening programs. Ombudsman 18:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

While the normal dispute resolution path is RfC, mediation, then arbitration, Ombudsman did not respond to requests for mediation. At that point, I don't know what other option exists besides arbitration. As Jfdwolff said, he's repeatedly and disruptively POV-tagged other articles. This has been a continuing problem for some time. However if you inhibit solely the POV-tagging aspect, he can just continue by constantly reverting content, merely omitting the tag. I understand your guidelines, but if anybody with extreme viewpoints can roam about Wikipedia under the protection of "mere content dispute", stuffing those viewpoints into as many articles as possible, that damages Wikipedia's credibility as an unbiased reference. A determined individual can do a lot of damage that way. Eventually he finds articles where editors aren't watchful or get tired of fighting him and leave. Content then essentially becomes a web-based soapbox masquerading as an article. You could argue there are other mechanisms to stop that, but they haven't worked or we wouldn't be here. Joema 13:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I requested mediation with Ombudsman, specifically with respect to his repeated incivility and reluctance to openly discuss contentious edits[2]. JFW | T@lk 21:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

To be sure, the request was removed without further comment[3]. JFW | T@lk 21:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, because your 'requests' appeared to be deliberately annoying at best, and exceedingly relentless at the very least. Some editors appear to spend far more time agitating animosity than even bothering with the pretense of collaboration. Jfd's behavior has not been so overtly bothersome recently, but the rabblerousing hasn't abated with Midgley taking over much of the duty. There is a certain amount of speculation that perhaps one or both of these editors are actually being paid by corporate or other special interests to be disruptive, though the form that such influence might take in manifesting itself within the Wiki is not yet clear, regardless of the behavior of these two. The sheer number of antagonizing edits and edit summaries by these two editors alone has been staggering, though Jfd was almost at the point where it was time to express appreciation for toning down the rhetoric. It would be appreciated if these editors and their allies would try a little harder to concentrate more on actually building the encyclopedia, rather than on engaging in what equates with the hazing that goes on in medical schools. Ombudsman 21:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems a bit of a stretch to imply that JFW or Midgley are receiving money from special interest groups! Applying similar logic, perhaps the same could be said of edits from the opposing side, knowing the close connection (and obvious financial interest) between trial lawyers and "vaccination-causes-autism" activist interests! Andrew73 21:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ombudsman does not point to an instance of that "certain amount of speculation" and should be asked to, or else retract that suggestion. Given that he says the form it might take is not yet clear, is one to assume he means he is suggesting something that has actually had no expression in WP? I suspect he cannot. If he could, it is unfounded specualtion and is inaccurate as far as I am concerned. "Hazing" is an Americanism I think, we don't have it as far as I know in UK medical schools. Midgley 23:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the kind of "hazing" that Ombudsman is referring to...certainly he is not talking about the Animal House variety. Andrew73 23:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I am very disappointed at Ombudsman's failure to assume good faith by suggesting that I (or any editor) am paid to edit. Whatever his feelings, I regard his rhetoric against medical editors of minimally the same severity as that ever has been leveled against himself. All this talk of conspiracy, hazing or whatever actually distracts from the issues, and this has been happening for months.

A request for mediation is a request for mediation. Its removal without comment was an act of bad faith.

As for lecturing about building an encyclopedia, I am sure that most of my edits fall into that category (a look at the list on my userpage will suffice). But an encyclopedia should not be used to relentlessly push views that are fringe, unproved (and unprovable), of limited notability or simply wrong.

For all intents and purposes there has been almost non-stop trouble, frequently involving Ombudsman, for the last few months. RFC and RFM have not had the desired results. I think time is ripe for arbitration. JFW | T@lk 14:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I wish to also draw attention to Ombudsman's frequent incivil and unnecessarily charged edit summaries. I quote "rv: the objective is to build a comprehensive encyclopedia, not to obscure knowledge that is inconvenient to Big Pharma, corporate special interests and their ilk"[4] and "it is the credibility of medical authorities that is, at best, questionable, and increasingly so due to the influence of big pharma"[5] (in this RFAr nota bene). References to "big pharma", "conflict of interest", "mainstream medical dogma", "pseudoscience & expert worship"[6] and more are aimed at a large group of editors and are actually highly insulting for professionals who aim to rely on scientific judgement rather than the occasional sales pitch from drug company representatives. Again, this is rooted in assumption of bad faith and non-constructive. JFW | T@lk 15:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Jfd's unfortunate tendency to identify with the medical establishment is so strong that, seemingly every time the establishment is mentioned, the depiction is described by Jfd as a personal attack. Perhaps there is something about the Queen's English that infers, to Jfd, a certain plurality of first person pronouns. Again, the sheer number of rhetorical gambits proffered by Jfd has been staggering. Jfd has expressed great annoyance whenever such, uh, fishing expeditions haven't elicited response(s). When the unrelenting rabble reaches a crescendo and a restrained response designed to pierce the intellectual barriers is offered, Jfd seems anxious to jump all over it as if it were red meat, perhaps overly eager to find a morsel that might easily be misconstrued for Wikipoliticking. This behavior pattern has changed little since the time Jfd removed a series of Whale.to links with scathing edit summaries questioning the sanity of the site's webmaster. While Jfd appears to have been a prolific contributor to the Wiki, and that is to be commended, the crux of the matter boils down to a simple question about deletionist tactics, including entire article deletions: In Jfd's ongoing efforts, apparently to ensure deletion of invaluable content and links essential to assuring npov articles, should Jfd be allowed to continue distracting so much attention from building an encyclopedia through methods such as hijacking certain Wikiprocesses (which are often used in a manner akin to public stocks), portraying sources in such unflattering terms, or by filibustering article discussions? Ombudsman 17:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's very simple, Ombudsman. (1) I make an edit, (2) you revert, attacking an anonymous "medical establishment" in your edit summary. You know I'm a doctor, because that's what I've put on my userpage. It takes minimal thinking to understand that these attacks are obviously aimed at me. I do indeed identify with the "medical establishment", if you read for that "a medical profession that aims to use scientific knowledge to improve health". I'd have thought that after I'd asked you a few times to stop, you'd actually cease taking pot shots at some ill-defined "medical establishment". It doesn't resolve edit disputes and just poisons the well.

And I regard your suggestions above that I am paid by the pharmaceutical industry as a personal attack and was rather hoping you'd apologise for that. It's a rather poor show if you use this request for arbitration (against you, I note) as a further platform for the villification of other editors. JFW | T@lk 20:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There was no attempt to vilify contributing Wiki editors; like many of Jfd's relentless assertions, the above appears to lack any pretense of assumed good faith. The simple point was to share information from complaints received, some specifically mentioning Jfd and Midgley as examples of Wiki editors who seemingly reflect corporate influences upon the Wiki. The clause regarding what form corporate influence might take was meant to indicate an expression of doubt. Far less subtle mechanisms for corporations to wield influence may be in the offing, such as the legislation being drafted (or perhaps has already introduced), that would give corporate gatekeepers ample control over access to information on the internet. Editors who make no bones about their obvious conflict of interest issues are relatively inconsequential in the grand scheme of corporate hegemony over institutional knowledge. However, the politics of personal destruction betwixt and between mere carbon based life forms are mere toys compared to the frightful arsenal at the disposal of pharmaceutical behemoths. Jfd often redefines, as personal attacks, any comments relating to such inanimate entities. So be it. But if the mere mention of remuneration from corporate special interests can be redefined that way, then consider big pharma's enormous impact, stemming from trillion dollar plus annual cash flow, upon media pov and upon the very nature of modern scientific research. Under the circumstances, npov guidelines assuring incorporation of significant contrarian povs is invaluable, especially with regard to enhancing the public's right to informed consent, and is vitally important to the credibility and ethos of the Wiki. Such influences must be discussed in an open and honest manner, because they have turned the business of science upside down, eliminating much at the pure research end of the spectrum, while leveraging most practical scientific research funding for strictly marketing purposes. If Jfd doesn't want to read about it, then perhaps a little less marching to the beat of big pharma is in order. It wouldn't hurt, and it would greatly be appreciated, if Jfd's ways would lighten up a bit on the politicking while concentrating more on being resonable about npoving content and being more tolerant of content critical of big pharma and the medical establishment. Above, Jfd attempts to soften the notion of deletions by describing them merely as 'edits'. Similarly, Jfd has rushed into procedural snarls with abandon, then decried the procedings as a platform for vilification. Jfd wants it both ways; there is more than one logical fallacy at work on that matter alone. Jfd's deletionism first popped up on the radar[7] with an edit summary that was not quite polite. Months later, Jfd really got things off on the wrong foot by repeatedly and abrasively qustioning the sanity of the Whale.to webmaster[8] [9] [10] last Halloween. After the third such unwelcome commentary on November 2nd, the day after All Souls Day, a restrained response was gently provided[11]. 25 minutes later[12] a conduct RfC was filed by Jfd, who later admitted it should have been a content RfC regarding Whale.to links. Interestingly, the very uncertain science surrounding Shaken Baby Syndrome have again made headlines this week.[13] That sort of uncertainty about medical science can and should be reflected in the Wiki's medical articles, and when orthodox medical views are presented without a critical perspective, Jfd and his allies should try to work out their differences in a collegial manner before removing pov tags, rather than rushing into processes while crying foul every step of the way. It would be much appreciated if Jfd, et al, would stick to the policy of assuming that efforts to keep articles npov are being made in good faith. Ombudsman 04:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think its clear, in an attempt to bring this section back to its point, that this is not a simple content dispute. Ombudsman has (very helpfully) noted here that his agenda is to counter the medical establishment's position (for that read ' the opinion of the mainstream scientific community') on matters of great interest to him. It is this position - one that is alleged to be against the spirit, if not the letter, of NPOV editing policy - that a number of other editors wish ArbCom to comment on, not any specific disagreement about content. I'm not sure continuing the debate above will achieve much, perhaps having made our own statements, we would all be better to wait for ArbCom's decision before further comment. Rockpocket 21:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ombudsman has made what may seem to him to be an apology or backtracking with regard to J Woolf, but it is barely possible to perceive that he has altered his assertion that I have been paid to corrupt Wikipedia. I have not. He specifically asserts above "..complaints received, some specifically mentioning Jfd and Midgley" that he has received more than one complaint about both or each of us. Despite his user name there is no particualr reason why remarks made to him should be regarded as complaints rather than gossip, but in any case it would be reasonable for him to be asked to show these to either all of us or a member of ArbCom. He appears to admit above that the suggestion either or both of us had been paid is made up entirely by him, and without either evidence or external suggestion. His withdrawal of it above seems to me to be insufficiently definite, particularly when taken with the tirade around it and assorted other attacks. As to uncertainty about medicine and science, Dr Woolf and I both handle this a dozen times a day, and Ombudsman's efforts are generally POV, commonly disruptive, poorly cited, poorly sourced and unencyclopaedic. Midgley 21:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Subtle and confusing apology accepted. Apparently the hatred of pharmaceutical companies (just look at the invective) goes so deep that it makes one make strange accusations at bona fide editors.

As for polypharmacy, I expanded that article significantly[14], and added references. That is not deletionism. The external links I removed were the ones that in my assertion did not give the topic a fair treatment, which is a matter of editorial judgement and not of deletionism in itself.

As for the deletion of the Whale.to links, I have never directly called John insane. But I have referred to the collection of material on his website as such. If Ombudsman is allowed to call pharmaceutical companies "behemoths", then I am allowed to refer to the content of whale.to as "loonie", "outrageous", "bizarre", "ridiculous", "nutty", "off-topic" and all more. JFW | T@lk 22:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

A recurring trope among a small group of editors is that " the vaccine critics (note that it is never bracketted) article was hijacked and replaced with an extraordinarily pov article". It isn't true, but despite that being pointed out on various occasions, it is still repeated (most often by User:Whaleto who wrote the article, and against me - I was not involved in the slightest. The article pointed _at_ as replacing it has a different title, and as declared by that group a different subject, was originated by a different initial author, after a distinct gap when neither article existed, and is long. The former was a short list of people. The latter survived an AfD[15], the former did not (AfD:vaccine critics). There is in fact now an article vaccine critic which followed many suggestions that if someone thought there ought to be they should write one. It is an attempt at definition rather than a list of people who are asserted to be penumbral to the anti-vaccinationists.

I think this is relevant, apart from being untrue and a nuisance, as I submit that a contributor persistently repeating throughout the WP - even on talk pages - what has been demonstrated to be false is not compatible with writing encyclopaedic articles. Midgley 07:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and welcomes: "a very pov interpretation of npov guidelines" says Ombudsman overleaf. Ombudsman is in the habit of posting greetings to new or newly identifiable wiki users, including the suggestion that they have a "unique perspsective on neutrality". This seems on the one hand a very pov interpretation of npov, and on the other liable to confuse new users or subvert the intention of the standard welcome message. An edit to Wikipedia:Standard user greeting I made[16] was improved, generalised, and had the Karmafist judgement added to it as a reference[17], it remains there and could be taken to be in accordance with the concensus[]. User:Ombudsman's attention has been drawn to it[18] thus giving him the opportunity to argue that policy is different. Since then Ombudsman has continued to advocate or proselytise as before[19],[20],[21] unchanged. Midgley 22:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Case for Arbitration against Wikipedia policy

Sceptre's current triad against myself violates Wikipedia:Resolving disputes policies.. it states that Arbitration is the last course of action... his current problem seems to be that I've reported suspected sockpuppets (something which numerous users other than myself have suspected recently too) [22]

I was not even approached to discuss any issues beforehand, no effort was made on Sceptre's part to do so (any old issues were rejected and resolved over a month ago) it was just brought directly to ArbCon with no attempt to take it down any other avenues first neither any form of Meditation or discussion was attempted (which official policy states must be done before coming here as a last resort) or even discussing with me why he thinks reporting sock puppets is a violation of anything (which it isn't of course), thus making the case nul and void, acording to the official Wikipedia policies - Deathrocker 20:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

If you took the time to read ANI, you should've read that I consulted a few people on IRC before doing so Will (^E_@) T 21:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

And how does that alter the fact that the case is still a violation of official Wikipedia dispute policies? The fact stands that no effort was made to discuss your issue with myself or Meditate, which it states must be done before any case comes to ArbCom... as an admin you should know these kind of things and be following them. - Deathrocker 21:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It also states that in case of more complex problems, or where the mediation process has been tried before and has not worked out (We tried discussing it with you and putting out a RFC, both of which you shunned), that an RFA can then be authored, bypassing the normal mediation process. If your going to try to Wikilawyer, please read the policy pages in more detail. Ley Shade 03:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm no, try again. That was from a case that was REJECTED by ArbCom over a month ago. (Something you don't seem to comprehend).. Those issues have already passed, as I have served ban time (and the fact that I was working with you only yesterday on an article we were disputing back then goes further to prove it), I haven't broke any further 3RR restrictions which that case was centered around, this was around the time that the RfC was passed up on (I seem to remember you didnd't comment on it either), because those issues were rejected here, and I was serving ban time already... also try to assume good faith there is nothing "innapropriate" about me arguing this case based on clearly mark out Wikipedia policy's...

This is a new issue, (read what Sceptre wrote on the ArbCom page) to do with me reporting suspected socks, which Sceptre claims was "uncivil".. no attempt was made on his part to discuss that with me and no attempt was made at meditation... which is in violation of Wikipedia policy as per ;Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. - Deathrocker 04:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No, but he could of outright blocked you for being Uncivil which DOES violate a Wikipedia policy. Actually, i think it violates two. Considering your on a basis for a permenant ban, your 'skating thin ice' the same way as i am.

Also with you trying to Wikilawyer this case, your doing nothing to support your own claims. I will offer you advice as a fellow Wikipedian, even though i have no personal taste for you: Sit this case out, dont break policys, and dont Wikilawyer. Ley Shade 04:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Considering your on a basis for a permenant ban", that is a total lie on your part and you know so... I have never been "considered for permenant ban", but I see what you're doing. Again claiming I'm "Wikilawyering"... assume good faith, the points I brought up are entirely apropriate.

Masking as good faith "offering advice" while littering your post with subtle little stabs, doesn't really cut the crust with me. Though atleast you admit the proper actions were not followed, which in turn shows that the case is still in violation of Wikipedia policy as per ;Wikipedia:Resolving disputes

If anybody "personally attacked" anybody on the Incidents board, it was you attacking me, claiming ridiculous things that had nothing at all to do with what I was reporting (a suspected sock), the message you left was "uncivil" and if it wasn't your good buddy Sceptre who replied to it, I would suspect you would have been told not to be "uncivil" too. - Deathrocker 05:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

First off, Sceptre has already said both on the ANI board and in his ArmCom statement that you were eligable for a permenant ban, thus i am repeating what Sceptre has said.

The proper actions were also followed. You refused to partake in discussion and refused to partake in RFC. After experience of you refusing before, the Policy explicittly states that both can be bypassed and RFA can be explicittly made.

Thirdly, if you thought i was being uncivil, then i apologise, as that wasnt my intention. However i would like you to provide a diff, quote what part was uncivil and ive reason as to how it was uncivil, so i dont repeat my mistake again. Ley Shade 07:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, please provide diffs of where there was a possible case for a permanent ban against myself... there wasn't. There was an ArbCom case but that did not state any possibility of permanent ban, perhaps you and you're buddy are confused on the matter?

Second, the proper action wasn't taken, you are refering to the already rejected case from over a month ago, that is what the RfC was in relation to (something which you didn't comment in either)...that was the case that was rejected, a MONTH AGO. Comprehend?... There was no attempt at discussion, meditation or RfC, in relation to the current issues Sceptre had or the current case. Thus making the current case a violation of Wikipedia policies.

Third, your apology for the personal attacks/incivilties are accepted... I only hope you stick by your words and don't "repeat your mistake" again, thanks - Deathrocker 12:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Recommended reading

The list of links on top of the page includes a bunch of pages owned by arbcom (as I was told that this project page is), and a single page in an editor's personal space. I have no doubts that the link is useful and I'm told that it's valued by some ArbCom members. However, I believe that including a personal essay in a list of official arbcom links is inappropriate, and may create the wrong impression that ArbCom favors particular users. Since many editors feel that it's inappropriate to edit other users' pages, especially if it's an essay and you disagree on a point, that is not a true community page; neither is it controlled by the ArbCom. Therefore, I propose that the page be moved to Wikipedia: namespace, under either community or ArbCom control. Failing that, the link to the personal essay should be moved to a more appropriate place. Zocky | picture popups 03:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that the page is also not under anyone's actual userspace, as that is no longer my account. Also that, upon writing it, I invited arbitrators to edit the page so as to get it accurate, and they did so. Phil Sandifer 03:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have no reason to suspect that there's anything wrong with the page's content or the way it's written. But this is a question of appearances, not of substance. Zocky | picture popups 03:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Zocky on this. It is particularly important for Arb Com related matters that there is an appearance of impartiality since by the time disputes get to the Arb Com they are highly acrimonious and many people are willing to see favoritism and conspiracies where none may exist. There is no need to give fertile imaginations additional nutrients. JoshuaZ 07:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

In meatspace judiciaries, there's a saying that runs along the lines of "Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done". I agree with moving it to project space; it's a really splendid piece of work otherwise. Johnleemk | Talk 08:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case. --Tony Sidaway 12:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Naming of "Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others" case

I propose that the case above be renamed "Biological psychiatry". The current name is too long and confusing, and cases involving multiple editors on one specific page (or one specific subject area) are often named by the name of the page or subject area (e.g. Winter Soldier, Neuro-linguistic programming, Webcomics, Lyndon LaRouche, etc.). The current case involves multiple parties (with no single "defendant") and only the "Biological psychiatry" article, so I think it should be renamed as such. --69.117.7.33 20:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Last step

ArbCom is the last step in the dispute resolution process. As someone who's been through this twice now with Instantnood, I've mostly found other ways to engage him. For other users who end up confronting his tactics I find it particularly unhelpful for admins to come along to intervene in the revert wars and say "if there is a problem with his editing, use dispute resolution." As if the existence of two ArbCom cases and dozens of article bans given out to 'nood have no value to those other editors.

It would be helpful if more of these disputes went to article RFC. (It would also be helpful if anyone actually commented on article RFC). However, when it's about user conduct shouldn't there be a little more willingness on the part of admins to maybe recognize "the last step of dispute resolution" for what it is? SchmuckyTheCat 01:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of revert

Oleg Alexandrov edited the project page with the intention of improving it [23].

The changes were as follows:

• Remove a reference to the shortcut WP:RFAr/AER for the page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested
• Insert a HTML 'br clear="all"' tag before the table of contents.

Oleg explains his purpose as follows: "put in a <br> to make the TOC show up nicely, and rm a not-so relevant shortcut"

I have reverted these well-intended format changes for the following reasons:

The page in question has a very long name and it is an important part of the mechanism by which arbitration remedies are enforced; the shortcut is in practise the name by which it is most commonly accessed.

I cannot tell what effect the HTML tag has on the appearance of the page in Oleg's browser, I can only speak for the effect it has in my own browser. It's in the nature of HTML that the precise appearance of a page will vary from browser to browser and, for the same browser, from resolution to resolution and from window size to window size. On my own browser on its normal resolution and with a full-screenwidth window, the effect of the inserted HTML is to cause the table of contents, instead of appearing to the left of the open arbitration tasks template, to appear beneath it and to the left, leaving a large whitespace area to the left of the open tasks list.

This surely cannot have been the intended effect of Oleg's change.

Accordingly, I have reverted the change. --Tony Sidaway 23:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. In my browser without the <br clear="all"> tag the table of contents appears like a very long very narrow column, because the {{ArbComOpenTasks}} template takes more than half of the width of the page. That makes the TOC hard to read. But you are right, things depend on individual browser.

As far as the shortcut WP:RFAr/AER, it may be important, but I would think it belongs in the page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested for which it is a shortcut. There is no need in my view to put it on the main arbitration page, no? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Continued at Template_talk:ArbComOpenTasks#This_template_is_too_fat. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Request to reopen prior hearing in light of sockpuppet violations of permanent ban remedy

Hi folks. I entered a new request - not for a new hearing, but reopening of a prior RfAr (the user's fourth) in light of new activity in violation of standing remedies. Please advise if the manner or substance of my request is not appropriate here, or should be better performed via another process. Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher - you may want to trim your post - I'm getting a word count of 700 words on what should be a 500-word-limit post. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Query in Tony Sidaway case

Findings of fact said that Crotalus horridus had re-created three specific userboxen. I could only find evidence of one re-creation this and this seem Croatalus free zones. Rich Farmbrough 22:02 10 May 2006 (UTC).

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tony_Sidaway/Evidence#Crotalus.27_recreation_of_deleted_templates, which shows that Crotalus horridus, sometimes using role accounts for the purpose, created functional replacements in userspace for userboxes that had been deleted by administrators under T1. These included the anti-UN and anti-ACLU templates. --Tony Sidaway 02:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Davenbelle (talk · contribs) - Moby Dick (talk · contribs)

I'd like the arbitration comitee to consider the evidence I gathered. I suspect davenbelle is continuing to stalk me using a sockpuppet account. --Cat out 17:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

A note to WCityMike, Slimvirgin, et al

To the people currently edit warring on this page - kindly stop. It is my considered opinion that Mike can list Feloniousmonk in the request if he wants to. Raul654 04:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

(However, this does not mean we will accept the case, nor does it guarentee that if we do accept the case, our decision will address FM's actions. In other words, to my mind, the list of involved parties is a suggestion. We base our decision on the facts in the case, and I consider the list of involved parties to be more of a suggestion than some kind of restriction). Raul654 04:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Concur. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

KDRGibby General Probation

I have started a discussion on WP:AN with a view to invoking the General Probation in the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby and banning him from Wikipedia [24]. --Tony Sidaway 15:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

saladin1970

Hi can we have some movement on this arbitration case, all the evidence has been presented thanks Saladin1970 16:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi can we please move on to the next stage and have the jury decide on the verdict . thanks Saladin1970 10:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How does this work?

I followed a bunch of related links, and I saw "evidence page" mentioned, and I wasn't sure what that was. I know that first I have to list a case here, but if it's accepted, do I have to create an evidence page? Do I have to create one before I list the request for arbitration? There are already mediation pages here and here, as well as a RFC page, and of course the applicable parts of the talk page for the article in question. Would I need to create a separate evidence page?

Also, the mediator doesn't like the idea of bringing this to arbitration, but there have been frequent exchanges totaling about 200K of text, and some complications, so I figured I should look into arbitration. I could summarize things in the space that some statements on the requests for arbitration page take if I have to, despite the numerous content disputes and violations of Wikipedia rules I'd be accusing several editors of. Any comments on whether it's time to bring the case? Should I wait until the mediator closes the case or should I quit now after 200K of arguments? -Barry- 00:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, arbitration is only supposed to happen if no other form of dispute resolution will work. If mediation is still in progress, an arbitration case is premature. When an arbitration case is accepted, the arbcom member opening it creates the evidence page, after which users fill it in. In the proposal for the case only link a few well-chosen pieces of sample evidence.--Christopher Thomas 06:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, back to mediation then. I added information on the RFA page so people will know that they'll be able to add more information if their case is accepted. I was also wondering whether people who've been through arbitration told about this page, which says:

"This is a message board for coordinating and discussing enforcement of Arbitration Committee decisions. Administrators are needed to help enforce ArbCom decisions. Any user is welcome to request help here if it involves the violation of an ArbCom decision."

I read somewhere that administrators don't have to enforce ArbCom decisions, so people might want to seek out administrators who might be willing to enforce one. I'll have to keep that page in mind in case I'm in such a situation, unless I'd be told of it.

Well, it also says:

"Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content. Arbitration Committee decisions are generally about behavior, not content. Very few editors have content dispute prohibitions. Requests for Comments is still the best place to hash out content disputes."

And my case includes a content dispute. -Barry- 17:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

PHenry revert warring on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways/Workshop to remove a proposed principle

He is removing my addition, claiming it is "out of scope", while its purpose is to counter the inevitable "SPUI's fucking up the articles". From a purely bureaucratic standpoint, this seems wrong - surely he can't just decide what to remove? From a common sense standpoint it also seems lacking. --SPUI (T - C) 17:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm the person who added the proposed principle in the first place, so I submit that I'm the best person in the entire world to consult on what its "purpose" is. I removed it because User:Jdforrester made it clear here that content matters such as the one my proposed principle addresses are out of scope for the arbitration case, so I would therefore like to withdraw it, which I assumed to be my right as the submitter. If I am wrong, I'm happy to let it stand.

However, I have also tried to comment that several other proposed principles/findings of fact are also clearly out of scope, and SPUI has removed my comments twice.[25][26] Are editors allowed to remove comments made by other editors in arbitration cases? —phh (^t/_c) 18:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

My bad - I thought you were removing my proposed principle. --SPUI (T - C) 18:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Block and ban terminology mangled

Can I ask for a clarification here on "block" and "ban" terminology? I see that Wikipedia:Blocking_policy and Wikipedia:Banning_policy show the differences between the terms, but I also see people using the terms interchangeably. This is confusing, especially when people invoke WP:SPEEDY G5. The particular case I would like clarification on involves Zen-master, where the block log says "blocked "Zen-master (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 year (Arbcom ban)" - which confuses the hell out of me. Is this a block or a ban?? I suspect it is a ban being enforced with a block. It really, really would help if the block log would give a link to the actual Arbcom case. I hate having to trawl through the archives to try and find individual cases. Carcharoth 14:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Found it. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master#Remedies. So you just use the user name to find the sub-page? That was easy. Still, I agree with the comment at Wikipedia:Banning_policy: "Confusion between the two terms arises as many users, including some administrators, say "ban" when they mean "block", and vice versa." I would recommend that people correct those that use the terms incorrectly, as otherwise this incorrect usage could spiral out of control. Carcharoth 14:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Template for standard text

My RfA case opened and I see some things on several of the associated pages that need to be changed. Since the same text is used for all opened cases, shouldn't there be a template for it? For example, "After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies." [27] is an incomplete sentence. -Barry- 19:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Retraction of a request

Nrtm81 has asked me if it's possible to retract his request for arbitration here. Further attempts at dispute resolution are being attempted, but he's not sure if it's alright to simply remove the request or whether to ask an arbitrator to do so (see discussion at User_talk:Cowman109#Portal:Taiwan). Here is the quote exactly:

Is it too late to retract the ArbCom request? I think there's a solution to this mess. Please check the talk page. I think Chiang Kai-shek will agree with the solution. I'm off to bed now, will check on the results six hours from now. If the ArbCom request can be retracted, could you do so if possible? Thanks. — Nrtm81 20:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC).

Is there any procedure for retracting a rfar? Cowman109^Talk 20:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well it seems as if those involved want the request to continue, as both parties have responded and comments have already been added. I guess ignore what was stated above, then. Cowman109^Talk 01:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Could a clerk please remove or refactor a section in the UCRGrad RFAR?

As a party in the case, I don't want to touch another person's comments. But UCRGrad (talk · contribs), the respondent in the case, has added an irrelevant, inflammatory section to the top of the RFAR section Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#List of Dispute Resolution Avenues NOT attempted. (Since when was "avoidance" an avenue of dispute resolution?) So I'm wondering if a clerk or another uninvolved party can remove the section, or refactor it in some way. Szyslak 04:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read Resolving disputes. Avoidance is the first step in dispute resolution. It is reasonable for a party to a dispute to argue that another party acted unreasonably in failing to make obvious attempts at avoiding a dispute. The primary method listed in that section is: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. UCRGrad claims "In most cases, editors made blanket reverts or edits without any justification" so he goes to the heart of that point.

I won't argue the merits of UCRGrad's case (the Committee is supposed to do that). However he has apparently made a good faith effort to argue a case according to Wikipedia policy. --Tony Sidaway 23:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok to clarify how earlier steps in dispute resolution process could not be taken in UCRGrad case?

It seems to me that a few of links I've assembled in support of this assertion are not the best ones to support my argument that the UCRGrad case merits an immediate hearing. OK to include better and more thorough evidence?--Amerique 22:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding a user to case

I was just told I cannot add new users to a case unless I am the initiator. As my case is mainly a conflict between Zer0faults and me and he already got a RFC while I do not and he left out that step of dispute resolution I would like to add his name to the case to show this is not about me solely and I would like to add another user who joins the personal attacks against me. Añoranza 12:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I am already on the case. The RFC is also listed in the case. And as NSLE told you, only the initiator can add them or if the other person decides to add themself. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 12:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

One clarification to make here is that this is an already-accepted case, I don't believe ANYONE can be added when it's already accepted (not sure about that, though). Although, AFAIK out of courtesy, only the initiator (who normally seeks permission to add someone to a case), or an individual voluntarily doing so can add someone/themselves to the case. NSLE 12:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So shall I start a new case then? Calling this "Añoranza" is misleading and denying me the same right to add more users while allowing the other side to do so is not fair. Añoranza 12:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and start it, it just wouldn't get accepted, or even reverted by a clerk. NSLE 12:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you can ask the ArbCom to add someone as an involved party, no? (I've seen such motions before, but I have no idea if they've ever been used in practice.) Kirill Lokshin 16:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Anoranza wants to add someone to the case, so that they can have a complaint filed against them. The user is not looking for that person to support them, but is looking to attack that user. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Zer0 is a party to the case, and therefore subject to any ArbCom ruling, but Añoranza wants the name changed to include both him/her and Zer0. TheronJ 18:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of past cases that only name one party but end up sanctioning another. I understand that it is annoying and even somewhat hurtful but in the long run, the name is not really important; its the outcome that matters, and that won't be influenced by the name. Thatcher131 16:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Communist symbols

Why are there two sickle and hammer flags on the Project Page? Johntex\^talk 04:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed Raul654 04:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - I should have thought of checking the template. It must be time for me to go to bed. Johntex\^talk 04:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

On clerks

As far as I can tell, we have only one active clerk, Tony Sidaway, and Tony is rather often involved in arbitration cases (with a "Statement by Tony Sidaway" in three of the six cases at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration which were not yet accepted/rejected, and in 3 of the 12 cases which are already accepted).

This is by no means a personal critique of Tony, please don't interpret it that way. What I am aiming at is the clerk concept. It looks to me that whatever was meant to be accomplished by having clerks is not working.

I would suggest that there be a lot more clerks (preferably chosen with some community participation), and that those clerks stay out of arbitration cases whenever possible, or otherwise the clerking be scrapped altogether. I'd prefer the second option. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

We have other active clerks, but I do think it's long past time the arbitrators appointed a second tranche to replace the dropouts from the first. --Tony Sidaway 02:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the clerks do nothing that a normal editor cannot, we should simply expand the powers to open and close the cases to any editor. Any funny business would be quickly spotted, and it would remove an unnecessary level of bureaucracy. We'd also be spared people telling us they are recused. - brenneman ^{L} 04:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The RFAr page says "This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment." I wouldn't want all editors to be able to refactor things. -Barry- 04:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Easy enough to take that line out, but I'm happy to trust my fellow editors with moving comments to the talk page. I've done it one the arbitration page before, what's the big deal? - brenneman 04:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It changes visibility and context, and I think refactoring also includes more serious editing than moving things to the talk page. -Barry- 05:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Any editor can already open or close an arbitration case (as long as he does it properly). The instructions are at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures, and currently the Highways arbitration needs to be closed and the alienus arbitration will need to be opened around 1810 UTC on the 5th or some time after. I can do neither because I'm recused. --Tony Sidaway 02:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If this is true this sentence should probably be removed from the main page. Kotepho 03:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think you can open a case you have recused from. I used to open cases I had recused from. That assumes there is no discretion involved like extensive refractoring of the request. But I will open Alienus on the 6th. I am afraid I haven't closed one for quite a while, probably do it wrong. Fred Bauder 03:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on summary in the Alienus arbitration

Moved here because it was taking over the arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 02:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Inveterate edit warrior prone to making personal attacks. See User:Tony Sidaway/Sandbox/Alienus

• I take issue with this. I think the next appropriate step would be WP:RFC. ^^James^^ 18:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• I second the concerns expressed by James. Is it not policy to conduct RFCs before resorting to RFAs? Or are we mistaken? Explanation would be appreciated. romarin [talk ] 19:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• As Will Beback notes, there are two RFC's already being prepared, and I think those efforts should be combined and allowed to run their course. Skipping directly to RFA only furthers the impression that Al is being fast tracked. If Al does not adjust his behaviour after that, it only adds strength to a future RFA case. I also note that this RFA was filed just as a recent block was being resolved. ^^James^^ 19:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't think we have by any means exhausted other dispute resolution steps. While Jakew appears to have abandoned his RfC attempt some months ago, the one by David Bailey is still fresh. With all due respect, Tony's conclusion that I am "inveterate" is something we should put to the test, not accept at face value. I propose that we put this RfAr on ice so that the RfC can proceed. Al 20:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a clerk in this case so I won't go around editing stuff, but I think the arbitrators would appreciate it if you could observe the conventions and move your respective comments to separate sections. I in my turn will alter the statement to "Tony Sidaway's opinion, disputed by Alienus, ^^^James^^^ and Romarin, is that Alienus is an..." and the existing text. --Tony Sidaway 22:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I did this. --Tony Sidaway 02:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please add that SOPHIA also disagrees with your characterization Tony. Let's have this RfC and see publicly who the groups of editors are that have an issue with Al. It should get quite interesting. Sophia 06:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's OK I've done it myself - this is a wiki after all. Sophia 06:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries. --Tony Sidaway 13:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a certain appropriate place to mention our concerns with the process? I don't believe this would necessarily fit until our own statement section, since it is not a commentary on the case, but on the way the case is being handled. I will gladly move my comments to the right place, when I know what that is. Thanks, Romarin 22:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess this is the right place to mention concerns with the process itself, so I moved it here. Generally arbitration applications shouldn't involve threaded dialog, mostly because it has a tendency to grow to massive size very quickly. --Tony Sidaway 02:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If Alienus wants to take the allegations in the proposed RfC's seriously and undertake to reform himself, that would be a legitimate response we might consider. Just going through the motions makes no sense. An awful lot of blocks. Fred Bauder 03:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that no matter what Alienus wants, going through with either of the RfCs, or starting a new one, is just not going to happen. Unless I'm mistaken, this RfA is alrealy underway. I was only wondering (as I believe James was as well) why it had already started, as it is normally a last resort. Have all options really been exhausted? I am just trying to figure out how the policy works here. Thanks, Romarin 03:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Fred, in this case there are a few controversial blocks, some of which were eventually overturned, hence the heated AN/I discussions. I do think an RFC is in order, as there are some legitimate concerns that need to be worked out. As a few users have noted, Alienus has been getting better as an editor, not getting worse. As such, I think it's premature to go straight into RFA. Al has indicated that he is willing to abide by the outcome of an RFC. I'd like to see that he is given that opportunity before resorting to arbitration. ^^James^^ 19:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony has suggested he won't stand in the way of this proposal. [28] ^^James^^ 20:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Material (with context) removed by clerk from apartheid RfAr

Percentage in favor of move

Note: Some edit warring is still going on in the article, the out-of-policy move is still in effect, and the text of the article is being edited to be consistent with the out-of-policy move. Some protection until arbitration is concluded may be appropriate. --John Nagle 17:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

John, the poll is around 70 per cent in favor of the move, and only (as I recall) 60 per cent is needed, so that particular part of the situation seems to have resolved itself. What's left is to look at all the other issues: there are numerous title disputes and various content issues that I'm not familiar with. That's why mediation would be very helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The page was moved at 14-12, which is 0.538461538%. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was 16-13, and I don't know what percentage that is, but it's around the 60 per cent mark. The point is that the move is now confirmed, so unless we're wikilawyering, that particular issue is resolved, which only leaves all the other pages to consider and, indeed, whether all the separate pages should exist at all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

ok, 0.551724138%, clear short of 60%. The basic problem is the continued violation of policies and guidelines by a large percentage of all editors involved, and as such, this is highly relevant for the case. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The poll was roughly even when the out-of-policy moves started. On July 5, there was a big influx of "Agree" votes in a short period. Let's leave this to ArbComm to sort out. --John Nagle 03:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: A request for mediation on broader content issues has been made by some of the parties. That mediation request should not preempt this request for arbitration. --John Nagle 02:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation should usually come before arbitration, if it can be arranged. You beat me to it by a day. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation was tried. See Kim's note above. Also, please don't post in the statement area of another party. Thanks. --John Nagle 03:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No mediation was tried by an independent party, and that's what's needed now. You sound as though you actually want arbitration, instead of resolving the dispute. I hope that's not the case. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin statement

I would ask the Committee not to accept the case at this time. ChrisO and I have been in touch by e-mail since just before the RfAr was posted, exchanging ideas for a solution, and we are making some progress. The situation was started a few weeks by a series of apartheid-related articles, not just this one, started by User:HOTR. Since then, there have been disagreements on various pages about titles, with Israeli apartheid as the biggest stumbling block, and with multiple polls on several pages until everyone's head was spinning. What is needed is some coordination of the dispute and some sensible proposals, and I think we're about to get those organized. I was also planning today to discuss with ChrisO whether a Request for Mediation would be appropriate. It would therefore be helpful if the Committee could either reject this request, or put it on ice for a few days to allow these other avenues to be explored first. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC) I would ask the Committee not to accept the case at this time. ChrisO and I have been in touch by e-mail since just before the RfAr was posted, exchanging ideas for a solution, and we are making some progress. The situation was started a few weeks by a series of apartheid-related articles, not just this one, started by User:HOTR. Since then, there have been disagreements on various pages about titles, with Israeli apartheid as the biggest stumbling block, and with multiple polls on several pages until everyone's head was spinning. What is needed is some coordination of the dispute and some sensible proposals, and I think we're about to get those organized. I was also planning today to discuss with ChrisO whether a Request for Mediation would be appropriate. It would therefore be helpful if the Committee could either reject this request, or put it on ice for a few days to allow these other avenues to be explored first. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to second SlimVirgin's request. IMO, her latest suggestions could provide a basis for moving forward on this issue. (SlimVirgin, I owe you a reply - I'll drop you a line tomorrow when I'm a bit less tired!). -- ChrisO 22:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I third SV's idea, which sounds far more practical. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Å©Humus sapiens ^Ñ~ÑÖ? 00:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As a party to the mediation request (but not this arbitration), I prefer the mediation route as well as it would be more productive, imo. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional information from SlimVirgin

In case it's helpful, here is the information from the move log about how many times this page was moved between May 29 (when it was created) and July 4.

• Moves of Israeli apartheid: nine times
• Moves of Israeli apartheid (phrase): five times
• Moves of Allegations of Israeli apartheid: three times
• Moves of Israeli apartheid (epithet): three times
• Moves of Israeli apartheid (term): once

And number of moves per editor:

• KimvdLinde: four moves
• HOTR: three
• ChrisO: three
• Humus sapiens: three
• 6SJ7: three
• FayssalF: one
• IZAK: one
• Jayjg: one
• SlimVirgin: one
• Zeq:one

It's because there are so many opinions and a large number of editors involved (and there are others not mentioned here), that it would be particularly helpful if we could find a good mediator, so I'm going to start looking for one. I hope the Committee won't feel it's inappropriate to do that now that an RfAr has been posted. If you do, please let me know and I'll stop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you included the dates of the moves in question in your additional information above. This RFA is about the current spate of moves, not about month old actions. Changing the paramaters so that you can make a point isn't acceptable. Homey 01:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I am all for showing the dates. Homey statement above seems to be another attempt to evade responsibility for his "month old actions" as if they are somehow expired. Å©Humus sapiens ^Ñ~ÑÖ? 01:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey's proposal for JayG general recusal

Homey, I don't think your proposal that JayG recuse himself from all arbcom cases is workable. First, it would let people swing existing arbitrations by bringing arbcom cases in disputes involving arbitrators. Second, any conflict that does exist can only be cured by Jay resigning permanently from the arbcom, and I don't think that's worth the cost. Third, from what I've seen, the ArbCom members don't pull any punches with each other, so I'm not sure how much actual conflict really exists. TheronJ 14:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that Raul654 was just explicitly admonished in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Other arbitrators have also been the subject of arbitration during their terms, and Jayjg himself has also been admonished in one case. This isn't a big deal and no reason to require an arbitrator to step down. --Tony Sidaway 21:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg (talk · contribs) and Fred Bauder (talk · contribs) both seem to feel that they shouldn't be arbitrators on Israeli apartheid, which is reasonable since both have had other involvement with the article. That closes the recusal issue. The problem now is finding enough uninvolved arbitrators to do the job. --John Nagle 02:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no reason to recuse. I just want to give mediation a chance. Fred Bauder 02:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation has been tried and failed. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_KimvdLinde. Let's give arbitration a try. We need one more uninvolved arbitrator. --John Nagle 02:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Only Jayjg has recused. Fred Bauder has simply changed his opinion in favor of mediation. There are four acceptance votes on the application now and, if that doesn't change, the case will be opened after 0835 tomorrow. Any of the eleven non-recused active arbitrators will be free to consider the case. --Tony Sidaway 11:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

How can one challege Fred's non-recusal? Can we ask ArbComm members to rule on the issue? It seems rather bizarre to have an Arbitrator be the final authority on whether or not s/he is in a conflict of interest.Homey 22:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You can appeal any and all decisions to Jimbo and to the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation. Please be aware that both parties are much less tolerant of wikilawyering and general whinging than either the ArbCom or the denizens of the Administrators' Noticeboard. You would also have to demonstrate that Fred's recusal would have had a material effect on the outcome of your case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Homey can also make a motion in the arbitration case. Fred Bauder 23:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought about suggesting that, but I wasn't sure if the ArbCom had the power to compel one of its members to recuse...? Out of curiosity, does anyone know how this sort of thing handled in real life? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Make a motion on the /Workshop page after the case is opened. And we will vote on it. Fred Bauder 03:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

A favorable time?

Can any arbs tell me whether now would be a favorable time for me to put forward an appeal request? Today marks the eighth month anniversary of my ruling. Therefore it is two-thirds finished now. Everyking 06:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Do any arbs read this page? Does anyone know a place they do read where I can post this? Everyking 08:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You could file it as a 'motion in a prior case' on the main RFAr page. That said, I'd assume that all of the Arbcom members have this page watchlisted. --CBD 11:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little nervous about doing that. I wanted to get some kind of green light here that it would be OK for me to make a request before doing anything. Everyking 12:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases can only be started by arbitrators. I'll make sure that all arbitrators are aware of your question. --Tony Sidaway 12:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Tony Sidaway 12:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you do this in March EK? And several times before that? --Spartaz 12:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not a favorable time for an appeal. In fact, due to your continued harassment of other administrators, further restrictions on you are being considered. Fred Bauder 13:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing an appeal. It would give us a convenient place to collect those ongoing harassments for consideration. ➥the Epopt 13:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Where are these further restrictions being considered? I'd like the opportunity to defend myself. Everyking 18:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's get this out in the open so you can respond. Perhaps filing an appeal as a request for arbitration would accomplish that. Please do so. Fred Bauder 19:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you think I'm crazy? Why on earth would I participate in opening a case that would get restrictions imposed on me? I would like a case opened only on condition that it reviews the correctness of any of my past arbitration rulings. Now, of course I would also like to reply to these whisperings about me that are apparently going on, but to do so through an arbitration case would obviously be suicide. I want to prevent anything being done against me through arbitration, not facilitate it.

And I have another question. Surely arbitrators can't act as both judges and prosecutors, can they? Doesn't somebody have to bring a complaint against me to the ArbCom before they can consider taking action? Yet nobody has done this. It would appear that the ArbCom is looking towards taking a prosecutorial role, if it is doing this on its own initiative. Everyking 03:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

We have continuing jurisdiction over past cases. Fred Bauder 04:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there still be some complaint raised if the case is going to be re-opened? For the ArbCom to do it on its own definitely indicates a prosecutorial role. There is no complaint except the one the ArbCom itself apparently has. Everyking 04:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The complaint was sent to me privately, directing me towards the ANI thread describing your harassment of ExtraordinaryMachine. Raul654 04:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that counts. A) You could have just made that up, and B) as a matter of precedure things need to be done on-wiki. All this secretive backchannel stuff is meaningless. Everyking 04:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If you harassed ExtraordinaryMachine on the wiki, the evidence will be on the wiki. --Tony Sidaway 06:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's irrelevant to this discussion. The complaint is not on the wiki. Can anyone name a case where the ArbCom has initiated action against someone as an accuser, without any other (public) accuser outside of itself—and if such a case exists, can they then explain how on earth a person can expect fair process if their accuser is also their judge? Everyking 07:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes Raul could have made it up. But he didn't and you know he didn't. We discuss matters like this on the arbitration mailing list and on our private irc channel. That is what it is for. I am a rather reluctant prosecutor in your case, but you are rapidly convincing me that you are incapable of avoiding harassment of other administrators. It would be different if you would take the time to carefully explain what is bothering you, but you would rather get off an inexplicable zinger. Fred Bauder 12:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is at all an adequate response to the very important points I've been making. Everyking 13:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I have opened a request for clarification on this subject - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Everyking Raul654 22:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection

I've semiprotected this page briefly to stop a particular remove vandal. Protection should be lifted as soon as possible, perhaps in three or four hours. --Tony Sidaway 20:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Who added my name?

It appears PaulWicks took his own name off the Tojo case and added mine [29]. All I did was add a comment replying to his apparent confusion about range blocks. In retrospect, the comment was actually made by User:69.117.4.237 [30]. Whether anons can comment is up to someone else but its not my comment. Thanks. Thatcher131 20:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to make things more obvious. The chronology I saw was some anonymous IP made a comment and it was titled "comment from non involved party" or something, then I see it's changed to "comment by PaulWicks" when in fact I was just responding to their comment with a question related to my stupidity re: IP blocks. When I saw your comment after that I assumed it was you that made the first comment. So, confusion all round. My apologies. --PaulWicks 21:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the wrong name in error. My apologies. --Tony Sidaway 21:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not offended or anything. I just wanted to correct the page without it looking like I was messing around. Thatcher131 00:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyking, Extraordinary Machine, Tcatron565 - summary of incident with diffs

4 July: User:Tcatron565 made a cut-and-paste move. [31] [32] The move was clearly wrong both technically and stylistically but also clearly made in good faith. The user is 11 years old.

5 July: User:Extraordinary Machine reverted Tcatron565's misguided move. [33] He then issued a warning to Tcatron565 on his talk page. "Not only is this out of compliance with the WP:SONG guidelines and the naming conventions, it's a direct violation of Wikipedia's copyrights policy. ... [I]f you continue editing as you have been doing, you may find yourself blocked from editing for a period." [34]

6 July: James found EM's warning overly harsh and criticized him for it on his talk page. "[I]s a block warning really appropriate for this user? Think for a minute. This is obviously a constructive, good faith user with enthusiasm about the project." [35] [36]

Haukur 17:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

What I'd like to see from the ArbCom is actual diffs, like the ones above, to support Raul's accusation that I've violated the ruling. I have absolutely no idea what they could find. There are some arguable cases from several months past, but none within any kind of recent timespan. Really, this case has nothing to it. There was a spat over deletionism on some pop music articles, which has now settled down, and there was a complaint from me about an admin being unnecessarily harsh with a young but good faith user, which was a complaint I made deliberately within the confines of the ruling. What is there to accuse me of? All there are so far are generalities; there's nothing specific, which I assume is because I haven't actually done anything. Everyking 03:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This was was the final straw - [37] Although not a violation of hte ruling (in the strictest sense of the word) it clearly shows the ruling's shortcomings. Raul654 04:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What you've proposed is vastly more extensive than anything that would be necessary to keep me from making a comment like that, Raul. In fact, no ruling at all is needed to keep me from making a comment like that. You people use a couple whole bottles of vinegar where a few drops of honey would suffice.

In any case, the comment in question was somewhat uncivil and I apologize for the tone (but not the point—his warning was certainly too harsh). It should be viewed in light of the trouble the two of us were having with each other at that time, however. Everyking 04:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It was never the basis for your remarks that was the question, it is making them without explaining the basis for them. Here you make an effort to explain your criticism. But in the incident complained of you did not. You just blasted away. Fred Bauder 12:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is true; however, it seemed obvious at the time, and I did explain later if there was any doubt. Everyking 15:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I often agree with the criticisms you make, but not the blasting. Fred Bauder 16:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

1. This explanation is quite lengthy, so I apologise in advance: My (and other editors') problems with Tcatron go back to August last year, at least, and so much as a cursory glance at his talk page will show that while he appears to be editing in good faith, he has repeatedly violated the policies and guidelines. Despite what the above diffs may imply, I have tried being friendly to him in my previous messages ([38] [39] [40], among others), despite some incivility and unwillingness to correspond with me on his part [41] [42] [43]. After the cut-and-paste move at Chemicals React, I didn't think it would be beneficial for either us or the project for me to go through the same routine I had done with him previously (explain an error he made in one or more of his edits, direct him to the appropriate project pages, look through some of his previous contributions and correct them if need be) without informing him that there are consequences for ignoring policies, guidelines and messages from other editors. I'd already notified him that this behaviour could lead to a second RFC on him being filed [44] (to no avail), so I hardly feel I was being "unnecessarily harsh"; I would have said the same thing if I hadn't been appointed an admin, and I think I would have been careless not to.
2. I explained this situation to Everyking, directed him to the rest of Tcatron's talk page, said that other users had been blocked in the past for this sort of behaviour, and noted that because I had previous disagreements with Tcatron I would not be the admin enforcing a block if worst came to worst. [45] Everyking expressed his doubts in my understanding of Wikipedia policies related to this matter, but at the same time his response indicated that he had not read Tcatron's talk page. [46] Consider [47] and [48] from the same period, and you can understand why I might feel he was more concerned with antagonising me through harassment than making a case for Tcatron.
3. Not that I feel Tcatron's age has much relevance to this, but from August last year to this edit the following December, his userpage stated he was born in 1987. Extraordinary Machine 22:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Will the ArbCom agree to read and consider evidence about this case if I present it? Everyking 02:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No response? Please don't try to shove this through without giving me due process. If you don't want to have to consider evidence, you should drop the case altogether. I would also like to have a discussion with the arbitrators in IRC if possible. Everyking 03:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA/CoolKatt number 99999

Since I opened up an RfA against CoolKatt number 99999 on July 13, there have been four other cases opened after this one, three of which have recieved at least one vote by an arbitrator. The CoolKatt RfA has recieved none as of this writing. What is the cause for the delay in regards to this one? Rollosmokes 06:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I was also wondering the exact same thing. --CFIF (talk to me) 14:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I as well. His legal threats and dozens of personal attacks were ignored by the administrators, his RfC was a dead end where nothing happened, and now this sits here unaddressed. In the interim his behaviour continues unchecked.--Crossmr 16:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a violation of WP:STALK and WP:NPA. Why won't you all just leave me alone? CoolKatt number 99999 03:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Its neither. Stop trying to invent things. I can't even begin to list all the polices and guidelines you break.--Crossmr 03:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just leave me alone, and all will be good. CoolKatt number 99999 04:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And I will not do any more wrong. CoolKatt number 99999 04:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This is getting to be a tad ridiculous...only one vote by an arbitrator....will this one be ignored? --CFIF (talk to me) 13:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Katt's doing his best to get himself permabanned on his own, so it may shortly be moot. Note he's still making threats, while banned, on his Talk page - against a user who's done far less against him than any of us. Lambertman 13:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This quote "against a user who's done far less against him than any of us" is quite funny, its almost like an admission of guilt. So what have you done "against this user"? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think he's refferring to reverting certain questionable edits of CoolKatt, warning him, that sort of thing. --CFIF (talk to me) 14:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a battle mentality here that isnt appropriate. I remember this users name from the massive MfD that was attempted to have their user pages removed from the wiki. I am surprised to see some of the same users appearing on their RfC and now RFAr. I guess the TV station group on Wikipedia is a pretty small community. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the RfC, I think you have the wrong idea of what its for. An RfC is not a means of punishment, its for users to express their opinions and hopefully, contructively, come to a conclusion or concensus with the user or issue in question. As for RFAr's I would give it time, takes a while for everything to go through. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I was speaking in terms of his "me against the world" mentality. You can scan my edit history; all I've done is note some of his actions in places I feel appropriate. The user in question apparently exhausted the community's patience before I had ever even heard of him. Lambertman 14:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And CoolKatt continues to use RfC as a threat method and they end up being frivolous and dumb. His subpages are also a problem, as they show up on Google and are unfactual and just a bunch of fantasies made up one day. The Louisville, Whore subpage is especially ridiculous and worthless. --CFIF (talk to me) 15:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not attempting to take sides, simply stating noone should be using an RFC as a threat, its not a punishment method, its a conflict resolution step. The RfC is suppose to be used to show an issue or user the communities view. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What they meant was simply that the request for comments regarding him lead to little constructive discussion, not that it should have lead to some punishment. Circeus 02:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Still only one vote...what gives? --CFIF (talk to me) 20:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Give it a few more days before we get our feather's in a bunch. The more time that passes the more that piles up against CK.--Crossmr 21:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting sort of impatient, other ArbCom potential cases have got more attention, even if it's a down vote. --CFIF (talk to me) 13:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the process says it can take up to 2 months. That may allow for a month of arbcom members actually deciding on the issue. Just feel better in knowing as time passes he continues to burry himself and if his behaviour continues he'll likely just end up permanently banned before the end of it anyway.--Crossmr 16:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Part of it got cut off with no one noticing. Shows how much the ArbCom cares about this case. --CFIF (talk to me) 03:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Requests for clarification section

Just noting here, for the record, that I'm doing a bit of cleanup in the Requests for clarification section, since there are a number of old/stale posts. I'm archiving each to the talk page of the original request page, just so they aren't lost (couldn't find any better place to put it). Additionally, for the record, I cleared doing so with the lovely Mindspillage so as not to run afoul of any policies. Essjay (Talk) 01:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Both [49] and [50] had outstanding questions; why were they archived? --SPUI (T - C) 21:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Because nobody from the Committee had responded, and they weren't included in the list of "Yeah, go ahead and archive, but leave [...]." If you feel they are still in need of an answer, please feel free to restore them, it is a wiki. Essjay (Talk) 04:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Administrator abuse, false identity

Wow. I am amazed at this. This bodes badly for the wiki.

Though I have made small comments on wiki for years from my small range of hard IP addresses, I recently registered a user to make specific comments on DU, considering the controversial nature of it. I have casually researched DU for years. I posted additions to Gulf War and depleted uranium, which were both reverted by Physchim62 and Torturous Devastating Cudgel. The reason given was inaccurate and seemed to be based solely on mistaken identity. It had nothing to do with the content from what I can tell. I reposted some large edits to DU which are still there. My posts were critical, but also not conclusive, and I did not delete opposing information. I also offered references and links to sources, though I intended to add more later. Well, now no one is interested in arbitratrion or learning the facts of their mistake. Even a comment I left for DU was deleted. Following are the related comments.

== Making friends ==

Herr Physchim62

You seem to be making friends. I have no idea who you are, but upon seeing the clearly incomplete pages on DU and the Gulf War, I decided to offer a small portion of the large amount of information I have collected about DU. Since you provided almost no information about your subsequent reversion, and what you did provide was not only inaccurate but entirely cryptic to me, it took me some time to understand why my comments were immediately censored, based on a login technicality referencing one of my IP addresses and a user I know nothing about, but whom perhaps I should now get to know. I've reposted the comments to the DU page with my correct login, which Wiki sometimes fails to keep. I will now repost to the Gulf War page, being careful my login is maintained. Barring a timely response, I plan to contact some type of Wiki "ArbCom" about the wrong assumption you apparantly have made about my identity, and what I think is overstepping whatever authority you seem to have within Wiki, though I know nothing about that process and no information seems to be provided by you or Wiki in that regard.

Fieldlab

This is James, same editing style, trying to push the same information. A Check user request will determine nothing because records are not kept that long. Please Dont buy it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

== Depleted uranium ==

Yes, it is a violation of his ArbCom ban, and I´ve blocked him for it. Physchim62 (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but is a dynamic IP, so it wont last too long. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you heroes are really burying yourselves here. Be my guest, just remember caution, respect and the benefit of a doubt at all times in dealing with strangers, OK? Fieldlab 17:59 24 July 2006 (PDT)

Um- excuse me conspiracists, I hate to break the news, but that is my IP and no one else's, and certainly not the person you seem to suspect. It is a hard IP I have had for 4 years. And you certainly cannot justify blocking it based on anything I have ever done or posted at Wiki. You have banned this IP I believe because you believe me to be someone else. If you bothered to check the IP of that person, chances are he has never posted from anywhere around Olympia, Washington, USA.

You have not only blatantly violated and abused Wiki policy, which you seem to have little regard for by doing this, you also seem to be behaving in a juvenile, vindictive fashion, contrary the spirit of the Wiki.

You have left me no choice but to escalate the incident, as this type of behavior could threaten the integrity of the Wiki itself.

Simply put, this is just LAME. Fieldlab

== Your revision of my content in Depleted Uranium ==

(→Health concerns - a letter in a magazine from an anonymous person does not conform to WP:RS and WP:V)

Actually, the vast majority of Wiki content is precisely ANONYMOUS, and the two policy pages you quote unfortunately never reference anonymity in any context. I will conclude that you misunderstood the policy, so I will just repost.

This seems like selective enforcement based on a technicality to me, because the link to the author, source and publisher was also clearly provided. In the future, it would be a lot less hassle for both of us if you just post a "source required" note (or heaven forbid write me a note) as opposed to censoring content.

Your requirement, that sources not be anonymous, is never mentioned in the Wiki policies.

wp:v-

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research.

The content you deleted meets this requirement. In the absence of any other justification or comments, you have left me no choice but to repost it. Fieldlab