Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Netoholic (February 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Netoholic has been editing in Wikipedia and Template namespaces, and several people have been complaining on WP:ANI that he's been revert warring and has been uncivil about it. Raul654 has made the vague statement that Neto's been doing good work regaring WP:AUM. Ambi has stated that she will undo any block of Netoholic. I do realize that Neto's contributions on templates (or indeed, elsewhere) are generally useful, but I should also note that Brion VIBBER indicated that WP:AUM is not as pressing as initially thought. This is confusing.

In other words, the "status" of this user is unclear, and for reasons unknown the previous query on this issue was removed from this page. I ask once more that the ArbCom clarifies the issue, as I do believe there are better solutions to the case than banning Neto from those namespaces. However, if the ArbCom declines to amend or rescind the namespace ban, the next time I hear a complaint about Netoholic I will enforce the current namespace ban as written. Let me state once more that I do not want to block the guy, but barring clarification, if there are more complaints I see no other option. Radiant_>|< 13:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't wikilawyer so. I removed the query because nothing had happened in over a week, which suggested that you didn't care any more. The primary rule of Wikimedia projects (and yes, this even trumps NPOV, but only in extremely rare and limited circumstances) is to use common sense. If Netoholic's actions aren't disruptive, but are in fact aiding the project, then I see no particular reason to go ahead and prevent him from contributing so; OTOH, were Netoholic's actions to become disruptive, then the ruling would be appropriate to be used to block him from such actions. The Arbitration Committee is not your mother. It is up to the blocking (or deciding-not-to-block) sysop to come to their own conclusion as to whether their common-sense-o-meter has pinged. If in doubt, don't.

James F. (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Nothing had happened in that section because people were waiting for an answer. Both Raul and Ambi have implied that Neto should not be blocked for violating his ban regardless of disruptiveness, hence a request for clarification was made out of respect for them. Radiant_>|< 16:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Come, now, Radiant!, how was that in any way a personal attack. If you want a statement from an Arbitrator, here you go: while Netoholic is behaving usefully, he is not to be blocked for a technical violation of the terms of his case. No more needs to be said, and this had been said even before the original request was made. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Radiant!: I'm sorry, whut? How on Earth was that an attack, personal or otherwise? Please enlighten me, so that I can avoid upsetting you in future.

James F. (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Sam. If he's not being disruptive, don't block him. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

And if he is being disruptive? — Omegatron 17:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who is being disruptive may be blocked. Netoholic just as much as everyone else. That doesn't mean you shouldn't carefully consider whether he is being disruptive. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

And what about this? — Omegatron 00:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As WP:AUM is no longer a policy, not even a guideline (as per edit of Brion), Ambi cannot justify unblocking Netoholic with WP:AUM. So Ambi's argument is moot now. --Adrian Buehlmann 08:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• What I'm trying to say really is that people have been asking for clarity about the Netoholic case for several weeks, and have not received any clear answers from the ArbCom until Sam's statement just now. I don't appreciate being accused of Wikilawyering when asking for a clear answer on an issue that has received numerous unclear answers, or lack of answers, in the recent past. When JDF removed the query because nothing had happened in over a week, there were in fact several people still waiting for an Arb answer; a quick scan of RFAr and ANI history gives requests for enforcement or questions if the ban is still in place by Bratsche, CBDunkerson, Jtdirl, Omegatron, Gareth Hughes, Adrian Buehlmann, Carbonite and myself, and the only ArbCom response had so far been vague statements by David Gerard and Raul654 that were considering lifting the ban, and a statement by ex-arb Ambi that she would instantly undo any block on Netoholic. Now excuse me if I find that confusing. Radiant_>|< 17:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• I do agree, there is something fishy going on here, the best for the arbcomm is to define the question in black and/or white. _→AzaToth 17:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Actually Netoholic is clearly disruptive. He is unilaterally pushing by revert warring the method described at Wikipedia:hiddenStructure which clearly breaks accessibility for no good reason. Now that Brion has vaporized WP:AUM there is clearly no reason to break screen readers on thousands of pages and against clear consensus. This method is now sprinkled over hundreds of templates. --Adrian Buehlmann 17:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I wish my comments on the issue weren't archived. Can they be resurrected?

If Netoholic's actions aren't disruptive, but are in fact aiding the project

His actions are disruptive and are in fact not aiding the project. — Omegatron 17:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I would note that this is a most highly disputed claim in itself, and that many of the comments here are from the people who thought that server load was something to be decided by a vote on a talk page - David Gerard 18:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

David, please be civil in your argumentation. _→AzaToth 18:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would refrain from repeating that false claim again and again. We had actually asked for current confirmation of the devs on this (now Brion has and he removed the policy tag, thereby reverting you). Nobody tried to vote away server load. It would be helpful to stick to the matter and not constantly bash people based on errant claims. --Adrian Buehlmann 18:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop repeating that baseless argument. No one was ever trying to vote away server load.

There was never any proof of a server load problem, and server load isn't a valid reason to limit ourselves or create policy, as our lead developer has clearly stated. — Omegatron 20:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that some clarification/advice for Netoholic could be useful.

Comments 1) Netoholic's improvments to the Templates are nothing short of miraculous. Watching him, I have been able to utilize techniques here and elsewhere and all efforts to encourage positive changes should be made. 2) When objections are raised, Netoholic seems to react impatiently and rudely to those that oppose his changes. 3) Attempts to learn from Netoholic, or enlist his help to make improvements to the stylesheet are often ignored or treated as childish questions.

Suggestions 1) Netoholic should make comments on the talk page about the improvements. 2) Netoholic should either educate objectors about the benefits of the change (or inform others such as myself to help him) 3) When the objectors acknowledge the benefits and incorporate the standardizations as best they can, any additional changes should be made using standard wiki processes. 4) If there really is a server load issue, the dispute should be settled by asking the programmers rather than asserting what they mean. This is an edited version of my prior archived comment Trödel&#149;talk 19:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic's ban from editing in the Template: namespace should be enforced. If he can learn to convince others to make changes that he wants to the templates, instead of making sweeping contentious changes without discussion, the "miraculous" benefits of his knowledge can still be used. — Omegatron 20:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this would be a perfect fit. If this doesn't bruise his ego, he will shure love to point out where we are all wrong. And shure he is able to express that as he is very intelligent. What he lacks is just patience and he can't stand other opinions than his own because he lacks the patience to explain. So I would shure hire him as a non-template-editing consultant. But the template-edit-decisions simply does not make he himself. Deal or no deal? --Adrian Buehlmann 21:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I (and many others) have a problem with the 'hiddenStructure' technique Netoholic is using. It seems to me inappropriate to disenfranchise blind users, users with non-CSS browsers, users on non-English Wikipedias, and others... which is what this method has done. It does not work for all users and thus it simply should not be used. This change was advanced under claims that alternate methods cause server load problems and that hiddenStructure would work for almost everybody. Both of those claims have since been shown to be false... making continued efforts to promote this methodology seem wholely without merit to me. Given that there are other methods which work for everyone I do not think edit warring to restore bad code is warranted. Nor running bots (at faster than the allowed rate) to replace Template:Main without even mentioning it on Wikipedia talk:Bots... let alone getting consensus agreement there as required.

Netoholic has done alot of work with templates. Unfortunately, a good deal of that work has ultimately turned out to be detrimental in that it reduces the accessibility of Wikipedia. The longer this continues the worse the site will appear for the minorities Netoholic dismisses as insignificant. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 20:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. Yet we are even more powerless to stop him with this quasi-revocation of his ban in place than we would have been if he had never been through ArbCom at all. We're supposed to block bots on sight for controversial edits, but no one feels confident enough to do it with these vague statements telling us we should/shouldn't. — Omegatron 20:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If it is that detrimental you should be able to find at least one admin who can block him for a day. If not then there must be some reason: are the changes too difficult to understand or evaluate whether they contribute/detract from the project; are the changes not clearly detrimental; or some other reason. My experience has been that some changes have been very helpful and other changes have been reverted, but understanding what should stay and go was not always easy. Additionally, experienced users that I trust suggested that his changes were very helpful, and when I looked into it I agreed, and thus came to see the usefulness hiddenStructure over the use of metatemplates. Trödel&#149;talk 20:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

In the time since the Arbitration decision, I feel like I've been more open and communicative by orders of magnitude. I feel like there are a few people here that are looking to "shoot the messenger" when it comes to my efforts related to WP:AUM. At the present time, that page's status seems questionable -- we have two very well-informed developers giving different opinions on why we should get rid of meta-templates. Jamesday has said that we should reduce their usage to prevent unnecessary server utilization. Brion has said that the server utilization may not be the problem, but that meta-template schemes are ugly and fragile, and should be handled by built-in functions. It seems like people were tolerant of WP:AUM when server concerns were raised, but aren't being as receptive as to the "ugliness", which can be subjective. Since this ambiguity has been raised, some individuals (especially CBDunkerson), who never liked WP:AUM, are taking the opportunity to go "balls to the walls" and undo weeks of work. At best, all mass efforts, both towards and away from meta-templates, should stop for the time being.

One thing that was mentioned was related to Template:Main. Per the talk page, User:Dbenbenn proposed using separate templates in order to remove the need for any sort of meta-template/hiddenStructure requirement. That is precisely the sort of positive movement we should be making. By using Template:Main articles on a couple dozen pages, it allowed this change. My use of a bot to help with this was entirely appropriate, as it is approved to handle this sort of maintenance. I remain open to anyone who wants to assume good faith and and me for explanations on my talk page, instead of a rant on a more public page, when they don't understand something. -- Netoholic @ 03:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, several of these statements are somewhat less than accurate. First, Brion has not said that all meta-templates should be removed. He has said that they (and any other 'code' method) should be removed if they are 'ugly and fragile'. The 'hiddenStructure' method is rather ugly and so 'fragile' that we don't have to worry about it breaking in the future because it is already broken now. Second, it is inaccurate to say that I "never liked" WP:AUM except in the sense that nobody (I hope) likes code limitations which require alot of work to clean up. The fact is that I did alot of work to implement WP:AUM when it was temporarily made policy based on claims of neccessity for server performance which have since proven unfounded. If meta-templates were a serious server problem then I'd be (actually was) all for replacing them. Since they aren't I'm now still in favor of limiting and improving them, but steadfastly against replacing them with a method which produces bad output for some users. Third, I am not disputing whether we move 'towards or away from meta-templates'... even since WP:AUM was downgraded I have continued to move templates away from meta-templates. The dispute here is over whether we should be 'moving towards or away' from 'hiddenStructure' and other CSS hacks which do not work for all users. The answer to which seems fairly obvious to me... why are we disenfranchising users when there is no need to do so? --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

May I dryly suggest that anybody who thinks Netoholic is highly disruptive now should reread his case, and see the sort of shit he used to pull. He has improved dramatically, and his current behavior is in no way worthy of any sanction. Phil Sandifer 03:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If this here: <tr class="hiddenStructure"><th>Died</th><td><i>not deceased</i><br /></td></tr> (as seen on George W. Bush) is the kind of ridiculous html that Wikipedia wishes to have in thousands of articles, ok then (non-CSS capable screen readers do read "Died not deceased"). WP:AUM is no longer a policy and Brion has stated that there is no danger to the servers by using things like qif, which delivers decent html and will be replaced by MediaWiki built-ins. We even have a solution that does not violate WP:AUM but is also opposed and reverted by Netoholic on sight which would produce decent html (it's called "Weeble code" and it does not need a centralized conditional meta-template like qif). If it seems worth to abolish the reputation of Wikipedia for the timeframe until we have conditionals in Wikipedia, ok then. It's your decision which way to go. Netoholic is now CEO of templates and if you are satisfied with the outcome then I see no point in arguing against that any longer. But at least you have been warned and you should know what you do. --Adrian Buehlmann 08:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying very hard to figure out how this is actually a response to what I said. Phil Sandifer 23:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This is what Netoholic pushes to the articles by edit warring and it is pointless to edit war with him. By supporting him, you actually endorse pushing this kind of "solution". So you are indirectly responsible for this kind of html in articles. --Adrian Buehlmann 23:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think this is cleared up now. Netoholic will not be blocked when he's not disruptive, and can be blocked if he is. A quick glance at his contribs shows that he really isn't; if new issues of e.g. revert warring come up, please drop a note at WP:ANI. I should point out that, even if WP:AUM is not as urgent as originally thought, there is no policy to "use meta-templates as much as possible" either. In other words, Neto doesn't need to be backed by policy in order to work on templates. Since there is apparent disagreement on the various solutions, might I suggest that an RFC be opened on what coding to use in templates? Radiant_>|< 08:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Running an unapproved bot and 'yelling' at people for 'not understanding' the mass change which he had not bothered to explain (or even mention) on Wikipedia talk:Bots seems pretty 'disruptive' to me. There are reasons that consensus is supposed to be gathered before bots are run to make such sweeping changes. Splitting 'main' into separate templates to avoid 'meta' vs 'hiddenStructure' issues may well have been a viable solution... I saw what he was doing and wasn't sure it was really neccessary (conditional main could have been done without meta OR CSS) but didn't care much either way. However, there is no cause to be blaming others for 'not understanding' and complaining about temporarily broken pages. Had Netoholic followed the process as required more people would have known about the change in advance and could have helped to minimize page disruption. Instead, he bulled ahead and made a mess of things and then got angry with people for, inevitably, 'not understanding' what he had not bothered to properly explain. Ditto on 'See' vs 'Further' and similar issues. Agreement should, must, be sought in advance... otherwise 'disruption' is inevitable. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

a few people here that are looking to "shoot the messenger" when it comes to my efforts related to WP:AUM.

That would make some sense if "the message" wasn't something that you wrote, misrepresented as developer-mandated policy, used as justification for sweeping edits that many users find disruptive, and revert warred any attempts to change towards a community viewpoint. You don't get any martyr status for contentiously enforcing your own opinion piece.

Brion has said that the server utilization may not be the problem, but that meta-template schemes are ugly and fragile,

More misinterpretation. Brion said that meta-templates should not be used if they are ugly and fragile. And from there it just becomes subjective; you think all meta-templates are ugly and fragile, I think your hiddenstructure hack and forking of Template:Main are ugly and fragile.

How do we decide where to go from here? Not through consensus, apparently...

It seems like people were tolerant of WP:AUM when server concerns were raised

People were tolerant of WP:AUM when you convinced the ArbCom that it was the mandate of the developers, which it wasn't.

My use of a bot to help with this was entirely appropriate, as it is approved to handle this sort of maintenance.

Um. When was it approved?

I remain open to anyone who wants to assume good faith

"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary."

May I dryly suggest that anybody who thinks Netoholic is highly disruptive now should reread his case, and see the sort of shit he used to pull.

Now there's a great argument. So if Willy on Wheels claims "everyone's ganging up on me; I didn't know I was doing anything wrong!", and cuts back to just posting the occasional autofellatio pic every few days, we should just look past it and give him a pat on the back for improvement?

He's still revert-warring templates, revert-warring WP:AUM, being uncivil, and making sweeping changes (with a bot) without consensus. What more do you want?

might I suggest that an RFC be opened on what coding to use in templates?

Good idea. Note that Brion has expressed an interest in building conditionals into the software, so a large chunk of this would become moot.

Meanwhile, Neto's ban should be enforced and extended. Since he won't listen to consensus, he should be forced to work within it. While banned, he can still make changes to templates, but only by proxy or by convincing others on talk pages that his proposed edits are beneficial. He should not be allowed to use a bot. — Omegatron 00:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copperchair (February 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

From the enforcement: "he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year."

5 week-long blocks or 5 blocks of any length? 5 different articles, or one article 5 times? Sorry to be pedantic, but the wording lacked clarity. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

After any five blocks under his probation or banning rules, it doesn't matter which articles. Dmcdevit·t 19:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Length does not matter either Fred Bauder 02:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

24.147.103.146 (February 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy, anonymous editor User:24.147.97.230, sockpuppets, and any other users identified as them in the opinion of any administrator, were banned from Wikipedia for three months, and from editing articles related to the Kennedy family for one year. Anonymous editor User:24.147.103.146 (same Massachusetts Comcast Class B block) has been blocked twice for violating this ArbCom ruling. My question is: Do these violations reset the subject ban? Robert McClenon 15:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That was the intent, yes.

James F. (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case, the ban is likely to continue for a very long time due to resetting. As long as the abuse continues, continuing the ban is an appropriate remedy. Thank you. A good ArbCom remedy. Robert McClenon 15:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lir (February 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Lir's never going to stop violating his ban, can't it just be extended to indef? --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 16:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pedophilia userbox wheel war (February 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the Pedophilia userbox wheel war decision, the remedy applying to me ("Carnildo is to be desysopped. Two weeks after this case is closed, he may reapply for administrative privileges") is written as if it were possible for me to regain admin rights sometime in the future. However, there is a factor that the Arbitration Committee does not appear to have taken into account when deciding on this:

I run OrphanBot. It's a bot that does the very useful tasks of removing no-source and no-license images from articles, and of notifying uploaders in the hopes that they will correct the problems with images they've uploaded. However, it also generates enemies: those who disagree with the deletion of no-source and no-license images, those who believe that images should only be removed by a human, those who believe that images should only be removed from articles after they've been deleted, those who simply don't understand copyright law, and those who resent having been notified. Further, I usually get the blame when images are deleted, as my signature is the one on the uploader's talk page.

Due to this continued generation of ill-will, I find it extremely unlikely that I'll be able to regain admin rights at any time in the future. I'd like confirmation from the Arbitration Committee that this is what they intended when they passed the remedy. --Carnildo 02:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't speak for the arbitration commitee in any capacity whatsoever. Having said that, I would expect that if the arbitration committee had intended that you should be left desysopped, they would have said that you could not re-apply. If the community decides that you should not be an admin, that would be the decision of the community, which is what the arbitration committee is invoking. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also add that the closing bureaucrat has leeway in interpreting RFA results, which could include placing a lesser weight on opinions connected with correct but unpopular behavior, such as image warnings. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That never actually happens. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 14:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Phroziac is right; 'crats have the leeway to do this, but I've rarely seen them do it. Usually if a candidate has <70% support, (s)he fails, regardless of the rationale behind the support or oppose votes. (On the flip side, I can't think of occasions where a >80% support candidate has failed, regardless of the rationales given to support or oppose.) Johnleemk | Talk 16:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I will confirm that this was not my intent. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I am unable to comment, as I voted against the remedy in question. Raul654 18:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this wasn't my intent, though your wording is slightly confusing. The intention most certainly was not for you to be permanently desysopped. I personally hope that the community reaccepts you as a sysop in the near future. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

KDRGibby (February 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I removed what I thought were personal attacks in line with the ruling at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby, but user:KDRGibby reinstated some of it shortly after, disputing there were not personal attacks. Will the ArbCom please advise me on this issue and clarify which information is eligible for removal. Thank you. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Any personal attacks are eligible to be (or rather, not just eligible to be, but should be) removed. I suggest you raise the issue on WP:AN. If there is a general consensus that he readded personal attacks, or that any remain, they can be (re)removed, with blocks if necessary to enforce the removal. Dmcdevit·t 22:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly." - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI Raul654 00:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, per our ruling in that case, rather, Any personal attacks should be removed from his user page, I mean. Dmcdevit·t 16:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Descriptions of edits (February 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The decision of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine was that he, I, and Robert West (who is still having technical difficulties with WP) should collaborate on a consensus version.

Since my return to Wikipedia, Ultramarine is continuing his habit of referring to edits he has made as the "good", "superior", "correct abd complete" version. I find this uncollegial, and ask if it is consistent with the spirit of the arbitration decision. Several diffs of such claims be found in the evidence in the case, and the usage has continued on Talk:Democratic peace theory, and I believe elsewhere. Septentrionalis 21:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Carl_Hewitt#Writing_about_yourself (February 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the recent ruling at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt#Writing_about_yourself the Arbitration Committee posits that Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so. I feel that, while the rule itself is obviously sensible, this way of putting it is overly broad and imprecise, thus potentially causing confusion and misuse. The question has long been discussed (see for example Wikipedia_talk:Autobiography/Archive, particularly the first paragraphs), but to my knowledge, there has never been a consensus on where and how to draw the line between legitimate editing on subjects in which a Wikipedian may be an expert and personally involved, and unacceptable editing on subjects where conflicts of interest endanger NPOV. I suggest that the Arb Com amend that ruling to the effect that: 1) Wikipedians should normally refrain from writing about themselves, but are 2) welcome to edit subjects within their field of expertise; that they should 3) be cautious with respect to conflicts of interest, and should 4) wherever possible trust the judgement of others when personal interests are involved. Thank you. Kosebamse 17:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I will gladly clarify this principle:

1. Wikipedians should normally refrain from writing about themselves, but are
2. welcome to edit subjects within their field of expertise; that they should
3. be cautious with respect to conflicts of interest, and should
4. wherever possible trust the judgement of others when personal interests are involved.

The statement isn't intended at all to stop subject experts from writing about their fields! Perhaps it could have been worded to be narrower. Same guidelines apply as have always applied: edit where you can edit neutrally without a conflict of interest, and where you can't, leave it to others. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Carl Hewitt tried to raise the straw man that experts were being excluded from editing. What we were excluding is one expert with an axe to grind. Fred Bauder 15:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this. Kosebamse 18:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

JarlaxleArtemis (March 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#JarlaxleArtemis

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Everyking probation (March 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Rewriting previous request.

Everyking is clearly using the opportunity to float the possibility of appeals as an opportunity to continue to harp on the injustice of his case. Whereas this only bothered me previously, it is starting to cross over to Everyking's latest way of submitting me and the other people he opposes to constant badgering and pointless criticism. In particular, I'm concerned with edits like [1], where he basically repeats his criticisms of me in a thinly veiled fashion and under the guise of a query about an appeal.

In short, Everyking is using the opportunity to ask about appeals as a continued theater and platform for the same behavior that got him into the situation he's appealing, and this behavior has come to be targetted at me specifically. Again. But beyond that, the situation is simply becoming stressful. For all practical purposes, the case has been in continual appeal since it was closed.

So I have two questions. 1) Is carping about the injustice of the ruling a tacit reiteration of the claims that caused the ruling? 2) Would the arbcom consider a restriction that limits EK's complaints regarding the case to actual appeals rather than inquiries? Phil Sandifer 19:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Counterpoint of sorts: While I can understand some frustration at Everyking's apparent stubbornness, I believe he is acting in good faith, whatever questions can be legitimately raised about his judgement in doing so. Everyking seems to be a pretty direct and literal kind of guy and I think the best way to read his words is to take them at face value. Veiled accusations don't strike me as something he understands, much less uses. If his intention were to attack you, I don't think there'd be any ambiguity about it. I think his motivation in asking the ArbCom questions is to get the answers to those questions, period.

And frankly, when he accuses the ArbCom of refusing to give (useful) answers, he's not wrong. The ArbCom has a habit, I have observed in the months I've been a regular spectator at this page, of being extremely tight-lipped when it comes to explaining their reasoning. 90% of the time, if not more, they will either not respond at all, or respond with a terse and (I'm sure unintentionally) very condescending-sounding referral back to the ArbCom decision in question, or similarly unhelpful response. Well, if those decisions were sufficiently clear to settle the issue, the questions wouldn't have to be asked in the first place. This does not apply just to Everyking, he is simply more persistent than most about trying to get a helpful answer after getting several unhelpful ones. I could be mistaken but I don't think I have ever seen an ArbCom member simply lay out, in clear, specific language, how they intend a ruling to be interpreted, when someone asks them to do so; then they wonder why people find their responses unhelpful. I'm sure there's a reason for it that I'm just not seeing, but from here it looks downright perverse. PurplePlatypus 09:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak to all possible decision, but with Everyking, he has a long history of searching for and exploiting any possible loopholes, so our remedies for that case were written in very broad and subjective terms. Raul654 19:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've given Everyking just about all the helpful answers I had, a while back. I've also seen others give other helpful advice and it has not been taken; I don't think it would help to repeat myself on this issue simply because he asks again. The situation has simply not changed and sheer repetition is not at all helping his cause; I have not seen a productive response to any of the good advice he has been given (I'm thinking in particular of things said by TenOfAllTrades, who's had insightful and patient things to say) and do not think my own replies would have any better effect.

As to interpretation of decisions, most of the time it's "use your best judgment". The rulings have to be somewhat broad or we'd have to amend them constantly for each new way of violating its spirit; better to get broad instructions and then ask here or on AN/I "does this action in this particular case seem OK?" if you're unsure about enforcement. I'm looking down at the other requests for clarification and none of the answers seem condescending or rude to me. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Really, I think the main difference is I want real resolution, and the ArbCom wants me to wait out my extraordinarily long sentence. These two things are in basic conflict. The only way the situation can be resolved is through an appeal, but the ArbCom won't accept that because they want the sentence to remain as it is. So, when I ask: "how can I get an appeal?", the response is either unworkably vague or even tautological, or it requires me to do things that are utterly unacceptable (such as renouncing my basic principles)—and the ArbCom, knowing that, is perfectly happy to let me appear stubborn, I suppose.

As a humorous aside, what Mindspillage thinks is a good idea regarding the enforcement of my case—ask others for their opinions before doing something iffy—is basically the root of the whole issue I'm in trouble for. One can hardly ignore the irony of the situation: I'm being punished for advocating something that the ArbCom itself implicitly acknowledges, in its advice regarding that very punishment, is a correct approach. Everyking 10:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"Really, I think the main difference is ... the ArbCom wants me to wait out my extraordinarily long sentence." - I can't speak for the other arbitrators, but I have no interest in seeing you 'wait out' our decision. I would have much preferred to make your "sentence" forever or until you learn to behave properly, whichever happens first. Raul654 03:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Forever? How long do you people think you're gonna remain in charge around here, anyway? Everyking 04:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

dyslexic agnostic case (March 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is the arbcom passing the 6 month ban as a motion because a lot of the votes there appear to be second choice votes and its not made clear by the exisiting pageBenon 00:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ban has passed, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dyslexic_Agnostic#T-man.2C_the_Wise_Scarecrow_banned_for_six_months Fred Bauder 19:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC). However it will be effective only if the mentorship fails. Fred Bauder 19:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Instantnood 3 (March 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Instantnood has made a request [2] that someone representing ArbCom address that the case was opened properly. SchmuckyTheCat 08:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that ArbCom cases do not have a hard time limit, Instantnood being blocked around when the case was opened is immaterial. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the matter here SchmuckyTheCat. Members of the ArbCom should have recognised I was not able to submit a statement when they opened the case. I understand that my statement is not a prerequisite, and the case can still be opened in the absence of my statement. Yet this should only be done when I refused to submit one, or ignored requests directed to me. This did not happen. I wanted to submit one, but my right was suspended. — Instantnood 12:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

So, by Instantnood statement, I believe that we should stop the process of the case (currently at Proposed decision) and wait for Instantnood's argument, then re-consider all the given evidences and come up with another conclusion, similar or different. Deryck C. 15:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copperchair (March 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can anything be done about this user's constant blanking of his Talk page, including the removal of legitimate warnings and ArbCom notifications? I was very surprised this wasn't addressed in his ArbCom case and believe an additional injunction regarding it would be the least that would be appropriate. (Frankly I'm not actually sure why he isn't hard-banned; it's difficult to imagine a better example of someone who is a net negative to Wikipedia. But one step at a time, I guess.) PurplePlatypus 09:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If he's blocked, the page can be protected, though I don't think people blanking their own talk pages is usually something to take action on. Inquire at WP:ANI. As above, if you think an indefinite block, or hardbanning, is appropriate at this point, raise the issue on WP:ANI; the conditions of his probation state: "Any three administrators may impose a partial or general ban up to and including an indefinite ban for good cause". Dmcdevit·t 09:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Everyking 3 (March 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The only thing it says under the heading "Enforcement" in Everyking 3 is that Snowspinner does not get to enforce the remedies . So does anybody else, and if so how? Everyking is for instance right now violating Remedy 3, "Everyking is prohibited from making comments on non-editorial actions taken by other administrators other than on the administrator's talk page, a Request for comment, or a Request for arbitration", by attacking my actions at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates.[3], [4] .From my point of view the worst part is that he's making my life more difficult by encouraging a problem user and offering to enable further disruption from him. So, er, is my only recourse here to make sure that Snowspinner doesn't enforce the remedy? It seems a little limited. Bishonen | ノート 22:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC).

Be careful, EK might seize this "opportunity" to rant about this decision. --TML1988 22:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The default, unless specified otherwise, on all arbcom rulings is that any administrator can enforce the rulings with short blocks if they see fit. In this case, it is any administrator who is not me. So you can feel free to use a short block here. Phil Sandifer 22:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

He can be blocked for disruption, Bish. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

He clearly knows he's violating the decision, and is willfully violating it and hoping no one will enforce it. Block him for a week. Next time he does it, block him for longer. Raul654 23:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't block him. It does seem rather surprising that a single admin declares that she is banning a particular user from a particular page (the ban in itself may well be warranted, I just don't remember seeing a ban created like that). Questioning this seems reasonable and not worthy of a week's block. Haukur 23:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Haukur, it's a bit surprising and it was reasonable to ask. Therefore I restored Everyking's question that Bunchofgrapes had removed as being a violation of Everyking 3 (it was a violation of EK 3, but I went with common sense and IAR in restoring it). And I replied to his question. So far so good, but even though I specifically pointed out that I didn't mean my restoration as a precedent for him, EK went right ahead and posted again, this time not asking any question, but sharing his opinion of my action (bullying) and reiterating that he would help User:Eternal Equinox evade it. I don't know Will's exact blocking rationale, but for my money it's not the questioning, but the comment--the second post--that deserves blocking. It's not the first time EK tries to trip me up while abetting and enabling a user who's harming the encyclopedia, and I'm fed up with his "friendly fire". Bishonen | ノート 00:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC).

Hmm, yes, he did make serious accusations against you (and you against him). And by the E3 ruling that entitles you to bring up the matter here and have him blocked which you have now done. That's not what I would have expected you to do but you're certainly within your rights. Haukur 00:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, EK "is prohibited from making comments on non-editorial actions taken by other administrators other than on the administrator's talk page, a Request for comment, or a Request for arbitration", and that's exactly what this is all about. Any violation of this Arbitration decision constitutes a block. --TML1988 23:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Will Beback has blocked him for a week. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) It doesn't matter who reports it. The diffs provided indicate violations of the ArbCom's decision. "Questioning" is exactly what got Everyking in trouble before. Please read over the Arbcom case to see the details. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3. I blocked Everyking for a week. -Will Beback 23:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This all seems quite harsh to me. A whole week? With James' current edit rate that's going to cost us something like 500 good uncontroversial edits. Is that worth it? Haukur 23:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ask Everyking if it was worth it, then. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to debate the ArbCom's decision, then go ahead. I believe they felt that the cost to the project of Everyking's disruptive questioning of admins outweigh the benefits. Everyking is well aware of the terms of the case and will not be blocked if he follows them. It is reasonable to expect that ArbCom decisions will be followed. -Will Beback 23:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

We all lose, not just James. Haukur 00:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

He violated the ruling last night too, Haukurth. He's boundary-testing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm more concerned with Mercian kings than ruffled admin feathers ;) But you will do what you feel you must do, I seem to be in a party of one at the moment. Haukur 00:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Everyking's contributions are appreciated, I've given him a barnstar myself. But they are not an entitlement disrupt other admins. We all remember affectionately Everyking's assertion that (my paraphrase), "You can't block me, I've got a 5,000-entry watchlist that needs my attention". Nobody here is a prima donna. -Will Beback 02:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Raul654 appears to have unblocked him. Let's hope that's that for now. Time to get back to work now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone case (March 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The arbcom recently placed all three on probation, the latter over usage of sources, the former two over edit warring on the issue of allegations of homosexuality and bisexuality in articles. I have deliberately avoided entering the debate on the issue of sources because I do not have access to US biographies and magazines and so cannot prove either accuracy or inaccuracy. I have had to block both Wilkes and Wyss, the former a number of times, for clear breaches of their prohibition on editing biographical articles on allegations of homosexuality and bisexuality. The latter seens to have quit WP in a huff as a result. Wilkes however, while not editing articles, is using talk pages to mispresent onefortyone's probation by alleging that Onefortyone was convicted of lying by the arbcom. See also here. In fact the decision of the arbcom related to the reliability of sources, not lies.

Probation explicitly mentions articles. That could be interpreted narrowly to include just the article and not the talk page, or broadly to include the talk page, given that the talk page discusses and shapes the contents of the article. The arbcom ruling explicitly uses the word "broadly". Does this mean that three admins may also impose restrictions on the edits placed in talk pages dealing with the areas (homosexuality and bisexuality) that Wilkes is prohibited from editing. Wilkes has clearly breached Wikipedia ettiquette but has he breached the implicit conditions of his probation by posting allegations that another user who was the subject of an arbcom ruling is a "convicted liar" when that is a distortion of the arbcom ruling? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The ruling does not make "article" explicit with regard to the newest remedy. That general probation is to apply as a full ban. Any three admins can ban him (as in a block-ban, not ban-from-an-article) for a year or less. This "good cause" can include any kind of disruption, certainly the kind you are describing, if three admins agree. Dmcdevit·t 00:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Never letting the thing go, on and on and on, focusing on that one issue is certainly disruptive. I think the gist of the decision is that it is not up to either of them to police Onefortyone. Fred Bauder 02:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CarlHewitt (March 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If the anon 24.23.213.158 is CarlHewitt, then I believe he's violating Remedy 1 in editing Arbiter (electronics). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how that is autobiographical editing (and not just editing in his field)? Otherwise I don't see the justification for an IP check. Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

He seems to have created the concepts, according to the references and previous discussions. But whether or not the Admins (or whichever level administers blocks) agree that his current edits are autobiographical, it should be noted that he and now Anonymouser may be Carl. See the history of Talk:Indeterminacy in computation for details. (Also, to whose attention should I bring questions of identity related to Arbitration remedies.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

These don't appear to check out as Carl Hewitt, according to the location of that ip. Fred Bauder 01:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I know Hewitt edited from User:67.142.130.28, both IPs are from California. I also find User:71.198.215.78's and User:24.147.9.238's edits suspicious. —Ruud 04:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There's little doubt in my mind that this is Hewitt; Bah, who cares. Not a massive land grab.--CSTAR 19:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Concur that User:71.198.215.78 sounds suspiciously like Carl, as does User:24.23.213.158. I don't see anything obvious in the contrib history for User:24.147.9.238 — did you mean someone else? --Allan McInnes (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

User:24.147.9.238 added an external link to MIT CSAIL to Scheme programming language, but I may be seeing ghosts here. —Ruud 02:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh my... User:Anonymouser. This guy removed the NPOV tag from Scientific Community Metaphor. —Ruud 02:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RJII probation (March 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Due to frequent, problematic disruption of the admin's noticeboard, such as reporting month old vandalism by a user he was engaged in a dispute with and repeatedly shouting, I considered banning RJII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from the page under the terms of his probation. However, the decision spefically uses the word "article"- Would this ban be covered by the probation, or would an amendment of the previous decision be necessary for a ban to take effect?--Sean Black ^(talk) 08:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with this, as it's in line with the spirit of our ruling. If he's being disruptive, he ought to be banned from it. RJII doesn't seem to be getting our message, however. You may want to bring consider, on AN, enacting the general probation for an appropriate length of time. Dmcdevit·t 09:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Given this, I have done so. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RJII_Banned_from_AN_.26_AN.2FI Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Guanaco injunction (March 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al/Proposed decision#Guanaco restricted from admin reversals intended to prohibit routine reversals such as un-semi-protecting pages after the vandals have left or enforcement of decisions on pages like Wikipedia:Deletion review? —Guanaco 23:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to a question of whether or not we think you'll try to use such an exception to game the system. Raul654 02:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes. The injunction is intended to prohibit, while the case is being considered, any reversals of any admin actions. Wikipedia will not crumble and fall if you do not personally maintain it for the few days this case will be open. ➥the Epopt 03:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

How much longer do you intend to drag this on? —Guanaco 04:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately for both you and me, there appear to be plenty of other cases, yours being one of the newest. Arbitration tends to be a game of patience. Dmcdevit·t 07:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in my experience they can be quite speedy about things, at times. Everyking 08:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention of gaming the system; I have better games to play, some of which are actually fun. —Guanaco 04:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hewitt... again (April 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hewitt has returned as User:Anonymouser an several IPs in the 24.23.213.158 and 71.198.219.119 range (which can seen from the set of articles he edits, his unusual habit of making a very large number of very small edits to the same article in a short time period and the use of Harvard-style citations, as he is required to do while under parole.) Of course he has the right to return, but I feel that by using a difernet username and several IPs he is trying to evade his parole. More problematic is that is activly spamming a conference paper/talk. Several people who have not participated in is RfAr seem to have noticed this [5] and one of his IPs even got blocked for it. [6] —Ruud 15:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Concur that User:Anonymouser appears to be (based on editing style and choice of subject matter) User:CarlHewitt in a new guise. He appears to be making the same kind of edits (promoting his own research) that got him RfAred in the first place, and which he was banned from making as an outcome of the RfAr. If these users are the same person, shouldn't the terms of the probation defined by the ArbCom for User:CarlHewitt also apply to User:Anonymouser? --Allan McInnes (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This may not be Carl Hewitt himself, but I suppose we can treat them as the same user for purposes of enforcing the decision. So, if this editor is disrupting an article they may be banned from that article, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Carl_Hewitt#Carl_Hewitt_placed_on_Probation. Fred Bauder 17:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jason Gastrich (April 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could you all take a boo at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Jason_Gastrich#confused_by_remedies ? Should the ban be concurrent with the rest of the remedies? Is that what you guys meant to do? Is it more of a drowned AND hung remedy, or did you mean all the other stuff to start after the ban lapses? Thanks! (moved the substance of this from Mindspillage's talk page) ++Lar: t/c 03:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

My opinion would be that the ban puts everything else on the back-burner for a year. I would say that they come in force after the year's ban is completed. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I asked Mindspillage about this and got a slightly different answer. (it's all concurrent) I need to refactor the three(!!!) differnent partial threads started all back to one place, I guess... probably here? ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with James' assessment here. The confusion stems from the fact that I made all of those proposals, and then Mindspillage came along and proposaed a general ban, which passed as well. In most cases if it hadn't worked out that way we would have just proposed the ban and left it there. In any case, there's not much use worrying about something that's a year down the line, as (to my knowledge) no one has ever withstood a yearlong ban without resetting it, and then returned to editing, except for Plautus who was swiftly rebanned. And Jason ranks among those I least expect not to cause the ban to be reset. Dmcdevit·t 03:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of resetting, there have been confirmed socks since the ban started. Category:Wikipedia:Sock_puppets_of_Jason_Gastrich is larger than it was at the time of the RfAr. Harvestdancer 14:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I've duly reset the block to one year from the last verified sock usage, although because I can't spell it took three tries. Stifle 18:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Leyasu 1RR (April 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu, the Arbcom put Leyasu under a one revert per day limitation, except in cases of "clear vandalism". What exactly is "clear vandalism"? Leyasu reverted edits to Children of Bodom twice today, saying that they were vandalism (this was, again, something that inspired some of the principles in their case) because the user who made them was a "serial vandal", when the two edits in question probably weren't. [7] [8] Does this merit a block on Leyasu? Further, am I allowed to block people with whom I was previously (or, for that matter, currently) in an ArbCom case, or is this a conflict of interest? --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering the user just got blocked for it by User:R.Koot as part of a serial vandalism across various articles, including user pages and admin user pages (including my own) [9], then yes, im pretty sure it was clear vandalism. Ley Shade 23:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It was changing the genre description of a band. WP:-( isn't clear about whether or not that is vandalism. At any rate, I read the rulings from the arbcom case again, and the revert parole is a limitation to one content revert per day, vandalism or not. So the parole has been violated; I do want the arbitrators to answer my other question, though. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If something is done to disrupt Wikipedia, personally attack the content/subject of the article, and is dont maliciously, it counts as Vandalism. After trying to engage the user on the talk page, alls i got was a stream of abuse about both the band and myself, and the blatant threats of further vandalism, which was then adeered to. Ive been selective in when to breach the arbcom, and have only done so in cases of notable problems. Most of the time, ive had other editors who are part of the WP:HMM do reverts, me being the look out guy for vandals. Ley Shade 23:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes you can block me, as long as its for a good reason and its not because of baiting, which you havent done. I will however tell you to check the talk page and ANI board on the user who made the edits, as they are responsible for a series of malicious edits which i was first made aware of during an Article CleanUp Strategy on the WP:HMM. Ley Shade 23:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That is not clear vandalism. Clear vandalism is "I JUST HACKED UR SIGHT LOL". Maybe it was vandalism. It wasn't clear vandalism, though. If it's arguable that it's not vandalism, it isn't. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. If Leyasu wishes to stay within the spirit of the ruling, he should avoid these situations like the plague. Anything but the most obvious is vandalism is not a good idea. And yes, you should always find an uninvolved admin for circumstances like these; it shouldn't be that hard. Dmcdevit·t 07:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it has been very difficult. User:Leyasu continually involves himself in my edits and calls them "vandalism" when they are not(One example:[10])I posted a formal complaint on the Admins Noticeboard (No resp) and warned two Admins (No help). He has also falsely accused me (no evidence - just a libelous character attack) of being a "sockpuppet" of another user he has had problems with. If anything, this ArbCase has given him much more liberty. --Danteferno 12:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Apart from myself, other members of the WP:HMM who i have devoted my Wikipedia time to working with have also been having to deal with Danteferno. If Danteferno's edits are checked, his only edits in the last month have been reverts of my own edits. A no evidence claim apparantly is the case of Deathrocker and Danteferno being the same person, even though a Check User confirmed they were both blocking their IP's since the check user was authored. The reason that the ANI Board and the admins didnt help Dantefernoe, is because both times Danteferno had bragged about using an anon to vandalise a page, and then reverted what i had done when i reverted the vandalism, thus when i reverted his edit from a notification from WP:HMM of vandalised articles, he went to the ANI Board to tittle tattle, and when refused there, went to other admins to try to 'force' them into banning me so he could 'revert my edits'. I have only broken my parole, has noted, during vandalism, and only done so when other members of the WP:HMM have asked me to do the reverts. I fail to see how this is me causing problems.

Also, in the case of this Diff [11], Danteferno was warned several times by user Spearhead about vandalisng articles in regard to this and other articles, and continued to do so. Not paticularly in the spirit of his parole itself, is it? Ley Shade 04:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Last I checked, it wasn't me, but you who was placed on Wikipedia:Probation for a year. The only penalty I was given was revert parole, which I have not broken - you, on the other hand, have violated it several times since your parole.

Your claim of me being the same person as another user is false. If you look back, the Admin who did the check said your evidence was "Inconclusive" -that's because there was no real evidence!

There's also nothing in that diff above about Spearhead warning me of anything, or that I was vandalizing any article - unless you this posted this diff by mistake, this never happened. Please stop lying about me and others!!!!

ARBITRATORS and/or ADMINS - Under the agreement of User:Leyasu's probation there was concensus that he could be banned from any article for any good reason. I ask that this enforcement be given on the Gothic Metal article to start. If you take a look at the revision history User:Leyasu has claimed complete ownership of the article, reverting out almost any edit not his and even removing a rewrite tag that was supported by other users on the Talk page. As User:Idont Havaname mentioned, User:Leyasu has been repeatedly warned about his behavior.--Danteferno 12:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Taken from Dante's Above statement:

• Last I checked, it wasn't me, but you who was placed on Wikipedia:Probation for a year. The only penalty I was given was revert parole.

Dante has done this several times, and boasted that he can use his extra reverts as a means to revert any of my edits he pleases. Ironically, his only edits in the last month have been reverts of my own edits.

Taken from Dante's above statement:

• There's also nothing in that diff above about Spearhead warning me of anything, or that I was vandalizing any article - unless you this posted this diff by mistake, this never happened. Please stop lying about me and others!!!!

Dante here claims he was never warned by Spearhead, but ironically, here is a diff of Danteferno deleting the warning from his talk page [12].

Taken from Dante's above statement:

If you take a look at the revision history User:Leyasu has claimed complete ownership of the article, reverting out almost any edit not his and even removing a rewrite tag that was supported by other users on the Talk page.

Please provide a diff for me claiming the article was mine, also please provide any diff showing me being warned for MPOV like you was by both Me, Snowflake and Parasti.

Taken from Dante's above statement:

• and even removing a rewrite tag that was supported by other users on the Talk page.

Dante placed the rewrite tag and claimed that he was the consensus. After 2 RFC's, and a intervention from the WP:HMM and numerous admins, only 2 users still supported a rewrite, Danteferno and a user with edits only on the Gothic Metal talk page. This, is not a consensus by right, when several uses, a Wikiproject and 2 RFC's all deem the article fine.

Until Danteferno provides diffs for his claims, i suggest he stops making up things that can easily be disproved. Ley Shade 12:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notice at the top of Bogdanov Affair (April 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The ArbCom case Regarding The Bogdanov Affair ordered

A notice shall be placed at the top of the article Bogdanov Affair which links to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair which briefly explains that the Wikipedia article has, in part, been conflated with the external event, the Bogdanov Affair, due to participation in editing of the article by participants in the event. The notice shall include an apology for our inability to control this phenomenon and a warning that any editor which is determined to be a participant in the external event may be subject to being banned from editing.

The ArbCom case closed in November 2005 - four months ago. The notice is obtrusive, and I innocently commented it out, on the basis that someone clicking 'edit' would still see it, without realising that it had been ArbCom-mandated.

The ArbCom did not appear to specify when the notice would be taken down. How long will the notice remain there? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Until it is unnecessary. Are there still puppets reincarnating violating the ruling and is the article still semi-protected? If so, I think it still serves a purpose. Dmcdevit·t 19:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think so - the most recent one appears to be Hourcas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - made two edits late last month, both to the Bogdanov article, with no edits elsewhere. --TML1988 20:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

A couple weeks ago, I received an irritated e-mail from one of the pro-Bogdanov partisans whom the ArbCom had specifically named in their ban. They're still out there, watching the article, waiting for their chance to spring (cue ominous music). . . Anville 13:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Instantnood3 (April 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

'nood hasn't changed his behavior one bit. He's still coming to Wikipedia each day, reverting a revolving set of 10-30 articles, not using edit summaries, and not using talk pages until people beg him to. The most problematic is the revert warring. Can he be placed on 0RR? SchmuckyTheCat 15:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I remind myself to assume good faith, but contrary to what user:SchmuckyTheCat has claimed, I don't come to Wikipedia everyday, I restore articles according to what they were before the POV-pushing edits, and I'm the one begging other people to discuss. I've also left messages at user talk:SchmuckyTheCat, but he rarely replies. The case was not properly opened, and user:SchmuckyTheCat (and probably user:Alanmak as well) should have been part of it. — Instantnood 16:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't come to Wikipedia everyday - but you come to Wikipedia most days, and your edit history is mostly reverts, still, after two arbcom cases.

I restore articles according to what they were before the POV-pushing edits - to be honest, I no longer even care if I agree with you about content. You're a revert warrior, reverting warring is bad for the project. Justification is irrelevant.

I'm the one begging other people to discuss. -- Did you discuss your two week long revert war on Mainland China before I begged you to? When I did beg you, out comes pointers to a conversation that happened one year ago. How about list of bridges - talk page is a redlink.

The case was not properly opened - please.

user:SchmuckyTheCat (and probably user:Alanmak as well) should have been part of it. - If you believe I've violated my probation, you're welcome to ask an administrator to enforce it. If you think Alanmak needs an arbcom case, the place to file it is above. You've managed to drive Huaiwei away. Is your next group of those conspiring against you going to include Chen Zen [13], ran [14], and enochlau [15]? The common denominator in your revert wars is Instantnood. You have the ability to stop reverting, but like a junkie, you just can't stop. No matter how many arbcom cases. No matter how many pleadings from those who agree with you. No matter how much begging from those that disagree. No matter the call from Alanmak for a stop, you demanded he self-revert himself before you'd stop your reverts with him. SchmuckyTheCat 17:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I did request user:Alanmak and user:Chen Zhen to talk, and I talk to user:Enochlau and user:Ran too. I requested user:Chen Zhen to explain why he keeps revert mainland China without any edit summary, but the effort was in vain. If justification of reverts is irrelevant then Wikipedia would turn chaotic. I don't revert warring, I simply restore them according to what they were like, and request the people to discuss. I never demanded anybody to self-revert, all I want the articles to be restore according to what they were like, no matter it favours my position or theirs or anybody else's. Comparing to your edit history, I don't think mine's proportion of revert edits is siginificantly different. It's user:Huaiwei's own choice to leave, no matter there was a case or not. Nobody can drive him away. I did not present any evidence regarding your activities to the latest case since it was not properly opened. That doesn't mean you're all correct. — Instantnood 18:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If "He's still coming to Wikipedia each day, reverting a revolving set of 10-30 articles, not using edit summaries, and not using talk pages until people beg him to" is true, then this is just an enforcement problem. Post to the administrators' noticeboard with evidence and see if they deem it serious enough to enforce against. He's currently on article probation and genral probation. Dmcdevit·t 19:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

EK appeal (April 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Five months have now passed since the end of EK3. In previous cases, I was granted an appeal option after a reasonable length of time; in EK2, the time span was only two months before the ArbCom softened my restrictions significantly (and four months after that dropped them altogether). Therefore I ask the ArbCom to consider at least softening my current restrictions, if not dropping them altogether. I'm not eager to write any lengthy arguments in my defense, as the ArbCom and I have some diametrically opposed theoretical views and I no longer realistically hope to be able to persuade them of anything; rather I would simply ask that we try to live with each other and be reasonable. Everyking 04:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It has only been 22 days since you were last blocked for a violation [16] and only six days since you commented extensively on a block of mine. The comments were on my talk page and so weren't a strict violation, but they violated the spirit of the ruling. If you'd stop commenting on admins' actions and also stop asking for the ruling to be relaxed, you'd probably find that it would end up being relaxed or even cancelled completely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

How is commenting on your talk page against the spirit? There was a special exemption made for that, so it seems to me that I was following the spirit, not violating it. If the spirit of the ruling frowned on that, why was an exemption made? And that block 22 days ago was considered very iffy and I was unblocked within hours. Everyking 04:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The length of the block may have been iffy, but not the edit that caused it in my book. Add to that boundary-testing at RFA and elsewhere, as well as violating the spirit of the ruling by posting such comments off-wiki, and I see no reason to entertain an appeal until there's evidence you've changed your ways. Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Boundary-testing? A big part of the problem, in my opinion, is these silly assumptions you make about me. And I don't see how you can reasonably condemn me for posting comments off-wiki when you prohibit me from making them on-wiki. Does the spirit of the ruling also prohibit me from discussing my Wikipedia views in real life? Everyking 05:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

To be blunt: it doesn't matter if I characterize it as boundary-testing or incorrigibility or repeated mistakes or whatever. Don't make anything resembling the controversial comments and violations you have continued to make since the ruling; don't continue to instill doubt that you have the capacity or judgment to change by continually asserting that the ruling was flawed; and don't go off-wiki to call people dickheads and encourage banned users to start editing with sockpuppets and disparage others with the same kind of sniping and harassing remarks reminiscent of your actions on the Administrators' Noticeboard, and then ask to be let back onto the Administrators' Noticeboard. And don't come here asking for another appeal until you've satisfied all of these for months, not weeks. Dmcdevit·t 06:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Before I'm prepared to consider lifting the remedies, I still want to see that convincing evidence I requested, the evidence that shows EK won't go back to his pre-arbcom behavior (e.g, constantly second-guessing other admins based on a flimsy understanding - if any - of the case). Slimvirgin's evidence is certainly convincing, but not in a way that's good for Everyking. Raul654 05:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What sort of evidence could I present? You know it's hard to present an example to demonstrate the absence of something. Everyking 05:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting that just before EK's March 21 block, he violated the ruling by posting criticism of Karada, an admin, to User talk:IAMthatIAM, because Karada had blocked IAMthatIAM for an inappropriate user name. [17] When I told him on his talk page that the comment violated the ruling and removed it, he got into a revert war with me over it. [18] [19] [20] After being blocked by Will the next day for a different violation, EK spent so long on IRC asking other admins to unblock him that he was kicked off the channel. That kind of behavior indicates that he'll go straight back to the old habits if the ruling is relaxed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

After SV complained about my initial comment, I revised it so that there was no criticism of an admin, just general commentary on the situation. I feel I had every right to restore my revised comment, as it was clearly within the limits of the ruling. (There was also a question here of the user's talk page being protected; I said that I thought it should be unprotected so that the user could discuss his block.) Also, I don't see how me wanting to be unblocked has anything to do with these "old habits". I felt the block was wrong and I wanted to edit, so I was trying to explain the situation to people—anyway, IRC is supposed to be irrevelant to on-wiki. Everyking 06:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The ruling doesn't say you're not allowed to criticize an admin. It says you're "prohibited from making comments on non-editorial actions taken by other administrators other than on the administrator's talk page, a Request for comment, or a Request for arbitration." Karada, an admin, was engaged in a non-editorial action. You commented on it on the talk page of the user he was acting against. All your comments were therefore clearly violations of the ruling, yet you argued with me, reverted me, and even now insist they weren't, while asking for the ruling to be relaxed. As for IRC, if it's irrelevant to Wikipedia, don't go there looking for admins to undo Wikipedia blocks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Commentary on a general situation is different from commenting on a non-editorial action by an admin. I revised my comment with that in mind. Everyking 06:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ek - I'm going to ask you a question and I want an honest answer. We've made it clear your behaviors that we do and do not find acceptable. And yet, it seems obvious to me (and, I suspect, pretty much anyone else paying attention) that rather than make an honest effort at reform, you have done the very best you can to persist in those behaviors, skating as close to that line without quite crossing it. You are, in fact, constantly apologizing for those incidents where you happen to go a bit too far and stray into verbotten territory. How, then, are we to believe that if we remove that line, that you'll behave properly? (when, in point of fact, even with the remedies, you have continued to misbehave). Raul654 06:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The ruling prohibits me from discussing admin actions; I want the ruling gone so that I can discuss them again. Logically, if you simply want me to refrain from expressing my personal opinions as an administrator in any way, then it would be stupid to remove the ruling. If, on the other hand, you want me to alter the expression of my opinions to take a different form, then it's simple: as far as civility goes, I feel I've been much better about civility since before the case was even accepted last year. I have also recently been trying very hard to avoid continually asserting the correctness of my position in these arguments (as you arbs continue to do nevertheless), instead trying to strike a more pragmatic, compromising tone. Everyking 06:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

On my talk page just a few days ago (User_talk:SlimVirgin/archive28#HK), you were precisely "continually asserting the correctness of [your] position" against the four admins who were arguing against you, and this was once again a situation you knew little or nothing about. You only stopped arguing because people stopped responding to you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. EK, you seem to think that the restrictions placed on you are totally spurious, but then you persistently infringe them, point to your said infringements and decry the restrictions as overly burdensome and unnecessary; conversely, we look at your, err, "indiscretions" with disappointment and dismay that you are persistently and consistently are unable to live up to even the restrictions' poor aspirations for your behaviour. That you keep asking for us to remove these restrictions is bordering on laughable.

James F. (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

And he's still at it. Here Everyking inserts himself into a discussion about a checkuser finding by David Gerard, saying "I suppose the claim is that your IPs match. Of course, we have no way of knowing whether this is actually true, or even if so if this is something that cannot be explained by other factors". Perhaps not a breach of the letter of his ban on discussing the non-editorial actions of administrators, but certainly pushing the envelope. --Tony Sidaway 11:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just can't win. I try to be careful and not violate the ruling, but then when I say something like that, which seems safe, somebody will claim it's a breach of the spirit of the ruling. The spirit of the ruling is very strict, I note, much more so than the letter. If only it didn't keep changing, so I could keep from falling afoul of it. Everyking 14:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LaRouche POV on user pages (April 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could the ArbCom please clarify whether the expression of pro-LaRouche opinions on one's own user page are in violation of its past rulings? There appears to be some activity regarding censorship of these opinions which I find very disturbing and contrary to our whole spirit here. Everyking 11:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Everyking is referring (I think) to Cognition's user page when in this form. JoshuaZ 12:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the edits are within what I would consider our intent in the ruling, yes. Cries of "censorship" be damned, we're here to write an encyclopædia.

James F. (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't interested in the intent of the ruling, but rather in the interpretation of the ruling as it is written. But I guess that's another issue. The main point I want to make is that you are making the assumption that censoring the expression of a political POV on a user page will help write the encyclopedia. Is this accurate? My view, and it seems to be a common one, is that freedom of expression will work to improve the encyclopedia. Also: if it is true that, as you argue, this political POV expressed on a user page is harmful to the encyclopedia, does it follow that any political POV expressed on a user page is harmful to the encyclopedia? Everyking 06:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how the expression of any general opinion in any way helps the project, yes. I suppose that there is a case to be made for internal politics, such as "I think that the English Wikipedia should be more deletionist", but even then... Certainly, expressions of personal faith ("I am a Christian"), of politics ("I am a Labour supporter"), or of non-organised belief ("I believe in animal rights") seem to me to be wholly and absolutely without merit.

As to the execution of our orders, the intent governs the interpretation rather closely, given the immediacy of action and comment afforded to us by the wiki, so I would have thought it rather important. :-)

James F. (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

James F's opinion is being cited now as if it's the opinion of the whole ArbCom. Could other arbitrators please weigh in on this? Everyking 06:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I also wonder if the ArbCom has read this and is choosing to ignore it, or if they are not aware of the existence of a request on their page. Everyking 05:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom is aware of this request. If any Arbitrator has anything they wish to say regarding it, you can be sure they will do so. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw the question and James' reply here and I thought he handled it rather well. So I didn't chime in. If I had disagreed I would have made it clear. So frankly: of course I've seen it, and no I'm not ignoring it. You got your reply from an arbitrator, and that's what this space is for. Dmcdevit·t 21:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not provides that Wikipedia is not a soapbox to be used for advocacy or propaganda. Fred Bauder 22:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman - Topical ban (June 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Aucaman has made the following query on my talk page. I've given him my interpretation but it occurs to me that it would best be clarified by the arbitrators who voted on the motion in question. --Tony Sidaway 17:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you tell me how this is going to work? I have these specific questions:

1. How am I supposed to know which articles I can edit? Some articles under question: Kurds, Kurdistan, Middle East, Najis, Geber, al-Khwarizmi.
2. Those articles I cannot edit, can I still edit the talk page and participate in any (possible) mediation?

You can answer these questions directly or refer me to some literature/examples that illustrate how these bans work. Thanks, Aucaman^Talk 05:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether an article is related to Iran or Persians is to be decided by administrators, who have instructions that "relatedness is to be interpreted broadly so as to prevent gaming." Of the articles you list above, I'd say you can probably only edit Middle East without breaching the ban, and then only if you avoid the subject of Iran and Persians.

You can still use the talk pages, participate in mediation, etc. -Tony Sidaway 11:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Tony's interpretation is correct. Basically if there is any doubt, don't. However, I think you could probably edit Turquoise which while related to Persia, is not about ethnic or political issues. Fred Bauder 14:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Crotalus horridus (June 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway

The enforcement for Crotalus horridus conflicts with the enforcement provided in the userbox remedy. Presumably the enforcement applies only to Crotalus's probation should that be invoked. Or can admins choose whichever they prefer? (And, if they can, could 5 two-week blocks result in triggering the year-block even though the remedy would not have been invoked since it limits blocks to a week?) -Splash^talk 16:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, we (I?) didn't do that too well. The options are to remove the enforcement from Remedy 1 or to specify that the enforcement only applies to Remedies 2 and 3. I support the former. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

<ping>. I guess it's not especially important since Ch appears to be abiding by it, but it's at least untidy to let it lie. -Splash^talk 23:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lou franklin: "Ineffective editor" (June 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is a matter of curiosity rather than confusion, but what was meant by "this grossly ineffective request for arbitration"? Being the one who brought that request, I naturally wonder whom/what that bit was directed at. Sorry for this rather belated request (I could have asked this weeks ago if I'd been paying attention in class). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Lou stated on his talk page that he will "raise the red flag" about that article. Do you think this would eventually lead to additional sanctions and/or long-term blocks/bans? 16:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression, a gross error, that Lou franklin initiated the arbitration. We will not be changing the finding of fact, despite the error. Fred Bauder 14:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfAr Blu Aardvark (June 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A question has been asked: "Does Raul, a potential litigant, get to define the parameters of the case so that they do not include him?" I will ask a different question: What are the suitable steps to have the case also include those involved parties who actually hold power, both on Wikipedia and the foundation-affiliated #wikipedia, and have potentially abused it. I urge for realistic means to pursue this. Otherwise, the appearence will be that the powerless (Blu) are fair game whereas the powerful (Linuxbeak, Raul) are absolved, shielded, and unaccountable. El_C 19:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This would be the case except that the topic is very specific; Should Blu Aardvark be permitted to return to Wikipedia? It's not about this whole situation with MSK, Linuxbeak, etc; While the facts leading to his blocks and unblocks are relevant, sanctions against those who took those actions are not. If someone wishes to make a motion to expand the scope of the arbitration case to MSK, Linuxbeak, Raul, and the others involved, and it gets support, fine. Hell, I'd support it. Until that time, there needs to be evidence and motions within the confines of the topic, which is singluar and specific. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 20:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested in clarification from the Committee about the scope of the case. El_C 22:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

My own feeling is that it is of utmost importance that we sort out the status of Blu Aardvark soon. His is the customary appeal of a community ban to arbcom (there is similar situation up on this page, soon to be opened as a case). That is a case that has already exhausted dispute resolution. While I have my own opinions about Linuxbeak's unblocking and Raul's reapplication of the unblock (twice), I don't think this case is for that. Rather, the current RFC is the appropriate place for that, and any other necessary dispute resolution, and only after those avenues are exhausted, a separate request should be made here. This has been an extraordinary circumstance to be sure, but I don't really think Blu Aardvark's appealing of his ban should be occasion to jumo the dispute resolution process for administrators that are tangentially involved, even if they have shown poor judgment. Dmcdevit·t 07:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This answer leaves me with a strong impression of cronyism for higher-ups, and I'll be withdrawing my participation in protest. I'm not asking for sanctions, but I strongly object to what I feel is a double-standard masquerading as narrow proceduralism. El_C 21:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we just want to keep the case reasonably simple. Fred Bauder 22:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Intentions aside, the impression this narrow-sidedness leaves —simplicity over comprehensibility at the expense of accountability— will not address the underlying problems effectively, I fear. But I won't press the point. Still, it leaves one wandering at the whim(?) of who or what are some cases pursued more narrowly or broadly than others. El_C 03:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We take on bureaucrats when they become insufferable, not every time a controversy arises. Fred Bauder 12:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I take on the arbitrators when their standards become controversial, not wait till they become insufferable. El_C 22:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Taking on the arbitrators really is a fool's errand. I wish you luck. --Paleoglot 02:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Agapetos Angel (June 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is [21] within the prohibited editing by 203.213.77.138, 220.*, 58/56.* AA et al.? 203 has stated on his talk page that he thinks it is not within the prohibited edit set (see his talk page for details) and so I have brought the matter here for clarification. JoshuaZ 03:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merecat/Rex071404 (June 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As mentioned above in my request to reopen 'Rex071404_4', Merecat/Rex071404, who was banned by ArbCom from editing John Kerry and sockpuppeted as Merecat in order to circumvent the ban, has engaged in disruptive editing under the guise of Merecat, resulting in indefinite bans.

Rex' 6-month ban from Rex071404_4 has also apparently ended. Please extend the ban and widen it, in light of this willing violation of ArbCom policy and continuing disruptive conduct. If Rex can simply assume another sock, and violate a permanent ban, there appears to be no solution to his attacks on Wikipedia process. Please consider this, in order to minimize the impact of the next disruptive sock proven to be Rex. (update) Mr. Tibbs has above suggested limiting Rex to one account. Please advise on the correct course of action in light of Rex' willing circumvention of ArbCom. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Rex/Merecat has spawned more sockpuppets: [22]. Arbcomm please advise what we are to do about this. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Ryan and Mr. Tibbs have not explained the status clearly, this message will: 1) User:Merecat did edit John Kerry. 2) If Merecat was a alternate acccount for User:Rex071404, then Merecat can be deemed a "sockpuppet" and blocked on that basis, because Rex was not supposed to edit JK. However, if you read the full dialog on this (here), you will see that the check user policy is being abused. The users which Tibbs refers to are Neutral arbiter and Wombdpsw, neither of whom have transgressed in any manner. For this reason, if they are indeed alternate accounts, (which is permissible - see here), the Tibbs's drive to "out" them is an egregious violation and misuse of check user. In fact, the original check user which was done that "outed" Merecat may not even have been valid on it's face as the request may not have been properly founded. Be that as it may, Merecat is blocked by User:Katefan0 who has quit the wiki. But Rex is also blocked - by User:Cyde. However, the block against Rex is invalid as it says that Rex is a "sockpuppet" of Merecat. But, even a cursory check of their contributions histories will clearly show that Rex long pre-dated Merecat and Rex himself is absolutely not a sockpuppet. As it stands now, it appears that Rex would like to be unblocked and possibly cede to being deemed to being Merecat so as to be able to quit using the Rex account and instead use the Merecat account. It would seem that the Rex071404 account should be closed in favor of the Merecat account. On top of this, there may be a few loose ends to attend to, but on the face, no editor has made a strong case that Merecat is bad and for that reason, if Rex is Merecat, Rex should be allowed to transition to Merecat and drop the Rex account. On the other hand, if the ArbCom doesn't want to move this forward, then at minimum, Mr. Tibbs should be instructed to stop the witch-hunting. These new users that Tibbs acccuses are not sockuppets. In fact, they are either individual editors or at most, non-transgressing alternate accounts. Rex071404 is not under any sanction or ban that either User:Neutral arbiter or User:Wombdpsw has transgressed. Nor have these editors transgressed wiki rules. They are not disruptive, they are not doing 3RR, etc. There is simply no valid reason to keep fanning the flames of Mr. Tibbs vendettas. Also, if I am not mistaken, Ryan recently accused User:Tbeatty of being "Rex/Merecat". How many times will these two be allowed to accuse non-transgressign editors? It's time to retire the Rex bogeyman. Good ole John Kerry is not being molested and this type of bossing against others by Tibbs and Ryan is bad news. 69.46.20.59 07:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually the checkuser indicated that the users are socks of Merecat/Rex. So the above looks most likely to be yet more mendatious doublespeak from a Merecat sock. Not all of the Merecat edits are directly POV pushing, his latest tactic appears to be an attempt to create an alternative reality by posting pieces to his opponent's user pages accusing them of being biased. (For evidence take a look at this [23] then look at the other edits by this IP, it is hard to see why a newbie editor would immediately acquire Merecat's fixations, the post is a transparent attempt at deception and self justification/pity). Other posts are made to complain about the unfair treatment of Merecat. If the above paragraph was indeed factually accurate and the sockpuppets have not been found to be engaged in 'transgressions' it is hard to see how they would be identified as sock puppets. Clearly their behavior was suspicious enough. Merecat is a revert warrior and POV pusher. Keep the ban. --Gorgonzilla 17:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

When will this witch hunt end, We have User:Neutral arbiter, User:Tbeatty, User:Wombdpsw all accused of being Merecat. I am waiting for my turn to pop up on the list considering there evidence ammounts to use of "lets keep it NPOV" summaries. Are any of these even proven sock puppets? I think an admin needs just do a checkuser then state how long rex is banned as he and merecat cant both be sockpuppets. --zero faults talk 17:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

To extend the witch hunt, you have people accusing everyone of being merecat, its becoming silly almost: User_talk:RyanFreisling#Another_merecat_sock.3F If you touch an article that this group defends you risk being accused. When does this become fishing or even worse an intimidation tactic. --zero faults talk 17:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny that so many people who all just happen to edit the same set of articles in the same particular direction all use the same language in their pleas here. Of course that does not mean that they are all sockpuppets of a single person but there is a remarkable similarity in their approach. --Gorgonzilla 21:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Dug up this old link about Katefan's original banning of Rex/Mercat[24] and the original RFCU.[25] and some interesting arguements.[26][27] Some more recent disturbances.[28][29] And just so everyone knows now theres more talk about this on the admin noticeboard:[30] -- Mr. Tibbs 07:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Love the idea that this is a witchhunt. Um. We have CheckUser evidence. Hello! --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont see any of the following banned for being sock puppets: Wombdpsw, Neutral Arbiter, TBeatty or Cal Burrattino. Provide these check user evidence you have please. --zero faults talk 12:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The tactics this individual or clique use to evade bans show through in their edits. This smacks of being a propaganda campaign. They argue black is white then call people fools and liars for saying it isnt. They make the most tendentious POV edits imaginable then accuse others of POV peddling for reverting their nonsense. If someone was running a for fee Wikipedia scrubbing service for GOP pols this is what it would look like. Oh and BTW one does not have to assume good faith after a user is banned for repeated bad faith. --Gorgonzilla 22:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Odd the RfC doesn't say that. But you know that already cause its already been brought up else where. --zero faults ^|sockpuppet| 23:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to keep everyone up-to-date Neutral arbiter, Cal Burrattino, and Wombdpsw were all found to be sockpuppets of Rex071404 and have been banned indefinitely.[31]. Also it turned out I'm not a sockpuppet, fancy that.[32] I have no doubt that in the future we will be seeing more sockpuppets of Rex, so everyone keep an eye out. -- Mr. Tibbs 05:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I misread, but is Rex naming more socks here? Does his admission that he only wanted to disrupt Wikipedia alter peoples perception of the RfC against his puppet Merecat, which stated as much? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Let it go, will you? If he's really gone, he's gone. If not, it will become obvious sooner or later. Meantime, go edit an article or something. Thatcher131 11:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Rex071404 has spent 2 years disrupting Wikipedia and has said on numerous previous occasions that he was quitting. You're right though, it will become obvious sooner or later when he comes back. After his sockpuppets have caused much conflict just like what happened with Merecat. This isn't something that can be "let go" anymore than Rex's indef bans will be "let go". Which is basically what he's asking for in his "goodbye-note" and even in that note he has the nerve to hold Wikipedia hostage: "If and/or when I ever return, it will be under a single new user account and I will not be a source of trouble. However, in order for this promise to be binding on me, I ask that my request (which I am making here now) to delete and protect my user page and user talk page (same as user:katefan0 did) be honored." I have posted another RFCU regarding Rex's self-admitted sockpuppets.[33] Also see Thatcher's incident report here.[34] -- Mr. Tibbs 07:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Election (June 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The complainant has never even sought mediation (there has been no survey, no 'third opinion', etc.), nor a request for an advocate, before bringing this RfAr. How is it that the case has been accepted? Are cases brought by admins subject to lesser restrictions vis-a-vis process?

Here's Phil's comment about mediation (he never pursued it after Robert's comment) [35]. He did not follow thru on the possibility of mediation. Here's Noosphere's next discussion regarding possible mediation of disputes[36] And again here's Noosphere, not Phil, seeking mediation after a round of fierce warring: [37] and the continuing thread, ending in the removal of the mediation request due to a lack of interest [38].-- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"excuse me, but please let me point out that you all asked for a mediator: perhaps this is a good topic for me to help with. if I don't get something to do here, I'll just go back and say you case is closed because no one is responding. :-) Ted 01:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, mediation was skipped on this article. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"Where a dispute has not gone through Mediation, or the earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, the Arbitrators may refer the dispute to the Mediation Committee if it believes Mediation is likely to help." - from WP:AP. I imagine this is the reason. Phil Sandifer 18:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, Fred Bauder (who said it was his view that mediation should work) or another admin should have referred the dispute to the Mediation committee. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

But they are in no way required to. See "may" not "will." Phil Sandifer 18:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Fred's comment read ""There is a suggestion by RyanFreisling that mediation might be productive, see his talk page. I think that may be a much more productive solution. Having the arbitration committee take the sheep shears to the articles is not going to make for a very nice haircut. " [39]

For you to claim that the 'Wikipedia process has spectacularly failed', don't you think you should have followed the process as closely as possible? Wouldn't that have been necessary for you to make that claim? How can Wikipedia process have failed, if it hasn't been attempted in good faith? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Do the Arbitrators even read the proposed decisions talk page?

Fred Bauder is the only arbitrator who I've ever seen make a comment on the proposed decision talk page. from how they are blatently misrepresenting my beliefs, and even my statements... -- assuming good faith here, i can only assume that they simply 'do not read said talk page.

This logical conclusion is derived from the following (besides the stated assumption of good faith):

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Election/Proposed_decision#Position_of_Kevin_baas
• Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Election/Proposed_decision#What.27s_the_point_of_me_even_opening_my_mouth.3F
• Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Election/Proposed_decision#getting_closer
• Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Election/Proposed_decision#logical_analysis_of_my_comment_at_issue_in_findings_of_.22fact.22

So in light of this, what I want clarified is: are the arbitrators who have already voted on what i believe (and i'm rather new to the idea of having a select committee decide what my beliefs are for me) going to read and consider the statements of the parties, or make judgements and put words in their mouths without giving the people involved a fair hearing (and that means actually listening)? I actually do want an answer to this question. It's not just rhetorical. I seriously don't know the answer and I want this issue clarified. Kevin Baas^talk 22:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course we read them.

James F. (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It may help instill user confidence in the Arbitration process if a comment or two were provided when a decision is made. Thanks! Dr1819 12:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3RR violation by dispute tag insertion? (June 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Two of the parties in the dispute giving rise to some questions have refused mediation. Since I don't want any sanctions against any of the parties involved in the dispute, or any other remedies, I'm just asking for arbitrator opinions on the questions at Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule#3RR violation by dispute tag insertion? Thank you. Publicola 18:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators generally don't exercise authority except when they accept an arbitration case. I don't see why they shouldn't answer the question as experienced and trusted users, but this section is normally used for clarification of their intent in earlier rulings. --Tony Sidaway 19:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see; I'm replacing the questions with just the pointer to the policy talk page, then. Publicola 20:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Note, user has also filed Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-19_Banu_Nadir related to the same issue. Also my explanation for refusing to be involved in a mediation case (which are usually for content anyway). pschemp | talk 19:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I filed that request before these questions came up, based on subsequent edits to a different but related page. Publicola 20:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article probation remedy for Election (July 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does the ArbCom intend that Phil Sandifer, a party to the Election case, have the same power to ban other editors from the articles involved that the ArbCom is granting to administrators in general in Remedy 2.1? If not, could that please be made explicit? I am concerned about the chilling effect on editors such as myself who wish to continue editing the articles but do not agree with Phil in certain respects which could invite the abuse of this new remedy. I'm not opposed to the remedy for other admins in general; nor am I suggesting that Phil would likely ever take part in such a clear conflict of interest. It's just that I, and I think others, would be more likely to help improve the articles if this unlikely possibility were considerably more remote. 71.132.140.65 08:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Administrators involved in a conflict are never supposed to use their adminship to gain the upper hand in the conflict. If he were to, arbcom decision or no, it would be wrong. I don't see any reason to make a specific remedy to this effect, especially since there has been no evidence presented of him abusing adminship in this case. Dmcdevit·t 15:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Phil did threaten to block me for disagreeing with him, describing my conduct erroneously as 'vandalism', on a related article (the 3rd, aborted VfD, if I recall) on which he was an editor. I believe that diff was presented. However, since he didn't actually follow thru on his threat, I guess that's been taken to mean that there's been no evidence presented. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Dmcdevit. It would be entirely inappropriate for Phil to use his adminship here; he should refrain from doing so under normal admin conduct guidelines, without it needing to be specifically stated. (And preferably, he should not even appear to suggest it.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PoolGuy (July 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"User PoolGuy shall use one user account. That user account may be PoolGuy or a new account which he may create in order to get a fresh start. Should he create a new account he need not disclose its name." [40]

If he's allowed to create a new account without telling anyone, doesn't that make probation rather difficult to enforce? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Another thing: PG is continuing to request the unblock/unprotection of one of his other accounts, GoldToeMarionette, claiming that no policy violations were cited. Can someone clarify to him that the most important clause of the decision is "...shall use one user account"? 15:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If he choses to create a new account, and continues with the same problematic behavior we will have no difficulty in identifying him for enforcement of probation. Fred Bauder 20:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I am currently having a conversation with him in which I'm making it clear that "restricted to one account" means he can have one unblocked account, and I don't care which one it is (see User talk:PoolGuy). It's not sinking in as far as I can tell, but that's been his problem all along. --ajn (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

In light of his behavior after the RfAr closed, it is my opinion (and I hope an ArbCom member will do this) that the RfAr should be reopened to impose further sanctions. --Nlu (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

What is making people think I am using more than one account or trying to use more than one account? I just want the original problem that GoldToeMarionette should not of been blocked be remedied. ArbCom would have included the violation in the findings of fact had there been one. There wasn't, the account should be unblocked. I can't believe after all of this, that this is still somehow hard to understand.

Nlu, I am still disappointed in your attack mentality. I am sorry for you that I don't put up with it, but it is extremely unbecoming in an Admin. I still don't understand why ArbCom did not penalize you for your role, especially since I was right in what I posted. How the world would be different if you would remedy rather than attack. PoolGuy 04:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You have chosen to use the account "PoolGuy". There is no sense unblocking an account you can't use unless you wish to no longer use "PoolGuy". We are not going back and hashing over a stale matter. Fred Bauder 11:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, it does matter. There are now users out there that think I did something wrong. Unblocking the account will demonstrate that I in fact did not. By leaving the account blocked, users like Nlu will think that they were justified in their treatment of me. What you view as stale, I view as central to why I challenged the block. Some Admins out there think I created multiple accounts to violate Wikipedia policy.

Let me traslate it to the real world. It is like a judge saying, "Since you are now out of jail, we will not complete that DNA test to prove you were in fact not the perpetrator of the crime. Why should you care, you aren't in jail any more."

I do not like that Administrators get to liberally use an iron fist, and despite it being inappropriate, their behavior is encouraged by the opinion of ArbCom. PoolGuy 13:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned: that account is staying blocked, and you were behaving against the spirit of policy by behaving as you did, whether or not you were technically in violation of its words. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Notes on this:

• 23:03, 21 March 2006 Hall_Monitor (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with an expiry time of indefinite (sockpuppet used by User:PoolGuy per WP:RFCU results; please select one username, then email me to have the block removed)

• 16:16, 25 June 2006 Andrew_Norman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked PoolGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with an expiry time of indefinite (Exhausted community's patience - see WP:AN)

• Discussion on WP:AN

--Tony Sidaway 11:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I am reminded of the Gastrich case. Continued sockpuppetry after the ArbCom case resulted in a permanent community ban endorsed at WP:AN. I am not clear what benefit PoolGuy brings to the project, I'm guessing it would have to be pretty compelling to outweigh the disruption and administrative overhead that policing him currently causes. I don't see much evidence that he's accepted the legitimacy of ArbCom - a fundamental problem, in my view. Just zis Guy you know? 10:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Seems like if someone actually addressed the issue he raised there never would have been any 'disruption'. Maybe someone will actually do that, with the case presented solely with its circumstances, instead of the Admin created hullabulloo. LowerLegKnittedGarmentMarionette 20:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dyslexic Agnostic (July 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is the ArbCom probation restricted to article/project pages, or does it extend to talk pages as well? Titoxd^(?!?) 05:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Any appropriate page at all, talk pages included. Dmcdevit·t 07:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

EffK (July 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This past February, this user was banned one year by the ArbCom. His talk page was protected and then unprotected, and he has used it to engage in dialog with Musical Linguist and Str1977. Is that allowed? If not, should his talk page be reprotected? Editor88 03:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if EffK continues to post on his talk page so long as he does not otherwise try to edit. If he becomes disruptive on his talk page, any admin may reprotect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia:Banning policy, if I understand it correctly, banned users are not allowed to edit at all and from any account, and all their edits may (should?) be reverted without discussion or analysis. But if it isn't hurting anyone, I don't see the point in enforcing this. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 13:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AI (July 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Last September, this user was banned indefinitely by the ArbCom for legal threats. He made one edit to his talk page in October, which was subsequently reverted. However, this past May, he has re-emerged, and now seems to be dominating his talk page. In addition, someone placed a one-year block on top of his indefinite block. Has he resolved his legal threats? If not, should his indefinite block stick and/or his talk page protected? Editor88 03:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an enforcement issue. As a Wikipedia administrator I've blanked and protected his user talk page. He remains banned and should not edit. On this occasion I won't reset the ban but any socking will result in a reset. --Tony Sidaway 14:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A general question (July 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What powers does the Arbitration Committee have in respect of a dispute that does not exist? David | Talk 13:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me the appropriate response to this question could vary wildly depending on the context. Could you provide some? As it is, it sounds like some kind of set-up. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me be slightly more specific. Let us suppose that two users had a dispute, the dispute was referred to ArbCom, then the two users came to a full agreement on a settlement of the dispute of their own accord. Can the ArbCom 'resurrect' the dispute and continue the case, and if it does, between whom is it arbitrating? David | Talk 21:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

David, I would say it would depend upon all of the parties involved. If some sort of an agreement is reached between two parties in a given case that encompasses four parties then obvioulsy the arbitration case would proceed. Is this agreement between all involved parties? (→Netscott) 22:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The most salient context is probably Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irishpunktom/Proposed_decision, which directly affects Dbiv (talk • contribs) (David). --Christopher Thomas 06:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, although there was a reason I asked the question in the abstract. David | Talk 08:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What powers does the Arbitration Committee have in respect of a dispute that does not exist? David | Talk 13:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say we have the power to do what is necessary to prevent further disruption. What that is would depend on what the two parties had been doing and seem likely to continue to do. Fred Bauder 01:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Without unnecessary leading of the witness, if you were convinced that the parties had themselves done enough to prevent further disruption, then that would surely be that? David | Talk 08:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't try to cross-examine the arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway 08:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

But your honour, this is a friendly witness - so I am engaging in examination, not cross-examination. David | Talk 08:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It does seem rather silly, in my most humble of opinions. There was a conflict, David proposed a series of resolutions in respect of that conflict. I liked them and agreed to them. Conflict ended, no? Not all of it, there are some serious issues in respect of me for which I expect the appropriate processes, but, for the conflict with David, which is now over. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Everyking (July 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pursuant to discussion on the arbitration committee mailing list, Everyking has recently been causing more problems. Following our previous decision, he has instead begun harassing administrators on their talk pages. He has resumed editing Ashlee Simpson articles in the same fashion we previously sanctioned. Extraordinary Machine lodged a complaint on the ANI, and I recieved one in private from someone else (that person has refused to lodge one formally because he/she is fed up with EK from previous run-ins).

Per previous discussion, I'd like to propose the following remedies:

1. Everyking is banned for two weeks for recent offenses
2. Everyking's current prohibitions (his ban from editing the ANI, and from commenting on other admin's actions except for their talk pages, RFC, and RFA) - set to expire in November - are extended indefinitely for one year, until November 2007.
3. Everyking is placed on standard probation for all pop music articles - any admin may ban him from any/all of them for any misbehavior on his part
4. Should EK harass other admins over their non-editorial actions, any admin may block him for up to two weeks per incident, escalating to one year per incident after the fifth one. Raul654 22:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

(Of 11 currently active arbitrators, those currently supporting these measures: Raul654, Epopt, Fred Bauder, JamesF, Morven, Dmcdevit)

Passed 6-0 10:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've handed this to the administrators for enforcement. --Tony Sidaway 10:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• Although I would prefer a much simpler remedy, I can support these sanctions ➥the Epopt 23:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The other, simpler one that I thought of would be to ban him from everything except the main namespace (articles, but not talk pages) and his own use and talk pages. Raul654 23:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I would go even simpler than that ➥the Epopt 05:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• I would prefer an extension of only one year. Fred Bauder 00:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I can live with that (duly adjusted). Raul654 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I can live with this as well, although given Everyking's inability to learn to behave better, I'm minded towards a complete ban from Wikipedia for a time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • As can I, per my comments below. Dmcdevit·t 05:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

---

• Do I get an opportunity to argue in my defense? Let's consider a few things:
  1. Ashlee articles—exactly what am I doing there that the ArbCom considers so terrible? I mean, actually look at the articles and their histories and tell me. There's a couple of reverts, but I wasn't the only one reverting, and the situation seems to have settled down now into a compromise, at least a de facto one. Also, there was far more discussion going on than there was reverting—in fact, if you just look at the histories, you'll see there was hardly any reverting at all. There was no "revert war" in any meaningful sense—the only thing close to one happened on an article about a Jessica Simpson song, but again in that case, too, the situation seems to have settled down into a de facto compromise. To sanction someone for this is utterly, entirely absurd. Not only was the whole situation a pretty minor one (not even close to the explosion of conflict the articles saw 18 months ago), it seems to have settled down anyway, and I wasn't even the one with the aggressive stance—I was taking the defensive stance.
  2. Talk pages—the ArbCom ruling specifically granted me the right to discuss admin actions on the relevant admin talk pages. Am I now going to be punished for exercising that right? People would block me before and tell me to take it to the admin's talk page. So I do that, and this is what I get? Why was that exemption created to begin with, if I was just going to get attacked for making use of it? Not to mention there isn't much of this going on anyway. The last case was regarding EM threatening a user who was obviously acting in good faith, but was younger than most of us and was a little confused about how to do some technical things.
  3. No credit—where is the credit for actually following the ruling as it was spelled out for me? I have always strictly observed the AN/I prohibition. I haven't been blocked by anyone for any reason in several months. To hear Raul tell it, I've been constantly violating the ruling, which is the exact opposite of what I've actually been doing.
  4. Ruling consistency—Ashlee articles pertained to EK1; this is EK3. How can you fit anything pertaining to EK1 under a revision of EK3?
  5. The opposing party—Who is the opposing party here, anyway? It appears to be none other than the ArbCom itself—in that case, how can I possibly get a fair hearing from them? Or is it whoever sent that private complaint? Did that person actually want this taken to arbitration? Isn't it important, for reasons of transparent process, to have an accuser in public—not secretly in e-mail? Is there any precedent for that at all?
  6. Involved party?—hey, did anyone think to consult EM about this stuff that is apparently being done on his behalf? What does he think? Does he actually want me taken to arbitration? Previously he expressed a lot of reluctance to even take me to RfC, and that was at the peak of the conflict, some time ago.

• I personally feel the above points are pretty important. Everyking 04:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say you have exhausted the committee's patience. I'm going to respond, very briefly, to some of the points you raise. Point 1 - Despite your attempt to spin it otherwise, you are doing the exact same thing that led to the first two Everyking arbitration cases, and as I just said, our patience with you has run out. Point 2 - As I said to you on my talk page just a few days ago, that exception was *not* created to allow you to move your harassment from the ANI to individual users' talk pages. Point 3 - I drive to work every day and avoid the temptation to run over those skateboarders who are always on Delaware Avenue. If tomorrow I were to run them over, am I to tell the judge to consider all the times I went to work and didn't run the over? Ha, no. Point 4 - Wikilawyering; our clarification applies to the series of cases, not any one in particular. Point 5 - No opposing party is necessary. Point 6 - yes. Raul654 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I've exhausted your patience; you've exhausted mine, too, but what am I gonna do about it?

1. I will post thorough evidence about this if the ArbCom will agree to read and consider it honestly.
2. It's not harassment, it's criticism of admin actions—the exact thing the exemption was created to allow me to continue doing in a restricted space. Moreover, I have actually done little of this—once every few weeks, maybe? I'll go through and post all the examples I can find, again if the ArbCom will agree to read and consider it honestly.
3. I haven't run anybody over, to go with your analogy; you haven't pointed to anything I've done that violated the ruling. You've accused me of misbehaving on Ashlee articles, which if true isn't covered by the ruling (and wouldn't even be covered by the old ruling, because even if you guys hadn't freed me from it after two months, it would still have expired long ago) and complaining on admin talk pages, which is protected by the ruling.
4. Does "wikilawyering" mean "a point of procedure that would benefit the accused and therefore will be disregarded in this case"?
5. I asked you to provide a precedent for this, and also to explain the inherent unfairness of having the same people as both accuser, prosecutor and judge.
6. Notably you didn't ask his opinion before starting this thing. In any case, let's now wait and see if he has something to add about this. Everyking 17:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all familiar with this stage of dispute resolution; that said, I think this discussion is appropriate.

Everyking, you reverted me three times at Ashlee Simpson (including an edit that had absolutely nothing to do with removing content) [41] [42] [43] and once at Pieces of Me [44]. The main reasons I chose not to keep restoring my edits was because a) it's better to discuss a dispute rather than repeatedly revert the other party, b) I knew the history of these articles and wanted to make sure the situation wouldn't escalate like it did before, and c) because of the reverts I just listed, and the dispute 18 months ago, I had a feeling you'd keep reverting me. That's one of the reasons why I didn't file an RFC on your behaviour, the others being that I wanted to keep the discussions focussed on the articles and that there wasn't a second party around who was involved enough to be able to certify an RFC. I didn't once consider the possibility that you would follow me across other pages and revert me wholesale (These Boots Are Made for Walkin' (Jessica Simpson song)), which is simply unacceptable, in my opinion. It also indicates your statement about "taking the defensive stance", if true originally, no longer holds much water. Not that I don't care about your "defensive" behaviour either: telling me "it [the info you remove] will be restored, naturally" (Talk:Ashlee Simpson) and comparing me to a film villain (Talk:Pieces of Me) is not appreciated.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 states "Everyking is required to familiarize himself with the particulars of a situation before commenting on it"; with regard to Tcatron565 (talk · contribs), I don't believe that you did so. Tcatron registered here almost a year ago; as can be seen at user talk:Tcatron565, he's made many edits that violate the guidelines and policies, and has a history of incivility. I'll leave the nitty gritty out for brevity's sake, but I should note that I wasn't even the first user to introduce the possibility of a block to him. I admit I've considered just giving up explaining the policies and guidelines to him, but that's only because comments like "it seems like everytime I make a wrong move, you're all up in my face! ... when I do something wrong, wait for 4 days, then tell me" [45], along with his tendency to continue editing as he was, indicate that such efforts would be pointless. If you're still wondering why I told him he may be blocked, I should refer you to the case of the IP editor 200.138.194.254 (talk · contribs), a seemingly good faith user who nevertheless edited in violation of the policies in guidelines without discussion and was consequently blocked for a week not too long ago. I'm certain that I would have told Tcatron the same thing if I wasn't an admin, so the comment about me "throwing my weight around" as an admin [46] is hardly accurate. Lastly, I am well aware that admins involved in disputes with other users (such as the one I had with Tcatron) aren't supposed to block any of the other parties, and if I thought a block was absolutely necessary in this case I would have started a discussion at WP:ANI. I feel that your comments regarding this were written with the main intention of antagonising me rather than anything to do with Tcatron. Extraordinary Machine 20:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, I don't have access to the arbitrators' mailing list, so I don't really know exactly what they are thinking. For all I know what they are saying in private and in public are completely different. But all I can do is focus on what gets written on this page. So let me directly discuss each of the things Raul calls remedies:

1. This proposes banning me for two weeks for alleged "recent offenses". What recent offenses? Raul has so far only pointed to one somewhat uncivil comment I made about an admin warning I thought was too harsh. Yeah, I shouldn't have used the tone I did, but it was in the midst of a more general conflict that had led to a deepening of animosity on both sides; it didn't come out of the blue. To ban someone for even a single day for a marginally uncivil comment that they've since apologized for seems highly draconian—to ban for two weeks is so far overboard it almost seems insane. Aren't blocks supposed to be staggered somehow, anyway? You don't generally just jump right into such severe blocks for minor offenses. I've never even been blocked for a single 24 hour period in two and a half years on Wikipedia—every one of my blocks has been reconsidered or undone for some reason. Furthermore, as I've said before, I haven't been blocked at all in the last few months. So even if you think I'm in the wrong, does it make sense to jump from blocks lasting a few hours in the relatively distant past to two weeks now?
2. Rather than try to overreach in arguing this one, considering the depth of the ArbCom's hostile feeling toward me right now, I propose that the ArbCom change this so as to give me an automatic appeal in November of this year (something I have long pleaded for), but a formal duration until November 2007 in case of failure.
3. Again—for what? What did I do wrong here? I participated in some minor reverting and bickering that has since settled down, and I made several concessions and compromises (and expressed far more willingness to compromise throughout than my opponent did—in fact I think all the compromises were made on my initiative).
4. I don't have much of an argument for this one; the ArbCom and I simply don't agree about what constitutes harassment and what constitutes reasonable criticism. I will just hope that this penalty is never abusively applied. Everyking 05:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

General responses, since this section is a bit too muddled for an indented reply to make sense any more: Everyking, I think your question above as to the definition of "wikilawyering" above (snide musings aside) is answered by your point directly above it, "you haven't pointed to anything I've done that violated the ruling". Also, "the ArbCom ruling specifically granted me the right to discuss admin actions on the relevant admin talk pages. Am I now going to be punished for exercising that right?" and "where is the credit for actually following the ruling as it was spelled out for me?" and "Who is the opposing party here, anyway?" and "I asked you to provide a precedent for this, and also to explain the inherent unfairness of having the same people as both accuser, prosecutor and judge." are all good examples of wikilawyering. Why were you given any of these restrictions in the first place, Everyking? If you can't answer that then I'll support every measure proposed. It was to stop your harassment. When I am faced with the fact that you've used administrators' talk pages for harassment, despite our obvious desire that you cease harassment, I am forced to conclude that you are violating the ruling. I'm weary of it: bans from AN/ANI and from criticism other than on admins' talk pages were meant to get it through to you to stop harassment. If your response is to continue to do so through the only avenue still open after the last case, then the general ban for a short time period is looking reasonable. Was [47] really what you consider reasonable criticism where I see harassment? Note: if the answer is really "no, and I've apologized" don't tell me you haven't violated our decision again. That you have never violated even the letter of the ruling is patently false anyway, as we found out months ago, [48], [49], [50], and also on the occasion where I specifically pointed out to you your violation of the ruling (I am sure you recall, or maybe you decided to make a bold statement like that with no factual backing or double checking?). Despite your efforts to the contrary, you don't have the option to say: "I forgot. I'm sorry." and go on you merry way, only to "forget" again. If I can have no confidence that you cannot stop in the future, I can't object to the three proposals related to it. As for the pop culture remedy, I don't find that issue particularly pressing or interesting right now. Dmcdevit·t 06:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Although maybe out of place, "pop music" articles should be better defined. A lot of people see pop music as different things, and it's a little ambiguous. Esteffect 21:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

We generally expect people to use their common sense. Are you suggesting we credit our users with too much?

FWIW, I'm happy with the proposals that we've worked out.

James F. (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Credit me with a little, then. Just a tiny bit! Everyking 04:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think this is going a little light on Everyking. On top of his repeated and terminal lack of clue, he has been publicly and privately encouraging of the Brandt/WR harrassment of contributors that he has taken a dislike to. This has stemmed so far as arguing for the unbanning of the guy who is making death threats against Kelly Martin.

Everyking was once a useful user, but has very long ago ceased to do anything that could not be done by the newest average newbie. I fail to see any noticeable benefit in having his poisonous presence on this site in the foreseeable future, and suggest either a ban limiting him to the article namespace or a complete ban from the site for at least several months. Rebecca 05:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is simply untrue that I argued for the unbanning of that user; I only argued for a more thoughtful approach to the situation, which I do routinely in these cases. And it is plain silly to say my contributions now are less than they ever were in the past—all a person has to do is just browse through them. Even if you only look at major content work done in the last few days, there's considerable work expanding and referencing articles on important politicians from Guinea-Bissau and Malawi. Everyking 08:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is simply untrue that I argued for the unbanning of that user No, that's simply a hair-splitting distinction without difference: I don't see how you can say an apology would not be acceptable in case of a threat like this...To just lock out a human being from contributing here for the rest of his life on the basis of one stupid comment that he probably regrets is the height of overreaction, [51] says Everyking about a death threat, and when the text of the threat is presented to him, responds with :The letter gives me further doubts about the user, but nevertheless I think you took the wrong approach [52]. Using the reaction to a death threat as Yet Another Opportunity to get in digs at admins is certainly a new low.

Even if you only look at major content work done in the last few days, there's considerable work expanding and referencing articles on important politicians from Guinea-Bissau and Malawi. And you, of course, are the only one who can do that, being uniquely invaluable and all. --Calton | Talk 08:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What I said was all clearly contingent on the response of the user in question. My opinion was that a person should be given a chance to be reasonable, to apologize, and that an automatic, indefinite block with no possibility of future redemption was too harsh. I didn't say the user should simply be unblocked; I said more consideration and discussion with the user in question was warranted before reaching a final judgment.

And no, I'm not the only one who can do that (although the point is meaningless); I was just trying to refute the claim that I no longer do substantial work with some recent examples. Rebecca has been saying negative and untrue things about me for more than 18 months now, ever since the initial Ashlee dispute, when she tried to take the case to arbitration almost immediately after it developed. Everyking 09:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Highways (August 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways#Enforcement of moves without consensus states that "If any participant to this dispute moves a state highway page to their preferred convention before a formal policy has been reached, he or she may be blocked for a short time of up to a week for repeated offenses." Say Route 69 is renumbered to Route 31. (This type of whole-route renumbering occurs occasionally.) Is this measure intended to make the obvious move blockable? Or should "from another convention" be added after "to their preferred convention"?

I also note that it specifically mentions state highways. Is Canada fair game, as long as I'm not disruptive? --SPUI (T - C) 19:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Also I'd like to know what the duration of the probation is as no set limit was established in the Arbcom. Is this probation indefinite? Or can we appeal it after 3 months? --JohnnyBGood 20:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you are worrying over semantics here. Uncontroversial moves should not be contested, and won't get anybody in trouble. There is a difference from moving something to the correct name and moning something to the preferred convention. That doesn't mean anyone can move to their preferred convention and say it's okay because it's the real name, but Route 69 and Route 31 are not variations of eath other, whereas a move from Route 31 to State Route 31, or Route 31 (State), or whatever, would be a violation. Dmcdevit·t 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the last sentence. If someone makes an article at simply "Route 31", which should obviously be a disambiguation page (and it is in this case), what should I do? --SPUI (T - C) 19:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the confusion is here, but I think maybe that it is that the part of the ruling you quote comes from the enforcement. Take a look at the remedy section where the controversial moves are prohibited (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Highways#Controversial_moves): "Until a formal naming convention policy regarding state highways is reached, no page shall be moved from one controversial name to another". I think that is clear and answers your question. Dmcdevit·t 19:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

OK - so I can move Route 31 to Route 31 (State), as everyone agrees that Route 31 should be a disambiguation page, so its current location is not controversial? --SPUI (T - C) 20:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If this is so, can someone please edit the enforcement to reflect this? --SPUI (T - C) 07:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

An appeal is likely to do little. --SPUI (T - C) 12:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Probation is indefinite. Fred Bauder 12:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Can it be appealled in the future or as SPUI says are we pretty much SOL? --JohnnyBGood 00:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You can appeal whenever you want, but you will only be successful if you can demonstrate some new development that will make us change our minds. That may be a while from now. Dmcdevit·t 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Another question: where do I start on making a "formal policy"? I talked to a policy wonk and he confirmed that naming conventions are typically guidelines. --SPUI (T - C) 13:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking purely for myself, I'd say that the Committee can only urge the community to seek a policy solution to the question of highway naming. The community may well have good reasons to reject this. In which case, you'd probably all better be extra careful about moves, and make sure you don't make any controversial name changes. --Tony Sidaway 10:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pedophilia userbox wheel war (August 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to know if Tony Sidaway's threats at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8#Template:unblockabuse are valid per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war#SPUI, especially given the comments at [53]. --SPUI (T - C) 17:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Link is no longer good. Fred Bauder 17:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[54] Ashibaka tock 00:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Specifically this edit, which I still stand by. --Tony Sidaway 16:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alienus (August 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus arbitration has been on indefinite hold since he seemed to have left the project. However, this week Alienus has returned and is using sockpuppets to edit war tendentiously. For example, compare this new edit [55] with this old edit from February where he signs his name [56]. So far he has used the addresses 24.44.189.249, 24.44.189.175, and 67.90.197.194. Because this seems to be a flagrant attempt to evade this accepted Arbcom case I would like to request that the case be moved back to active status, and furthermore an injunction against the use of such sockpuppets whil this case is ongoing, enforcement to be accomplished through reverting edits and indefinite block on sight. Nandesuka 13:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Today's he's used 24.44.184.238 as well. Nandesuka 12:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There's also a question about this at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Alienus/Proposed decision. -Will Beback 03:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There is currently a motion to close with sufficient support, so injunctions should be unnecessary at this point. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification of the rejection of the Rainbow Gathering case (September 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sorry for asking such a seemingly foolish question. I am still rather new to wikipedia and entirely new the arbitration. Does the "reject" decision from the arbcom mean that the "A Gathering of the Tribes" will *not* be allowed on the listing of Annual Gatherings? Thanks for the feedback. Bstone 00:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, just that the Arbitration Committee will not decide the matter one way or another. Fred Bauder 01:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Fred, for the reply. I wonder what you might suggest in the meantime? Since Lookingheart has entirely rejected mediation and the edit war continues I am wondering what the next step might be? Thanks. Bstone 02:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I, too, have the same question. Will the page remain protected? For how long? You state, "local Rainbow Gatherings don't belong in a list of the national Gatherings" which is my contention. But that hasn't stopped them from being added again and again. You, "suggest an article on local Gatherings." So did Aguerriero during informal mediation. Lookingheart rejected that suggestion. That didn't stop the on-going edit war. What happens if lookingheart adds 10 AGOTT gatherings before next year's National as he said he might in discussion? At the moment I see only 2 options, continue the edit war or let lookingheart post what ever he wants. Oceankat 03:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

How about a nice article about A Gathering of the Tribes (Rainbow Family) explaining what that is all about together with a full listing of meetings? It might be nice to explore some of the issues. Wikipedia has no opinion about internal Rainbow Family issues. I have always had a lot more fun at smaller local gatherings myself. Fred Bauder 17:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Has this become a mediation session? If so, I agree with your suggestion as I did during informal mediation when Aguerriero suggested it. Unfortunately I don't know enough about AGOTT to feel competant in writing that article. Perhaps you would like to? The only "internal rainbow family issue" I'm concerned about is whether gatherings that in my opinion are not notable, not verifiable and in the case of the WV AGOTT and most likely the GA AGOTT violate wikipedia's policy concerning the posting of future events are appropiate additions to this article. And whether wikipedia has some means to resolve this issue. Apparantly there is none and since I'm not inclined to waste time in an edit war, I'm content to see anybody add any gathering they like to the list of national gatherings. Oceankat 20:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Oceankat. If this arbcom attempt has turned into a redirect for mediation, we have already done that. How is it possible that the arbcom is forcing us to use a mechanism which simply will not produce a result? Sorry if I seem irritated, but arbcom is supposed to be the final mechanism since all others have failed. I await a response. Bstone 04:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not involved in this dispute, but rather in the next one listed above (Gillberg affair). At present, my request has received two votes to reject (and no other votes), on the ground that it is largely about a debate over content. So nothing is decided yet, but if the final vote is to reject, then I would have the same question as Bstone: if the other party has entirely rejected mediation and the edit war continues, what is recommended as the next step? What mechanism does Wikipedia have for dealing with a (hypothetical) situation where some editors are dishonest and unrelenting?  —Daphne A 09:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't mean to leave you hanging. I have unprotected the page for evaluation of the situation. As to the request above, I have been waiting for some response by the other parties. Fred Bauder 09:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is entirely disheartening. A case is brought before the ArbCom specifically and solely because mediation failed and an edit war would simply continue. Based on the fact that mediation failed entirely because one of the warring parties (Lookingheart) entirely ignored and rejected all attempts at official mediation, I can see no benefit in ArbCom rejecting the case, removing the page protection and "evaluating" the situation. Is there no mechanism in Wikipedia to resolve such disputes? Bstone 14:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If he starts edit warring again I will block him. Any administrator could have done that. That is why the request is being rejected; there is no substantial issue to consider. Fred Bauder 14:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears as though we have reached a resolution of this issue and for that I am grateful. Most likely and hopefully there will be no further edit wars over this as it was never my desire to see anyone blocked or banned from editing this article. Thanks Fred, for your time and your help.Oceankat 03:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does revert parole apply to edits of banned users? (September 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Leyasu has been indef banned under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker for persistently violating his paroles with sockpuppets. He appears to be continuing to edit music-related articles from a series of British Telecom IP addresses. Deathrocker has been reverting these edits, frequently also using IP addresses rather than logging in. I know that reverting simple vandalism generally does not fall under the one revert per day limit; what about reverting edits from IP addresses suspected of being a banned editor? (Additional current discussion at Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher131 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Update I am not at all convinced that the revertions performed by several anon IPs were in fact Deathrocker. However, I still think it would be useful to clarify this issue, even if it is not immediately pressing. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I would let whoever is reverting Leyasu continue. I know I don't want that chore. Fred Bauder 14:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Zeq wikistalking and block count (September 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've been having a difficult time applying arbitration enforcement for Zeq and feel I have since been targetted by him. For example, after I blocked Kelly Martin for her B-list attack page, Zeq just happens to come along so as to caution me from blocking a user with whom you have a dispute" (what dispute? he fails to mention). Or, after removing and protecting the attack page by Sarasto777, Zeq just happens to come along, again. These are not isolated examples. Then today, Zeq questions my administrative compotence and speaks of an "edit[orial] conflict" after I delete his copyvio entry, twice. Many blocks later, how should I proceed with the tendencious edits by the user? Should I implement Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Enforcement_by_block next time — it will be the 6th block. Or will it? I am inclined to count article bans as blocks, and am seeking clarification as to this approach, and Zeq's conduct overall as illustrated above. Thanks in advance. El_C 13:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do take the time to examine this request's threaded dialogue (it was removed without an accompanying diff being cited). Thanks. El_C 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

To answer your original question: article bans are not considered to count towards the escalating block periods, only vioations of bans. Having said that, if an editor is incorrigible, perhaps a general admin-discretionary block rather than, or in addition to, an arbcom article ban is warranted (by an uninvolved party of course, which I am not sure you are). I'd say take it to ANI, and try to avoid scaring admins awy with long-winded, dead-end discussions like the one that happened here. Dmcdevit·t 00:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I plead for minimal respect on Dmcdevit's part. El_C 12:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification, though. El_C 07:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with Zeq is difficult; he won't let anything go. Just concentrate on doing the fair thing and expect that if you do, others will back you up. Consultation on ANI won't hurt, but is not mandatory to ban or block under an arbitration decision. Fred Bauder 13:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Fred. I appreciate the further clarification, and support. It has been difficult, indeed. I am not inclined to take the frontline in enforcing the probation, though if I see infractions, I will act accordingly. El_C 07:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A question on "Article Probation" (September 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

By what process does an articel get probation ordered on it revoked? I'm assuming it'd have to involve the Committee or member(s) of it, but the exact details don't seem to be specified anywhere. 68.39.174.238 20:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Generally one must make a specific appeal to the ArbCom by way of a further request for arbitration. However, in case of good general behaviour, a probation may be spontaneously revoked, see below for an example. Stifle (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

But it requires a "motion in a proir case", rather then a period of time or descision of one person (Unless explicitly declared as such to begin with)? 68.39.174.238 02:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Either that or a new request for arbitration. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As you know, only arbitrators are empowered to present a "motion in a prior case." I don't know whether the individual arbitrators would appreciate accept user requests to consider making such a motion. Presumably such a request would have to include strong evidence that the problems that led to the user or article being placed on probation have been resolved, and that there is cause to lift the probation (or other restriction) at this time. I don't know whether the ArbCom members would consider dealing with a request to an individual arbitrators to make a motion, to be more or less efficient and/or burdensome than presenting the matter via a whole new Request for Arbitration on this page. Perhaps one of the arbitrators or clerks will express a view on that. Newyorkbrad 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Typically, I think the most reasonable thing to do would be for someone to make their appeal right here in the clarifications section. If the appeals strikes a chord with me or any other arbitrators, we will make the necssary motion, otherwise we will reply in the negative. In some cases (though perhaps just one I can think of att the moment), we have initiated a new case if it is complex enough, but in general, that's not necessary. Dmcdevit·t 07:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

So (Getting to the original point), is this a fair summary and update to that page? 68.39.174.238 03:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Article probation is a new remedy for us. We are not sure how to deal with it in a number of ways, including how an article would get off probation. I assume that if the problems which got it on probation are over, it could be removed, should it constitute a problem for the current editors. Realistically I think we would only entertain a motion to remove it if it was causing a disruption in current editing, so I think we generally will not be removing article probations, since so long as there is not pattern of disruption, there should be no basis for intervention. Fred Bauder 13:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sweet, thanx. This seems to have cleared up the problem. 68.39.174.238 16:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Internal spamming/campaigning (September 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There's an ongoing discussion at WP:SPAM about what constitutes acceptable talk page contact between users regarding discussions, votes, polls, etc. Prior rulings that have been pointed to are this prior ruling and this one. Could you offer any more specific information about what is and is not allowed/discouraged, for example: is it the use of mass userbox messaging that is disallowed (if it is), or is internal spamming/campaigning disallowed only if disruptive? Thanks. IronDuke 17:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. The difference lies in the disruption involved. If what is happening is getting everyone upset then it is a problem. Often the dividing line is crossed when you are contacting a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article. Fred Bauder 16:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Onefortyone (September 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

According to the arbcom results Onefortyone (talk · contribs) was placed on Wikipedia:Probation with respect to the biographies of celebrities. He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research. He appears to have shifted to inserting such material into album/CD articles [57] [58] . Does this probation extend to such pages as well if they are inappropriately edited? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It is very interesting that a user, who didn't contribute to Presley-related topics in the past, has totally removed my well-sourced contributions from two different Wikipedia articles (see [59] and [60]). This supports my suspicion that there are several sockpuppets at work who are harassing me and seem to be related to multiple hardbanned User:Ted Wilkes alias User:DW. I have discussed this problem elsewhere. See, for instance, [61]. MacGyverMagic has falsely claimed on the Nicholas Turnbull talk page that my contributions are "unreferenced POV stuff" about Elvis. Truth be told, I have quoted from George Plasketes, Images of Elvis Presley in American Culture, 1977-1997: The Mystery Terrain, p.37, and from a university site. What should be wrong with this? Onefortyone 01:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This edit seems inappropriate. The only problem I see is that sometimes it is not clear what the source is of the material Onefortyone is inserting. Fred Bauder 13:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moby Dick's article ban - projectspace? (September 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Moby Dick is banned from editing articles which concern Turkey or Kurdish issues." [62] Does this include Articles for Deletion discussions related to those issues? Cool Cat believes the diff above is part of a pattern of harrassment on AfDs, according to a post of his on the admins' incidents noticeboard. The simplest way to sort this out in my view would be to confirm whether his article ban does or should cover projectspace pages. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify my reasoning. While one keep vote does not constitute as stalking, Moby Dick's continuing pattern of behaviour does.

The pattern of behaviour presented in the Arbitration cases evidence page is in my view continuing for one and a half years now. Two arbitration cases have been filed over the issue. Now those arbitration hearings need to be enforced.

--Cat out 14:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the ambiguous term "article" is to cover all namespaces. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed per Sam. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he needs to just leave the subject alone. Fred Bauder 13:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

To be fair to all parties, I propose that someone alter the decision to read "page" and make an annotation to explain why the change was made (referring to this clarification with a diff). I could not make the change myself because I was an involved party in the case. --Tony Sidaway 01:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May an administrator take into account prior behavior? (September 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I recently imposed what seemed to me to be a straightforward article ban on an editor who had been disrupting the article over a period of several months. The arbitration remedy is in a case that was closed yesterday and the ban doesn't seem to have been opposed for any substantive reason; only the procedure is questioned.

The case is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom and the ban is on Karl Meier editing Islamophobia, on which he almost invariably edit wars.

I would like to see the Committee clarify whether it is pertinent for an administrator, in making a decision on whether to impose a restriction under a remedy passed in an arbitration case, may take into account the behavior of the editor prior to the closing of the case. --Tony Sidaway 01:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:Netscott

This WP:AN thread is pertinent to this question. (→Netscott) 03:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say that under most circumstances, the day the case closes is the day the restrictions start and the day the behaviour has to change. Why else do we have injunctions? However, if an editor attempts to get their digs in just before a ban, I suspect the committee will be quite willing to extend a ruling. In this case, I think, Karl will either behave - or not - in which case I'm sure the community will ban him quickly. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with the notion of judgements being applied retroactively; if the Committee had wanted to ban Karl Meier from editing an article for 3 months, it certainly could have done so as one of its remedies. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've rescinded the ban. On reflection I think this ban was not acceptable to the community. --Tony Sidaway 01:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, certainly, I think that "justice is blind" is not a useful process to use on Wikipedia. Sysops should use their common sense.

James F. (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Karl had not edited on en since 15th, and his only edit since then has been to reply on User talk:Karl Meier that "I don't care. I've lost any serious interest in the project." [63]. He has quit before, though [64], and came back within the month. --Tony Sidaway 19:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In reply to James F., I think I agree. There were other issues of fairness here that convinced me that the ban was seen as too aggressive. --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed summary of consensus (comment by User:Newyorkbrad)

As Tony indicates, there has been a certain amount of discussion on this issue, which the community might as well profit from rather than just lose when this specific case ages off the page. I think a fair synthesis of the reaction to this general situation would run more-or-less as follows:

1. An admin should not impose a block based exclusively on behavior occurring while (or before) an ArbCom case is pending, because the ArbCom presumably considered all of that behavior in determining the sanctions that ArbCom itself would impose and the user should have a chance to modify his/her behavior in response to the decision.

2. However, in the event of misbehavior after the ArbCom case has closed, an admin would of course take the prior behavior that was the subject of the ArbCom case into account (subject to the strictures of the ArbCom ruling itself).

3. There could be borderline cases where behavior occurred after the outcome of the ArbCom case was clear but before the case was formally closed, but these should be relatively rare and one might want to run the situation by the Arbitrators.

Just my thoughts, FWIW. If anyone wants to discuss this further, perhaps this thread should refactor to the talk page. Newyorkbrad 00:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think it's necessary to formulate this as a policy but I do think we learn from this kind of situation. My concern here was that, knowing that the arbitration committee had decided that his edit warring was problematic, and intended to proscribe his activities, Karl Meier persisted. The enactment simply provided me and other admins with the capacity to act. However this offended the general feeling that arbitration remedies should be applied in a manifestly fair manner. It certainly doesn't do any harm, in this case, to wait for the editor to respond and become accustomed to working with the remedy. --Tony Sidaway 01:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If a user is brought to arbitration over behavior, which he continues during arbitration, and after arbitration, the remedy addressing the behavior may be immediately applied. This assumes simple continuation of disruptive behavior. Fred Bauder 13:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass changing on style issues (dating) (September 2006)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

user:SuperJumbo has been mass changing articles to use the British dating system. The relavant manual of style entry is as follows

"If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country... For topics concerning the UK, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, most other member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, and most international organizations such as the United Nations, the formatting is usually 17 February 1958 (no comma and no "th"). In the United States, it is most commonly February 17, 1958. Elsewhere, either format is acceptable"

SuperJumbo's edits have been to articles pertaining to a non-Commonwealth nations (such as France and Suriname). The arbitration committee's ruling in the Sortan case (in which Jguk was doing similiar editing with regard to BC-AD/BCE-CE) says

Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.

SuperJumbo's editing, however, appers to totally disgard this ruling. He claims that converting articles to the dating system used in those countries justifies per the first line of the MOS entry allows him to make these mass changes, when the more specific statement (3 sentences later) explicitely allows a number of styles. A number of admins, including myself, have objected to the changes he is making. I would like the arbitration committee to inform him that his claim is false, and have him reverse all the changes he made to non-commonwealth nation articles. Raul654 14:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that this SuperJumbo should be warned to stop making these make date format changes. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, another trip down a bad road we have been on before. Fred Bauder 14:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Can they not just wikify the dates and then the engine will render it appropriately to people's settings? Stifle (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.