Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 3

Ollieplatt's complaint

I think it's obvious what this is, but he does raise one valid point:

In one edit[1] Neutrality falsely accused me of being engaging in propaganda, removing a sourced and factual edit.

Should someone who's decided to get involved in the very conflicts that are the source of the complaint about a user (i.e. POV editing mainly to articles about U.S. politics) really be arbitrating the case against that user? Does this strike anyone else as a conflict of interest or demonstration of bias? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 15:37, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it is a marginal conflict of interest. We are a community, and a small one (despite how much bigger it is than in my first few months here). We cannot expect that arbitrators will never have had any issues with the people they arbitrate for -- recusal, in my opinion, is only for cases where the history between users makes it likely that an arbitrator will not be able to fairly judge a case. Given that the edit in question appears to be an isolated revert, I am not much troubled by it -- if Neutrality had gone around reverting multiple edits by Ollie for half an hour or more, I'd say it was clear for recusal. Now, that said, if I were Neutrality, I still might very well recuse -- even if I knew I could be fair, I'd recognize that accepting an arbitration case against someone the very day I revert part of their edit as "propaganda" probably doesn't _look_ good, even if it's in fact not clouding my judgment at all. I'd say Ollie's complaint generally has the air of illegitimacy to it, though -- he appears to want to force users to recuse simply for disagreeing with a previous request of his. His complaint about work on the "proposed decision" is ludicrous -- arbitrators work with the evidence they have (otherwise it takes forever, about which the community frequently complains). If evidence is introduced which contravenes the decisions already proposed, they will be altered or abandoned. This has happened in the past and will happen in the future. Because Ollie seems to be lashing out against people without cause, I'd say it makes me as a member of the community very content to have these users not recuse (although I will probably watch this decision a little more closely, to see that hard evidence is supplied for any findings -- I do not doubt that such evidence exists, and that it will form the basis of the decision made). And, as noted above, if I were an arbitrator in Neutrality's situation (recusal for the others seems groundless to me, unless there's evidence Ollie isn't providing), I believe I would recuse, although that does not constitute advice to him from me. That's my two cents, Jwrosenzweig 21:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have a more broad question about this complaint, which is whether it's actionable. That is to say, is the arbcom actually invested with the ruling power to remove members from itself by decree? I would think that accusations of improper conduct by an arbitrator would have to be taken up with Jimbo. Snowspinner 23:07, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

I considered that and thought it was best not to - as an initial step - ask other arbitrators to deal with the matter.

I believe there are many issues - principally relating to left-wing bias and the abuse of power by administrators - which are not being addressed and perhaps are not capable of being addressed by Arbitration. There are a number of possible alternatives for dealing with this.

The trumped up charges of "vandalism" and "trolling" in the initial RfA entirely relate to diminishishing left-wing bias. I have not vandalized anything, as I understand the policy. Now the bogus claim of vandalism is being used as a basis for reverting every NPOV edit made.

So the question is, will Wikipedia continue to be a sanctuary for leftist thought, with all the consequences that entails.

Ollieplatt 23:26, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It was my impression, Ollie, that you were only asking that these arbitrators be forced to recuse themselves from the Libertas case. If you are, in fact, seeking that they be removed from the AC, I agree that actionability seems pretty limited. You've filed a complaint against four legitimately elected arbitrators, and the AC that would be able to judge them is largely Jimbo's appointees. I'm not saying appointees are not valid arbitrators -- they assuredly are. But I think that few or none of them would want to be seen as interfering with the elections process -- they'd need clear indications of gross misconduct to take on such a case. You haven't made that case -- the case you've made is that these arbitrators may be too biased against you to hear your case fairly. That's not gross misconduct -- if you are correct, it is at most human error. The community would be legitimately appalled if the AC threw out four members recently elected by this community, purely because there were indications that arbitrators had failed to recuse themselves in a borderline situation. I suggest you merely seek their recusal -- I would still disagree with the conclusions you draw from the evidence, but I would at least agree that your request was proportional to the crimes you accuse these four arbitrators of perpetrating. Jwrosenzweig 00:00, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

...and so on ad infinitum?

I suppose in theory that one arbitrator could launch a request for arbitration against another arbitrator. Obviously both parties would have to recuse, and it would remain to be seen whether the motion would be accepted or not. A request by an ordinary user, based in fact, can be heard (in theory at least, pending the outcome of Ollieplatt's request). Thryduulf 23:46, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

actually, thinking on a bit. If a request is refused, is there anything to prevent him/her making another RfAr against those who voted to reject? All those four would be obliged to recuse, and presumably also those subject to the orginal RfAr. Pretty soon you are going to run out of arbitration committee members, and a request for arbitration against all arbitration committee members would have to be heard by Jimbo I suppose. Or is there anything in the rules to prevent this? Also, if someone requested arbitration against the serial complainant (for being a serial complainant, or for any other matter) at this point, I presume the serial complainant would be entitled to expect those members of the committee they were complaining against to recuse themselves, again leaving only Jimbo. Thryduulf 23:46, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

and again, is Jimbo exempt from RfArs? Or could someone drag him in by requesting one against him for not vetoing or whatever the arbitration committee, and thus leaving noone independent? Thryduulf 23:46, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This could, I suppose, be sorted out if the committee has the power to find against complainants (i.e. finding the complainant guilty, rather than just the defendant not guilty). So the second or higher level request could be accepted, investigated and if found to be baseless, the complainant punished for abusing the system. Does the committee have this power? Thryduulf 23:46, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some excellent points, Thryduulf. So you know, AC policy currently states that, if more than half of the AC recuses itself from a case, all the recusals are refused and the AC in toto hears the case. This is designed to prevent a troll from intentionally sparking conflicts with AC members in an attempt to force them all to recuse. I suspect that a similar strategy is being attempted with the current request, but I may well be wrong. As far as Jimbo goes, that is a situation without real precedent. A case has been filed against Jimbo only once -- the case was essentially groundless, and was filed by a troll who was looking to cause trouble (or so the determination was by the AC members who rejected it). Several AC members at the time refuse the case, and made comments indicating that Jimbo could not be taken into arbitration. I (and perhaps others -- can't recall) rejected the case but commented that Jimbo was clearly subject to arbitration as a user of the site. Community opinion was divided, and no consensus was ever reached, but I would submit that, if a legitimate case was filed against Jimbo, the arbitrators have no authority to reject it purely on the grounds that it is Jimbo, although other grounds could of course intervene. The committee does have power to find complainants guilty, and has on several occasions -- filing a complaint is no guarantee of immunity from sentencing. Jwrosenzweig 23:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If there's a complaint against lots of Arbitrators that has sufficient merit that it should be heard, then it would be necessary to adopt alternative procedures. Wikipedia, largely, operates by consensus; and no doubt, in such circumstances, a consensus would arise that would propose a sensible way or dealing with the situation (which could be just to remove the Arbitrators).

I would hope that no such need should arise. If it occurs I hope it is as easy to remove the Arbitrators as it is to remove a Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (Margaret Thatcher), rather than as difficult to remove a President of the United States (Andrew Johnson; Bill Clinton).

I do note that David Gerard told Ollieplatt that if he removed Arbitrators' votes he would be banned. I do not disagree with this, but would recommend that if any Arbitrator felt the need to block a user for interfering with the Arbitration process they would request that an admin who is not an Arbitrator will do this. I imagine that's what David Gerard would have done anyway, but think it's worth mentioning none the less.

Finally, I would add that although we have some young Arbitrators who would do well to stand back and think clearly before making decisions on cases, I have seen nothing in Ollieplatt's case that makes me think there is a complaint with sufficient merit to seek alternative procedures against them, jguk 00:12, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey, look, it's another RFAr against Jimbo, which gets back to some of the discussion here... :) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:36, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

Request rejected?

While the AC can wait if it pleases, it appears to me that, with three recusals, there are only eight active arbitrators able to cast votes on Ollieplatt's request, and that four reject votes are therefore sufficient to reject the complaint. I may not remember the rules correctly, and the AC may wish to leave the request up for longer if it wishes, but I thought that, since I'd noticed, and since often people forget to correct the majority needed when there are multiple recusals, I'd leave a note. Arbitrators can act or not as they see fit. :-) Jwrosenzweig 23:21, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The way the policy is worded (Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Requests), it's not a majority "reject" that rejects a complaint but the lack of four votes to accept, so while there are still four active arbitrators who could accept the request is still open (unless there are not four accepts after a week). Personally I'd like to see this part of the policy change -- sannse (talk) 20:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Davenbelle

I thought that I'd say Thank You, and add that I intend to now go about my own business: things related to Indonesia and technical improvements such as converting html tables to wiki tables, for example. It was never my intention to get too involved in US political articles. — Davenbelle 00:23, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Rejected request

My recent RFA against user: Robert the Bruce was rejected, I feel inappropriately. Since the rejected request, his behaviour has continued to escalate. The pages he edits are out of control. He continues to attempt to goad and bait me. He ignores repeated requests to modify his behaviour. He continues to add inflammatory and offensive subheadings to talk pages. In short, he is trolling.

It is my opinion that the RFA was rejected because we have not attempted mediation. Several users and I have stated on numerous occasions that we feel mediation would be pointless. In any case, mediation is not designed to address the types of problems this user creates. I would like to reopen the RFA for reconsideration. How do I go about it. Exploding Boy 17:52, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Just go ahead and re-state the request. Also, take care to address what you just said - that mediation appears to be fruitless. →Raul654 19:12, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions for rewording proposed decisions

As the proposed decisions get edited and changed, I occasionally see things phrased less than optimally and feel the need to suggest a better wording on the proposed decision talk page. Is this useful and appreciated or is this doomed to degenerate into opinion-pushing bickering that isn't helpful to the arbitration process and should the arbitrators be left to find their own wordings? --fvw* 18:09, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

I've done this as well. My feelings are that they have asked for comments to be put on talk pages, and that the arbitrators could do with the comments what they wish. If I'm wrong in this I wont do it again. Thryduulf 18:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions on talk pages were always helpful to me when I was on the AC, although I admit I sometimes forgot to check the talk pages. If you feel your suggestion is very important, perhaps drop a note to an arbitrator you're acquainted with asking them to look over the talk page. But even if you don't, AC members should be checking the talk pages and probably will, and I feel sure they won't mind ideas (as long as it doesn't become a prolonged dispute on the talk page). Jwrosenzweig 20:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Once I start watching an arbcom page, I read virtually everything that goes on the talk pages. I usually don't respond, but I do read them. →Raul654 20:14, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

CheeseDreams' Sockpuppets

Subject can be seen here: WP:AN#CheeseDreams_socks

I would like the ArbCom to kindly clarify on the ruling regarding to CD's sockpuppets. Also, I would like the ArbCom to kindly clarify as to what extent on Christianity articles: Does this mean any article relating to Christianity? Does this mean any article relating to Jesus? Thank you. -- AllyUnion (talk) 20:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

She is banned from editing articles on topics related to Christianity. Ambi 23:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Antifinnugor

AFU created an orphaned subpage and is going around pointing to it as an "open RFAr against dbachmann". Without as much as having recognized the ruling against himself. This is harassment. Can we remove that subpage, please? Also, I have no intention to keep cleaning up after AFU. The ruling against him is very lenient, imho, considering his refusal to recognize WP principles and procedure (never mind Wikiquette), but at least there is a ruling against him now, and somebody should prevent him from this sort of disruption. dab (ᛏ) 08:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I moved it to his userspace and made its lack of official status clear. AfU can keep pointing to it but he'll just make himself look foolish if he does. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 09:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Axon

I have strived to stay calm, objective, and conciliatory, but I confess the strain of this is wearing on me. This thing with Axon has been going on for months, and my patience is about exhausted. Regardless of how this Axon thing is resolved (if it is resolved), you guys desperately need to do something to tighten up your dispute resolution process. This issue with Axon should never have even reached this stage. Some concrete suggestions:

• Respond to requests for mediation in less than a week, and follow the procedures set forth in that policy (particularly the rollback and freeze to the last undisputed version).
• Impose a similar rollback-and-freeze while Requests For Arbitration are being considered.
• Set hard and fast guidelines on editing/moving/scrambling other people's comments, particularly during an attempted dispute resolution, and impose harsh penalties on a user who violates those guidelines.
• State a clear policy on the organization of Talk pages: where new sections go, where new responses go within those sections, and how responses should be attributed. Whether or not Axon's intentions were good with regard to his his comment-scrambling, a clear policy, strictly enforced, would prevent such disputes in the future.
• Place the burden of discussion more strongly on users: a revert-happy edit-warrior who consistently ignores attempts at discussion, who ignores surveys, who ignores requests for mediation, should be called to account. Banning them from editing until they participate in community discussions would not be unreasonable, in my opinion. Without discussion, there can be no consensus.
• Finally, Wikipedia should exercise more editorial control over the content of articles. You are letting the inmates run the asylum, here. Users like Axon and Robert The Bruce are just the tip of the iceberg. (Yes, I know that this runs counter to the spirit of a wiki, but reality trumps ideology.)

That's what I think, anyway. -- Bblackmoor 18:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

comments from Theresa Knott

"Other measures need to be tried first. Arbitration is a last resort only."

I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, as I have documented on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Axon/Evidence, every other measure available has been tried first. The affected party has refused to participate in any discussion. The next step, should the request for arbitration be denied, is either to engage in an interminable edit war or abandon Wikipedia to the wolves.

"To take the talk page comments as an example - Axon objects to BBlackmoor toposting and BBlackmoor objects to Axon moving comments about."

Not exactly: Axon objects to my posting any comments whatsoever, regardless of where I place them, and I object to his moving comments willy nilly so that the discussion -- any discussion -- becomes impossible to follow. Again, this is documented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Axon/Evidence.

"See how easy it is. Is there a need for the AC to decree?"

Every other avenue has been attempted, to no avail, as you can see documented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Axon/Evidence. Please consider looking at that; it may cause you to change your vote.

"As for the content issue, that's for the community to decide."

On the matter of relevance, yes: I agree, and I have solicited community involvement several times for this purpose -- discussion which Axon has consistently abstained from and ignored (other than scrambling it to make it incomprehensible). On the matters of NPOV or just simple factuality, should not Wikipedia's policies should be sufficient for the Arbcom to take action against a persistent, habitual offender?

"For an obscure topic surveys should perhaps last longer than two weeks and rfc's three weeks."

What do you recommend -- to simply do the same thing over and over, to try over and over to get Axon to participate in any kind of discussion, to try over and over to convince him that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, to revert his smarmy POV editorializing over and over, until either Axon or myself die of old age? How many months should I wait before I decide that Wikipedia's dispute process is simply not working, because only one person is actually interested in resolving the dispute? -- Bblackmoor 23:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bblackmoor I did look at the evidence page before voting. Otherwise I wouldn't have known how to vote. You have not shown sufficient evidence that other methods of dispute resolution have seriously been attempted. I don't believe that you have given other measures a resonable chance of working.The topic is obscure - therefore it will take longer to find other people who are interested enough to come along and have a say. So why not just leave the page alone for a while and see what happens?

Certainly the AC can take against a persistant and habitual offender against NPOV. However the evidence that you have presented so far has not shown Axon to be such an offender. You may have other evidence. You certainly seem to dislike each other a lot more that people ordinarily would based on the history of that one page, so perhaps there is much more to this dispute that meets the eye, but based on the evidence that you have presented I can't see anything that suggests that you really have tried your best to resolve this dispute yourself.

Here is what I recommend. Assume good faith and offer to post you comments on the talk page wherever Axon wants. The exact position of a comment is not very important. it's what you say that matters! This silly fighting over postioning of comments is childish. (IMO you have both been childish in this repect)Then remove all talk of "smarmy" etc. Make sure anything you write is as plesent as can be. Do this seriously - don't just go through the motions. Work on one small section of the article at a time, and provide sources. (The source should not be yourself). Get other people involved. You might need to be more active about this then would be usual because the topic is obscure - you could try look at the edit history of related articles and inviting those editors to take a look. You could try listing the article on Wikipedia:cleanup. You could try working the article up into the best possible shape you can and then listing it as a candidate for a possible featured article.There are ways of getting the community involved (a VFD always does the trick ;-)for me).

Most importantly - you need to listen to what Axon says and assume good faith on his part. Deliberately go out of your way to come to an agreement with him. Do absolutely everything in your power to solve this dispute yourself. Use the AC as an absolute last resort. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 16:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems reasonable: I'm willing to give it a go. --Axon 17:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Increasing legalism on ArbCom pages

I note that RfAr are becoming increasingly legalistic now. We seem to have "petitioners" and "respondents", we even had an Advocate using legal terms. I really don't like these developments as they may presage trouble to come.

Most of the Arbitrators have no legal training whatsoever and none are practising lawyers. Also it is not clear which jurisdiction's laws they should follow. If we go down a legalistic route, it's only a matter of time that someone aggrieved at the process will take this to a real life court, at which point the whole Arbitration system would be found to be contrary to natural justice. The costs in defending any such action would also divert all-important funds away from development needs.

Can't we just do away with the legalistic language and make it clear that this is an informal process used by the operators of this site to help them exercise their complete discretion as to who uses it? jguk 20:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • I for one would like that. This is a web site. Being banned from editing a website is not a big deal. Everything should be very informal IMO. I don't like jargon, especially legal jargon. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 20:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • You stood for election to the ArbCom. The actions required of the ArbCom require a fundamental working knowledge and understanding of due process. You have an obligation to try to the best of your ability to perform up to that basic standard. If you don't understand what is required or are not up to the task it is better your resign rather than contribute to making the ArbCom process nothing more than a kangaroo court. If being banned is no big deal when why go through the charade of some sort of process ... why not just meet secretly on an IRC channel and by a show of hands declare someone a non-person, delete all there contributions and make them "disappear" literally. - Robert the Bruce 03:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The wikicommunity voted and want me as an arbitrator. I will not resign because one disruptive editor is bleating on. You have had due process. You have had ample opertunity to reform your behaviour. A number of admins tried to advice you - your response was to attack those admins. You had two rfc's against you - your response was to attack the process of rfc. I tried informal mediation with you. You were uncooperative. Finally a arbitration case was started against you. Even at that late stage in the dispute resolution process you could have redeemed yourself by stating that you were sorry for your personal attacks, POV pushing, removing of valid material from wikipedia articles, andremoving references from articles. But instead you choose to attack the arbitrators and the arbitration process. But you know what Robert. No one cares what you say. So ask for my resignation all you like, you wont get it. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 07:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The wikicommunity voted for you in the belief that you would follow the policy and procedures of the ArbCom. What you have shown is that you prefer to act like a bully-boy sheriff dispensing summary justice than a taking a more cerebral role as would be expected of an Arbitrator. I challenge to prove that you did not abandon the mediation that we were engaged in. You see your dishonesty has been proven by your failure to jerk EB's chain when he lied about me having refused mediation unless the mediator was JakeW (sadly this applies to Sannse as well). I am not suggesting that you resign from the ArbCom ... I believe that you should be thrown off. Proven dishonesty from an ArbCom member must be considered absolutely unacceptable. My so-called indiscretions are demonstrably no worse than any number of ArbCom members and assorted other sysops and the usual crowd of vexatious litigants and for you to claim otherwise is predictably disingenuous. - Robert the Bruce 18:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I abondoned mediation? What happened was that JakeW gave up on it. I did not receive a reply to my last email to him. I don't blame him for giving up , it was going nowhere. The only reason you even agreed to mediation was to delay the RFA that I myself was going to start on you. Whilst mediation with me was going on you did not stop with your lies and personal attacks. You attacked me as part of the mediation process, saying that I needed help from a qualified professional, and that I abused my admin powers (yet failed to provide evidence despite repeated requests by me to put up or shut up). Well this is where personal attacks get you. You are now up before the AC and will find that their descisions on how to deal with you are binding. Making pesonal attacks is not allowed. Removing valid content is not allowed. POV pushing is not allowed. Many people have tried to help you understand this, but unfortunately you refuse to listen to them. Now the AC will rule. You will be delt with, and I will continue to be the arbitrator that the wikicommunity wants me to be. It's tough for someone such as yourself to understand, but that that's whats going to happen. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 18:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Ah the omnipotent Theresa Knott. How talented you are being able to read the innermost motivations of others with such clarity. Why then is such a talented person a mere assistant teacher? This whole Wikipedia thing allows you to wield power way beyond you could ever aspire to in the real world. I repeat a criticism I voiced of your actions some months ago where I stated that you repeatedly showed a lack of judgement. Sadly this remains true. I didn't need you to nanny me when I first arrived and don't need it now. And certainly I don't need a demonstrably dishonest person to lecture me on anything. Theresa I was correct about you from the outset. You are a flawed as you claim me to be. You are foul mouthed, you show poor judgement and you have shown to display less honesty than you would like people to believe of you. I have rebutted what needed rebuttal and you continuing to repeat the unproven allegations over and over is your desperate effort to repeat a lie often enough in the hope that it will eventually be believed. Your ArbCom can do their worst ... they have no credibility. If they had credibility I would probably take stock of what they say ... but under the circumstances one is overwhelmed with sadness for Wikipedia being so badly served. As to the mediation. Of course you could not be to blame Theresa. To believe that would be silly, yes? It has to be JakeW and then only because of me. heh heh heh ... it is all so predictable with you. BTW, a challenge to you ... prove that I was pushing POV in any way and by any comparison with your buddies. Bet you can't. - Robert the Bruce 18:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Robert you are under the mistaken belief that if you refuse to take heed of what the AC says, they are powerless. If they decide to ban you, you will be blocked from editing for the period of the ban. If you try to get around the block by logging in as a different sockpuppet from a different computer, you will reblocked and the timer reset. Whether you like it or not AC rulings are binding. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• My dear Theresa, your ArbCom is half full of clowns and the other half to cowardly to speak out about it. It is really a joke, a sad joke because little grey people who live grotty little grey lives need this power to get their cheap thrills. You are a classic example, an assistant teacher with no prospects but here on the internet, here on Wikipedia you can live out your Walter Mitty fantasies. If I were being censured by people with credibility and worthy of respect then perhaps I would give it a moments thought ... but please don't expect me to take this jungle justice being dished out from this kangaroo court seriously. You seem to be taking your self very seriously ... which is damn sad really. Get a life Theresa. - Robert the Bruce 16:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are a strange one Robert Brookes. Ever since you first came you you have argued that everyone here are a bunch of idiots. And yet, instead of declaring What a load of twats" and moving on, as any other person who felt that way would, you stay and argue until we have to ban you. If we are a bunch of clowns, what does that make you for continuing to be here? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Nice try Theresa but try as you may you can't help yourself can you? You need to believe that I am against the world as if somehow that justifies your actions. That is why I listed the foreskin worshippers on my user page because I needed to explain the who and why ... and of course there is Tony/Sherilyn (a very weird individual if there ever was one), Fvw the goose-stepping gay and you the sad sociopath. Add to that a handfull of dishonest and unethical ArbCom members and that in your twisted mind adds up to "everyone". Have you any idea just how pathetic you are Theresa? Real people can see it clearly. The fun has just begun. - Robert the Bruce 17:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• It needs to be either one or the other. As it stands it is pure charade. There is a template which deceives one into believing that there is the prospect of some degree of due process while the ArbCom act like a Roman Emperor of old and merely give a thumbs up or down. A fundamental decision needs to be made. Either do it properly (and insist on honesty and integrity from the ArbCom members) or dispense with the whole charade just ban people willy-nilly. As it stands the process is a disgrace. - Robert the Bruce 11:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Due process is not a matter of whether an objection to something is called a "motion" or not. The real question is whether the arbitrators consider it in good faith, either openly on the project and talk pages, or privately on Arbcom's IRC channel. Your objections were considered. I would have made a section for "motions" on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template to accomodate those who wish to make them, but that was vetoed by the other arbitrators unanimously, but rest assured that we do read talk pages, especially of the proposed decision page and often change what we decide in response to considerations raised there. Our procedure is not called arbitration for nothing, it serves no purpose to tangle ourselves up in off-putting legal terminology and procedure. Fred Bauder 13:35, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry Fred can't buy that. Personally I think it is pure crap. If you (as a committee) were on the level you would have been transparent. It is always an indication of underhand activity when such simple matters are carried out in private. I challenge you to produce the log files on why you decided not to find and state that EB had lied when he alleged Robert Blair was a sock puppet of mine and when he claimed that I had refused all mediation unless the mediator was to be JakeW. You either didn't discuss it (which would make you lair) or what was discussed would be incriminating if published ... and if you had published anything you would have to have produced a remedy, and you don't have the balls for that). It is obvious from the disjointed order that the proposed decision was put together that little or cerebral application was involved in the process. What you are producing is an absolute insult to the intelligence of readers who may be following the so-called proceedings. Why not drop the charade Fred ... and just move straight onto the thumbs down. The ArbCom is a joke. - Robert the Bruce 17:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll concede that the proposed decision is mainly based on analysis of your edits. We may develop some more findings about other issues though. Someone is looking at other folks' edits to see if that would be reasonable. Fred Bauder 17:47, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Fred I don't believe you or the other clowns have bothered to read through the history plus my rebuttals in any detail if at all. The allegation of the removal of supposedly relevant information is pure bullshit ... I have rebutted it. The supposed personal attacks of mine are demonstarbly no owrse than the example set by members of our esteemed ArbCom ... or perhaps in true Orwellian style some are more equal than others? Why one of your own posted this about me ... "Would people check out this pricks edits please and ..." She obviously like the majority of the ArbCom sets standards for others that they are not able to maintain themselves. Quite disgraceful. I challenge you to answer my rebuttal of the allegations of having removed supposedly relevant information. Listen to me now Fred ... this is a direct challenge to your personal integrity (if you have any). How can you look at yourself in the mirror when you know that there are dishonest people on the ArbCom and you have not displayed the nmoral courage to confront them on the issue? - Robert the Bruce 18:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While I do think that the arbitrators are working in good faith, I do feel that there is often a disconnect between what the arbcom is thinking and what is actually written on proposed decision pages. The legalistic gobbledygook with evidence and statements of principle and findings of fact is irksome. I think this is particularly problematic on the evidence side. Instead of being able to present a holistic case against the user being arbitrated upon, with reference simply to an article history and talk page that show the problem, one is forced to reference individual edits. This often leads to a focus on procedural/behavioral issues rather than underlying (essentially POV/content issues) in the decisions. Personal attacks and edit wars are easier to cite than a consistent pattern of turning articles into nonsense. The arbitrators clearly realize this, and usually make decisions that are appropriate to the actual questions. But the paper trail is extremely unsatisfactory - punishments often seem inappropriately harsh, or uneven, on the basis of the evidence presented. at any rate, that's my feeling. The results of the arbcom are usually pretty good, but the process of getting there involves a certain amount of deception/awkwardness. john k 18:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I suggest that my analogy of the Roman Circus with the pompous self important emperor merely giving a thumbs up or down is apt. It is quite clear from how the evidence has been handled that the ArbCom is merely going through the motions. I wish it was merely a case of bias but I can't claim that because there is no evidence that these clowns have even read the evidence and rebuttals. There is clearly a disconnect between the nexus of this issue what they claim to "found" ... to the extent it is almost surreal. Then of course we have the usual crowd of vexatious litigants ... the least said about them the better. I further believe that it is through the actions of sysops (EB and Theresa Knott) and the ArbCom that this matter has escalated. The inmates have taken over the asylum. - Robert the Bruce 18:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Instead of being able to present a holistic case against the user being arbitrated upon, with reference simply to an article history and talk page that show the problem, one is forced to reference individual edits." -- NO!!!!!!!! When I rewrote the requirements for the evidence pages, it was to prevent the 100 kb long incoherent rants that were showing up as "evidence", such as in the Shorne-et-al case. I specifically said I wanted evidence pages presented like I presented the Plautus case - re user:Raul654/Plautus. You do not have to reference individual edits - you are expected to summarize them and link to them where necessary (so as to show you are not making it up). →Raul654 18:37, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Well through the desperate idleness of the ArbCom and the complainants anyone brought before this kangaroo court is guilty before being proved innocent. What makes matters worse is that dishonesty from the complainants is tolerated and a blind eye turned to specific dishonesty and unethical behaviour from ArbCom members as the focus in purely upon joining in the feeding frenzy as presented by the usual crowd of vexatious litigants and the need to partake in "the beating of Simon" (Lord of the Flies). Rul654 you personally have nothing to be proud of ... cite your past "successes" all you may wish but remember in the real word all it takes for the life's work of a priest to be destroyed is the exposure of a single act of abuse (with a choirboy). Think about it ... you are compromised beyond rememption. - Robert the Bruce 18:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The trouble is, is that often the talk pages in question are vast. It's overwhelming. By asking people to put the actual links to the behaviour in question, the arbitrators are able to see the evidence in manageable chunks. I agree that legalistic jargon is irksome but I don't really know what to do about it. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 18:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Yes I understand your problem ... too much work involved in a fair and just process ... just go through the motions do what you had decided to do all along. No point in letting the facts get in the way of nice touch of jungle justice, hey? If you can't handle due process, if you can't handle fairness and justice then better you get out and find some other way of sating your bloodlust. - Robert the Bruce 18:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nice speach Robert. It's a shame that the desisions being voted on don't bear any resemblence to what you are saying. I am recused from the case BTW so my "bloodlust" has nowt to do with it. I don't get a vote. But it's certainly true that had the evidence been presented differently. and people merely pointed to all the talk pages involved the outcome for you would have been the same. You have made numerous personal attacks and POV edits, no amount of ranting about how unfair everthing is will get around that. Whether the arbitrators have this pointed out to them, or go and find it out for themselves, the facts remain the same. Perhaps you should have taken heed to my and others warnings that continuing in this way would land you in hot water? Now that you are in it you don't like it. That's understandable, but it's too late now. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• That the decisions being voted on bear no resemblance to reality is an indictment of the bunch of clowns that comprise the ArbCom. Can you believe it that the village idiot Davis Gerard actually believes that the references that were deleted were relevant? Do you think the clown actually read anything at all? Gawd, where did they find him? Blood lust yes, I think when I arrived your juices were still flowing from your run in with Mr Natural Health ... so you just had to flex your puny little muscles once more. As one of the vexatious litigants yourself you are hardly able tell shit form Shinola ... so you just keep mouthing off the same repetitive crap over and over again in the desperate hope that a few obsequious sycophants will rally and say "you go Theresa ... you tell 'm pet". Ban me for a month, a year, for life ... nothing changes ... your ArbCom is still full of clowns and is a disgrace to Wikipedia. - Robert the Bruce 16:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I understand that there are problems any way you do it, and I don't think I was suggesting incoherent 100kb rants to become evidence. But there certainly is a tendency to show individual edits, rather than whole talk pages/edit histories which show the entire history of the dispute. So I'm not talking about the evidence page being full of lengthy discussions. In terms of the talk pages being long - well, yes. But if the arbcom can't bring itself to actually look through the histories of the disputes, it's hard to repsect that they're making a fair decision. The overwhelmingness of it shouldn't lead to just punishing people for personal attacks because those are easier to find. Perhaps some system where a small subcommittee of the arbcom (3 arbitrators?) is given the fact-finding responsibility for each case. They go through all the detritus of talk pages and edit histories, and issue a report (with proper citations) that would become the findings of fact. The whole committee could then vote on what to do. Or something like that. john k 17:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But a report with proper citations is exactly what Raul's requirements demands. What you are suggesting the Arbcom do is exactly what those presenting evidence should be doing. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 17:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, my point is that there should be some sense that the arbitrators themselves know what is going on, and have actually examined the case comprehensively, rather than relying on (presumably biased) intermediaries to do the work. Someone from the arbitration committee, at least, should actually have a comprehensive knowledge of what has been going on, rather than relying on summaries that usually aren't very good. In a case like the first CheeseDreams case, where the evidence should have included, for instance, the whole of the Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus page, as well as the entire history of that article (and of the talk page). Those of us complaining should just be able to say "check out the talk page and history." Otherwise, we are, again, left arguing tiny pieces - CD made a personal attack here, she did this there - little pieces where a link to an edit change is sufficient to show what is going on. But this doesn't give the arbcom any kind of holistic sense of what was going on on the page. If the evidence page were reduced to simple citations of talk pages and page histories, and some small subset of the arbitrators then went there and came to conclusions about what was going on, that would seem fairer. As it is, it seems as though arbitrators are being influenced by who is making the better case of presenting one-sided evidence on evidence pages. Especially since, in the midst of a content dispute, it is really easy to find people becoming angry and getting personal, which creates a false sense of equivalency. Some sort of holistic report by members of the arbcom (which would avoid the ranting absurdity that Raul is worried about) would allow for some judgment of the user's behavior as a whole, rather than simply punishing them for individual citations. john k 18:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Personally I use the evidence page as a starting point and then go off looking at the edits in detail including what happened before and after. I do read the talk pages in question and I'm pretty certain that the other arbitrators do to. I do hear what you are saying about people who are rubbish about presenting evidence though, and it does concern me that evidence might be missed if one side deliberately doesn't present it, and the other side is too useless to present it. The AMA can help a lot here. As for AC members going presenting a conclusion of what is going on. That's what the findings of fact are. Let me think on it a little. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey Theresa, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I didn't really doubt that arbitrators do actually read the pages in question, because, as I said, the judgments generally seem fair. The problem, in my view, is more a matter of transparency. The findings of fact, in particular, often seem deficient. While the actual judgments often clearly show that the arbitrators have a good sense of what is going on, and who is to blame, I also feel that the findings of fact often convey this very poorly, and usually try to fit behavior into narrow boxes like "violating NPOV" or "original research" or "personal attacks" when the real issue is a much broader problem respecting wikipedia standards. These narrow findings of fact then can cause the appearance of impropriety, because arbitrators are really voting remedies based on their broader understanding of what is going on, rather than what is actually represented in the findings of fact. I'm not sure what's to be done of this. john k 02:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John, part of the issue may be that we got grumpy with each other last year if the "findings of fact" presented anything but an actual fact. It's hard to describe a pattern of behavior in that manner -- it's easier to focus on "User X did Y on Z pages". Do you think "finding of fact" is being interpreted too literally? Another part of the issue is that some users seem very adamant that all ArbCom decisions are made strictly according to existing policies (which I understand and respect) -- existing policies are very much focused on "did User X do Y". The kind of holistic assessment of a user you describe is not something clearly supported by policy, even though I think it's obviously what the AC should be doing. The question here is a larger one, I think: will the community accept the AC simply explaining how it got to a judgment without tying every single step to a clearly defined policy? But that may be too big a question for this or any page. It'll certainly bring out all the perspectives. Jwrosenzweig 15:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Rosenweig you should listen to what the man says. He is questioning the process of arriving at the decision. It is clear that the verdict is predetermined and the findings are force fitted to suit. Further that is way you will not see a detailed opinion being published ... the headless chickens are incapable to such intellectual action ... merely (half) capable of going through the motions and offering a thumbs up or down. Do you think the "brains trust" will publish a detailed opinion as required by Arbitration policy in my case? Fat chance. - Robert the Bruce 17:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think the issue is it's pretty clear that the Arbcom is, at the moment, making holistic judgments that are not necessarily the result of violations of single policies. They then work backwards and justify it on the basis of narrow findings of fact. It should be one or the other. I'd prefer a more holistic judgment, but it seems wrong for the arbitrators to make a judgment on broad grounds, and then justify it on very narrow ones. john k 16:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Of course it is wrong and it is a joke. My issue started here with this gem from our assistant teacher "Would people check out this pricks edits please and state on his rfc if he is a simple vandal that can be blocked by any admin or a more usual POV pusher that needs to go to the AC." and it took the clowns 5 months to get their act together. The decision has long been made that I must be on my way that is why looking for a connection between the evidence and the findings would be fruitless. What you have in the current ArbCom are not very nice humans. The means justify the end. Pathetic really. - Robert the Bruce 17:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Once again, Robert, that's not at all true. If you read the rest of the thread, as I'm sure you have, you'll discover that every respondent--including Jimbo Wales, agreed with Theresa (though it was generally agreed that "prick" was perhaps not the best term). In other words, you were identified as a problem user less than a month after appearing on Wikipedia, and you've only become worse over the subsequent five months. Exploding Boy 23:16, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

But she called him a "prick" on the mailing list, and then later offered to mediate the dispute, which Bruce very rudely rejected. Why would she offer to be the mediator if she called him a "prick" earlier? OneGuy 04:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He does make one valid point though. It did take us 5 months to get our act together and ban him. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 02:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • Well, John, I disagree to some extent. In my experience (perhaps it has since changed), we did the findings of fact first, and then the judgments. I would say that what often happened is that, after the findings of fact (which tended to be narrow) were formulated, I would often review the evidence page in a more general manner, which often led to my considering consequences for which I had not clearly written a FoF (and perhaps it would be hard to do so in some cases). It's not the best or clearest method of reaching a decision, but it's not as backwards as the "make a judgment broadly, then construct narrow FoFs" conception you surmised. What, in your opinion, would a more holistic approach involve? If not FoFs, then what? If we keep an FoF structure, then how make those more broad without making them less "factual"?Jwrosenzweig 22:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It hasn't changed since you left. FOF's first then remedies. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 02:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, of course I wasn't presuming to actually say how you go about it, which obviously you know better than I. And I don't think I was actually saying that the remedies were written first, and then the FoF devised. But what is clear is that the remedies are based on much broader findings than the FoF. In terms of what to do, I'm not sure. I do think that some sense of directionality in the findings of personal attacks on the FoF is called for. It's much worse to respond to reasonable discussion with nastiness than it is to respond in kind to someone else's personal attacks (although both should obviously be discouraged). Furthermore, pretty clearly the main reason that people get judgments against them is because they demonstrate an unwillingness to conduct disputes rationally and cordially, and to work towards consensus. I think it's fair to say that this is the reason that most (but not all) arbitration comes about. But it doesn't seem like this very basic factor is actually brought up in the FoF. The fact that somebody inserts original research, or POV, into an article is not in itself enough to bring about arbitration, in itself. Because we have talk pages, most inserts of POV or original stuff can be handled there, either through discussion or through simply reverting (in cases of quasi-vandalistic acts of POV/original research insertion). The problem comes about when you get a user who is persistent. At the very least, this factor of persistency should come into play in the FoF, since this is (I think) a fairly important factor in how the arbcom makes it's decisions (correct me if I'm wrong, though). john k 05:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Urgent injunction request

Due to [2] where CheeseDreams stated that "I am suggesting to others how to do it" in answer to my question "Are you suggesting that you will vandalise Wikipedia on purpose?", and also in view of her adding increasingly bizarre ArbCom requests, I would request that she be forbidden from editing any page except her talk page and her ArbCom page. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't notice this until Feb 16th (sorry!), by which time she hadn't drowned us in spam. So it's probably not an urgent danger of the injunction sort (nor one the injuncted would listen to). Probably one to put on WP:AN as something to watch out for, though - David Gerard 00:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion: Parties notified section to be added to template

During the course of the recently closed Robert the Bruce case, it emerged that one person accused of being a sock puppet, Calton, only found out about the accusation by accident. He wasn't party to the dispute and was apparently picked out at random. Thus he was apparently unaware that the developers had been asked to perform a sock puppet check against his edits and those of Exploding Boy. As it turned out the accusation was false.

As a possible aid in this kind of case, I'd suggest that the dispute template be expanded to include a section in which the names of parties notified of the dispute are to be recorded. This would assist in the purely clerical task of notifying the parties--especially third parties whose names may be plucked at random by a party to the dispute and unknowingly come under investigation by ArbCom. Those who may be subject to censure should be made aware of the fact and be granted the opportunity, if they want to, to speak in their own defense. This would also apply in principle to Friends of Robert and Robert Brookes although the evidence of sock puppetry in those cases is in my opinion overwhelming. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:05, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It would be easy to do this. Just have a "Confirmation that procedures have been complied with" and require the person bringing the RfAr to provide a diff of where the user has been informed. This should be on the RfAr page and Arbitrators asked not to accept a case without it being completed.

Incidentally, I've just proposed something similar on a page suggesting changes to the RfC process, Wikipedia:Requests for comment (draft user conduct amendments), where I am proposing that RfC's no longer take a confrontational approach - see also Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment, jguk 12:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the onus in this case should be undertaken by the Arbitrators, because it is sensible for credible accusations to be investigated expeditiously and we don't want to give parties to the Arbitration a tool with which to hold up proceedings--which they could do by making a sock puppet (or other) accusation against a third party and then failing to notify them.

For instance in the Robert the Bruce case it was a finding of fact that Robert maintained a list of many third parties who he felt were anti-circumcision activists. Some of those named as activists were, on credible evidence, later subject to a warning to improve their editing habits, although they had made no complaint against Robert and could not all be presumed to be aware of the Arbitration case or the fact that their own editing was under scrutiny, or even that Robert regarded them as activists--in short, they were not presented with the same opportunity to submit evidence in their defense that others were. I think it would make arbitration better if this courtesy were to be undertaken by the Arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Arbitrators should certainly bear in mind who they are arbitrating on. Meanwhile, I have been bold and added a requirement that those making complaints prove they have notified the other parties by providing diffs, jguk 12:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Request for Clarification

Do the edits [3][4] count as "reverting articles relating to Ashlee Simpson" in violation of the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking? --Carnildo 09:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The parole is against reverting "articles related to Ashlee Simpson". As a matter of proper English construction that means that there needs to be a close relationship between the article topic and Ashlee Simpson. A mere mention of Simpson does not make an article "related" to Simpson. Just as a mention of, say, a trip by George W Bush to Europe would not make the George W Bush article Europe-related. If the ArbCom meant to say Everyking shouldn't revert material relating to Ashlee Simpson, then they should have come out and said it. But they didn't, they said reverting Ashlee Simpson-related articles - and the Community should, IMO, enforce what the ArbCom actually said, and nothing else, jguk 09:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. You're splitting hairs. The arbcom ruling is clear, and doesn't need to be minutely listing every single article that Everyking can and cannot edit. RickK 09:22, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Not nonsense: just a straightforward case of English construction. To be precise the Arbcom ruling was that Everyking is "...prohibited from reverting articles relating to Ashlee Simpson..." (my emphasis). If they had meant "material", they would have said it - especially as this just involves swapping one 8-letter word for another, rather than listing every single article that Everyking can and cannot revert (note again: it is "reverting" rather than "editing" that Everyking is banned from).

Whilst the ArbCom remedy is clearly restricted to "articles relating to Ashlee Simpson" and we shouldn't give this phrase a wider meaning than it does in everyday English, it is also clear that Everyking would be well-advised to think very carefully about reverting Ashlee Simpson material - perhaps even to the extent of not doing so, but leaving a message on the talk page to invite other readers to do so. The ArbCom noted that "Everyking, outside of edits concerning Ashlee Simpson, is generally considered by the community to be an excellent editor", and Everyking would do well to reflect on that, jguk 09:42, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the case of CheeseDreams, the admins rapidly decided that if she added Jesus-related content to an article, that made it into a Jesus-related article for the purposes of the injunction.

However, it seems this case is a bit ambiguous ... - David Gerard 12:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm asking for the ArbCom to clarify this. --Carnildo 09:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If someone could write up an exquisitely concise RFAr for clarification of this one point, that would be ideal.

(If anyone wonders why arbitration rulings increasingly read like legal texts, bristling with subclauses saying "AND NO YOU CAN'T DO THAT EITHER", this sort of thing might give you some idea.) - David Gerard 12:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A formal request for clarification has now been posted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Clarifications" - a rod for the ArbCom's own back

I'd like to advise the ArbCom that it may well prove unwise to offer a clarification of a specific remedy. This is only likely to open the floodgates for future "clarifications" where particular Wikipedians disagree with the remedy the ArbCom passes.

The remedy imposed on Everyking is easily understood - despite Carnildo's unnecessary obfuscation. Just because it doesn't go as far as Carnildo thinks it should, does not mean it should be revisited. The time for proposing rewordings/improvements to that remedy is over - it should be accepted, warts and all. Whether the ArbCom, if a revised wording was proposed to them at the time they decided the matter, would have preferred a revised wording, should be irrelevant.

If any clarification is required it should be along the lines that Wikipedians should enforce the ArbCom's remedies as written, not as they may wish them to be. Anything else will just be creating a rod for the ArbCom's own back, jguk 20:12, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that's good advice. However I would suggest that the Committee use the word "content" where it means content and "article" where it means article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Problem is, there's nothing I can do if I get unjustly blocked. So if somebody were to block me according to a wrongful interpretation of the ruling, well, I just have to deal with it. On previous occasions I've been blocked for edits that would not be considered reverts under any ordinary circumstances. Which doesn't seem quite right. Perhaps in the future rulings should be more clear and should allow less flexibility for admin "discretion". Everyking 20:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the ruling gave discretion to admins to decide for themselves what a revert was. I think this may have been an unnecessarily dangerous delegation of power to admins--someone could victimize you and think he was going to get away scot free (in practise this isn't true because ArbCom rulings are explictly not binding in precedent). I do think ArbCom should exercise extreme leniency when it comes to your application for removal of the parole, although at present I think you're pushing the envelope by reverting *anything* to do with Ashlee. If it needs to be done, leave a message on my talk page and I'll consider doing it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:19, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, why don't you weigh in on the question of whether or not the SNL incident is worth mentioning on the article October 24. I say it is far too great a level of granularity in an article which should list particularly significant events in world history (if it listed every event in world history of that level of significance, it probably would be incalcuably long). I have not reverted it in the last day or so, although I'm sorely tempted to. Everyking 21:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As you're all too aware, I am not interested in Ashlee Simpson so it would not pain me greatly if she was not mentioned at all in any encyclopedia in the world, except perhaps an encyclopedia devoted to pop and rock music. So on one hand I'm faced with the unfathomable obsession of those who placed the incident into that article, and on the other I'm faced with your willingness to test ArbCom's patience. Is one minor aspect of Wikipedia worth risking your formerly unimpeachable reputation as a Wikipedia editor and admin? A little bit of work on talk pages could work wonders, if you cause is really worthy of support. Don't hesitate to ask me, I'll perform a revert that you propose if I think it's the right thing to do. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My own view (and as I am recused this is not as an arbitrator) is that, by adding information relating to Ashlee, Everyking has made this one of the "articles relating to Ashlee Simpson". In similar cases (such as the "Christianity related" question) that would be my intent in the vote. But I agree it's not clear - so I think clarification is sensible. That said, I see your point about this opening floodgates and I think that it would be a good idea to do this in as simple a way as possible and to only accept requests for clarification if it's clear there is genuine confusion about the ruling.

It's important to realise that we are just a bunch of Wikipedia users who are doing what we can to make good decisions on behalf of the community - we are not legal experts with wonderful skills in writing perfectly unambiguous decisions. I think we will learn more and more about how to do so, but we need to know when the wording is not clear and to have the opportunity to clarify if needed -- sannse (talk) 21:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sannse, unfortunately your logic is false and is an unnatural extension of what the phrase "article relating to X" means. If I make a comment about George W Bush visiting Europe I do not make the George W Bush article an "article relating to Europe". Similarly adding a small amount of info about Ashlee Simpson to an article not otherwise about her does not make it an "article related to Ashlee Simpson". Under your logic, if Everyking makes a revert that is completely unrelated to Ashlee Simpson to an article that makes the smallest of references to her, he should be blocked. I do not agree with that logic. If the ArbCom means "material", or as Tony above suggests "content", rather than "article", they should say so in the original remedy that they pass, jguk 21:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The issue in these cases is the opposite: others are adding content which I feel should either be removed or summarized. So certainly I couldn't have made it an Ashlee article, if I didn't add it to begin with. Everyking 21:10, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, apologies if I've misunderstood the specifics on this - as I'm recused I'm not following it clearly enough to have a good opinion on this particular case. I perhaps should have said "by disputing Ashlee related content". But, this specific case is down to the arbitrators involved of course.

jguk, I agree that this is probably the strict meaning as the ruling is written now - my point is that we are not experts on writing totally unambiguous rulings and I'm not sure that this is the intent of the ruling. As I understand it, the intent was to get Everyking to stop edit warring about Ashlee. That's why I think this, and any other times when we are over ambiguous need clarifying. We should simply say "oh dear, that didn't come across how we meant, nothing we can do about it now". -- sannse (talk) 21:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I do think that it would be wise to recognise that you are now engaging in the kind of editing (showing a proprietorial attitude towards content related to Ashlee Simpson that annoyed many, many users, and got arbcom engaged in the first place. I do sincerely offer to act as your proxy for Ashlee-related topics where I can on the most generous interpretation (which I may not agree with) see the point of your wish to revert. Subject to my own customary self-imposed limitation of one revert per day.Thought better of this offer; it is not my intention to facilitate Everyking or aid and abet him in any way.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:32, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think it's important that the Arbitrators do not endorse anything other than a literal reading of their remedies - as, regrettably, some seem to be doing. This, IMO, is a very bad precedent to set.

It is also time for Everyking to look beyong the remedy itself, to ask himself why it was considered necessary in the first place. There is a clear message that his edits relating to Ashlee Simpson are not considered helpful by other Wikipedians. He would be well advised to voluntarily not make edits relating to her. Similarly, other Wikipedians, and in particular those with whom Everyking has been in dispute, should not continue to use EK's ArbCom case as a rod against him, jguk 19:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Everybody knows why it was necessary: there was a content dispute, it got heated, and I was in the minority, so I was the one to suffer. If people don't want me to edit, then I'll just leave. Everyking 19:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It was a bit more than that. We all find ourselves in a small minority in editing from time to time. We don't then try to stonewall all change that we don't agree with. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:51, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the specifics of this case, but I do have to say this: it's pretty clear what the arbcom means when it says not to edit/revert articles relating to X. Any sensible person would understand that to mean not to edit/revert any information in a Wikipedia article space concerning X. To interpret it otherwise goes beyond the splitting of hairs. It could be interpreted as a deliberate snub, or as further evidence of uncooperative behaviour. Just my 2 yen. Exploding Boy 21:08, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

I hope it is interpreted as a snub and as uncooperative behavior. I may have to suffer, but I don't have to like it. Everyking 21:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"determine policy"?

Accept mainly to determine policy on deleted content in userspace.

What is meant by determine? Does this mean "figure out what the policy is, if we have one"? Or does it mean "figure out if we have a policy, and set one if we don't"? I have looked hard and can't find any policy that explicitly or implicitly covers deleted content in user space, so I hope the Arbitration Committee isn't planning to create one. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 18:39, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I expect they're going to try to figure out whether the speedy deletion policy or the "your userspace is your own" tradition trumps. That is, the policies are clear on both sides. They're just contradictory in this instance. Snowspinner 00:31, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't sit too well with me either. ArbCom does not decide the disposition of articles on Wikipedia - it censures editors for unacceptable behavior. This case should only be accepted if the ArbCom believes any involved parties are acting unacceptably. This may include re-creating content against consensus or speedy deleting said content when others have indicated there is room for debate. -- Netoholic @ 00:54, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2. Security of accounts.

I have moved the following comment from the above page (note that the italicised para is included here for context and remains on the original page). Note that User:Faethon41 is probably a "public account" (I haven't yet checked) - see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Iasson#User:Faethon. Thryduulf 13:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am (still) a public account, but this does not mean that I am wrong or that I am right. IMHPO (in my humble public opinion), public accounts are closer to the spirit of Wikipedia, because they obliterate wikipedians' inflated ego (and especially admins or arbitrators inflated ego) ... As long as Wikipedia is a public encyclopedia, public accounts used to write articles are more close to its spirit. Public accounts are usefull for writing articles, but I am not very sure if they are also usefull for voting. Faethon41 15:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

===Security of accounts.===

6) Contributors are responsible for the security of their password. While accidental breaches are understandable and sometimes unavoidable, a contributor who deliberately releases their password should expect to be held responsible for any malicious edits made as a result.

Passed 8 to 0 at 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom is about to judge (based on existing policies), NOT about creating policies or legislate. Policies are created by community consensus, NOT by 8 persons that happens to be Arbitrators. The above decision of ArbCom is illegal. Thats why, both the arbitrators and the admins that support them should be punished. They abused the power that has been given to them, and they tried, against policy and community consensus, to legislate. Faethon41 09:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contradiction?

Wait a minute...how is the Sydney Hilton case being rejected as a "content dispute" when my case was accepted? Wasn't that also a content dispute? Everyking 16:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, your case wasn't a content dispute, although it arose as a result of a content dispute between you and a sizeable number of other editors. Arbcom found that you had edited aggressively and been blocked under WP:3RR as a result, and that you had engaged in edit warring and threatening to "revert you till doomsday" in your edit summaries. Although other people were involved in the same content dispute, they did not engage in such behavior and so they were not sanctioned.

See also m:MPOV. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My God, that "revert till doomsday" thing was a mistake. I said that at the very beginning of the dispute when I thought I was finished as a Wikipedian, and now it's forever held against me, as if it's somehow representative of my general attitude or behavior. It's total misrepresentation. After that initial burst of fury I never pursued that aggressive line again, yet to hear you tell it that's all I've ever done. How does one person edit war? I think everyone is pretty well aware that it didn't have anything to do with a user issue; it was an expedited solution to a content dispute to bypass the usual mechanisms of consensus and non-punitive dispute resolution, simply because some significant people in the community had gotten worked up about it and wanted it resolved in their own preferred way. Everyking 19:49, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"How does one person edit war?" You seemed to do a pretty good job of demonstrating. --Carnildo 20:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"editor x is limited to one (or less) non vandalism reverts a day"

Could arbcom stop doing this? It simply gives those who have the skill and knowage to game the 3RR a bigger incentive to do so.Geni 13:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I support arbcom rulings of this nature. Revert warring is juvenile and unproductive, regardless of provocation. — Matt Crypto 14:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ok you come up with a rock solid defintion of a complex revert. One that cannot be gamed. The only thing these types of ruleing seem to atchive is increase the rate a which people come up with ways of gameing the 3RR. While this may be of some acerdemic interest it's not something I really wish to find out this fastGeni 17:35, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I task you to come with a more effective way to curb POV-pushing. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:15, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

I concur. The arbcom has very rough, non-granular tools at our discretion. We can ban someone from a set of articles, but short of that, there's not a whole lot we can do. →Raul654 22:25, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Get them to disscuss/explain every edit on the talk page. This has the advantage that it is relitivly easy to inforce and at the very least gives a fair idea of what the editor is pretending to be doing. If you really feel the need to limit reverts then at least combien it with this. At the moment I am haveing to make descissions as top peoples motives on pratically zero infoGeni

One thing we've seen is that our more creatively antisocial editors will game anything they can to get around the obvious spirit of a decision. If they're willing to game the definition of "revert", I'm not sure this will have any effect on the editing, other than filling the talk page with noise - David Gerard 11:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since I contend that limiting reverts has zero effect in that area (it just prvents them from using very simple and very stupid forms of edit waring) that isn't really relivant. The people you see here for the most part have not broken the 3RR and despite that they have been able to engage in edit wars. What makes you think that limiting them to one revert is going to make any difference?Geni 08:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would partially support Geni here. Editwarring is tedious and destroys all fun related to Wikipedia. To make people explain their moves might have some limiting effect. This should not mean though that other restrictions on reverting/editing should not be usedRefdoc 09:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm highly tempted by "no article edits in affected areas at all, user may place their proposed changes on the talk pages then actually convince other editors to enact them." But then we'll just see sockpuppets with uncannily familiar editing styles - David Gerard 11:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

re:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:SchmuckyTheCat & User:Instantnood

At least at the moment, the comments from the arbitrators suggest that they might be leaning towards dismissing User:SchmuckyTheCat & User:Instantnood as a content dispute. Based on the comments and evidence that the participants have provided so far, I would probably be thinking the same thing. I feel, however, that the arbitrators should look deeper into the situation because I think that there are both behavioural and policy issues involved (along with some personal or personality conflicts to make matters worse). I want to emphasize that I think that there are problems with both side of this issue (It takes at least two to have an edit war.)

1. I think that the behaviour and comments from the participants on both sides have been pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable for the Wikipedia. (I would include those that certified the Instantnood RFC, and especially Huaiwei as a participant.)
2. There seems to be an ever-widening number of China-related articles, categories, and templates where this dispute is occurring (not to mention on various user's Talk pages).
3. Neither side seems to be interested in compromise or Wikipedia:consensus, and insists that their view is NPOV.
4. Despite the recent Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Instantnood where the comments seems mostly in Instantnood's favour, SchmuckyTheCat has decided to file this RFAR without first trying mediation. Although I doubt that either side would agree to it, mediation is probably what this case really needs.
5. Since part of this dispute involves a debate about Wikipedia policy (specifically Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)), I find it hard not to think that this might be an attempt to intimidate or silence one of the more passionate persons in that discussion.

If I may be bold, I would like to make some suggestions for the arbitrators:

1. Strongly recommend that both sides get some help from an Advocate or someone else familiar with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedures to help with their comments and evidence.
2. Strongly suggest that both sides consider mediation (with an implied or even stated threat that the Arbitrators will look very closely at everybody's actions if they have to seriously consider this RFAR).
3. Limit everyone involved to one revert/article/day for any article that has even the remotest connection to China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau, Singapore, etc. (e.g. 99 Ranch Market).
4. Because there are articles where neither side looks good, both sides may not present any evidence from those articles. The Arbitrators might think about asking one or two respected Wikipedians to act as provide an outside view, or even act as independent investigators, in this case

AsylumInmate 08:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

spades and their names

discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 17:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Coolcat @ ArbCom

If the Request for Arbitration concerning User:Coolcat is accepted, it is my intent to provide evidence concerning his edits to articles and his conduct on talk pages. — Davenbelle 21:29, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. Do not threaten people, just do it, provide how horrible I am and let them decide. Cat ^chi? 23:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat/Evidence

— Davenbelle 07:09, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

RfAr:Instantnood

The RfAr against Instantnood is now joined by jguk. What's preventing this from moving forward? SchmuckyTheCat 15:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I spoke to Grunt on IRC to see why they have not taken the case. He has since amended his comment on the Arbitration request. I think you need to express what the problem is using fewer words. IE We shouldn't be trying to throw the book at him now, but just express quickly what the problem is (illustrated by a select few, rather than all possible, diffs) and what we want done about it, jguk 16:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am astonished when I ran into this arbitration request Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:Instantnood where the advocates of Instantnood suggest using the arbitrartion to determine the outcome of this debate, based on the belief that the Chinese naming convention is the gold standard of NPOV policy. Since the arbitration result potentially would have a grave impact on the result of the voting, I think I'd better submit my opinion before it is too late. I thought about posting in the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC, but I think it may be better to be posted here since it involves some of my comments on Instantood's proposal being discussed in the arbitration.

The advocate stated : "the NPOV China Naming convention should trump the Common Names Naming convention and therefore Instantnood's proposed changes should go forward." The advocate futher suggest that the today's debate is "a policy issue and not a content issue" and thus any arguement against Instantnood's proposal should be trumped by NPOV China Naming convention.

Even though I believe in the NPOV policy of the Wikipedia as well, I would like to urge the Wikipedia arbitrators and also Instantnood's advocates to interpret the past voting result in an different point of view.

The fact is that these votes are both content and NPOV policy debates. As one can see from the voting result above, there are as many people who holds the POV that "Taiwan" could be used as the term refering to the government/polity located on Taiwan island as the number of people who hold the POV in the same way as the naming convention defines. The current naming convention deliberatedly choosed one POV and rejected the other and thus should be regarded as insufficient on neutrality.

The discrepancy between the past repetitive voting results and the current naming convention is a strong evidence indicating the desparte NEUTRALITY insufficiency of the current Chinese NPOV naming convention. The conflict is created because the convention ignored the another widely held POV. As the participants of the past debates, I have no remedy as to how to improve the current convention. However, I believe people should start to think of a way to include the currently rejected POV, so that the convention could be improved and reach a better neutral point.

Moreover, the convention only provided a guideline so that people do not have to vote on each individual articles. However, the generality nature of the convention lacks the specificity as to how the convention result to be adjusted and modified in each individual article. If anyone asks me, I would think votes on each individual articles are more precisely tailored for implementing the NPOV policy. I believe that these past votes are polls on opinion specific on these voted articles and therefore should be upheld/respected and trump one indiviual's interpretation of the convention.

Contrary to the Instantnood's advocates assertion, I believe the Wikipedia NPOV policy should trump the Chinese Naming convention. Given sufficient discussion and also the fact that most participants are conscious of both the NPOV policy and the Chinese naming convention, Instantnood should have the faith in other participant's neutrality position and respect the result of a collective interpretation. His repetitive voting on the same group of articles on Taiwan has proven to be futile in changing the outcome and only wastes people'e time and energy, thus should be avoided. I have also initiated a discussion Double Jeopardy on votes to see if any policy could be derived from this discussion to curtail frivolous votes in the future. Finally, I wish the result of the arbitration would avoid affecting the result of NPOVing since NPOV is always reached by including different POVs, not arbitrate between POVs.--Mababa 04:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let me revoke my previous comment in this regard, since it was not the key. The key is: I found repetitive voting behavior targeting on Taiwan related articles without a consensus support and irrespectful toward the previous voting result is not only unwarranted, disrupting but also disturbing.--Mababa 00:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clarification again

Does the ruling against me apply to vandalism? The last ruling specifically allowed me to revert simple vandalism. Also, is the ruling meant to bar me from making minor fixes that have no impact on the factual content, just as correcting typos and changing formatting slightly? Snowspinner has made it clear that he will block me unconditionally for any edit, and that if I was to persist in reverting vandalism he would request that I be permanently banned from Wikipedia, so I'd like to have this clarified. Everyking 05:46, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No edit means no edit. I strongly doubt that anyone would mind if you did remove serious vandalism, however (not that the articles get much of this). Ambi 07:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ashlee Simpson gets lots of vandalism. And Snowspinner has said he will block me for 24 hours unconditionally. Does the ArbCom want to favor vandals over those who revert them? Everyking 07:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are far from the only one with the Ashlee Simpson set of articles on their watchlist. --Carnildo 07:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So if I spot vandalism, and I can't revert it, so it stays for 30 minutes until you see it, that's OK? What if somebody comes to read the article during that intervening time? Everyking 07:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then if they spot the vandalism, they can fix it. --Carnildo 07:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What? Maybe they can, if they know how to revert, but otherwise they won't. And not all vandalism is blatantly obvious, anyway. Everyking 08:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've just had quick look at the history list for the last 50 edits to Ashlee Simpson. I counted 12 different users, excluding Everyking and anyone whose edits were noted in the edit summary as being reverted for any reason. That is more than enough to spot and revert any vandalism, indeed several of the edits are showing people are doing just that. I also restate the offer I made to you earlier in this case. Thryduulf 08:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't get hung up about it EK. Particularly as I'm sure the main reason the Ashlee Simpson articles get vandalised is because vandals are goading you, knowing they will always get a response. It's unfortunate that some people choose to goad you, but it's something you're going to have to accept. As other users note, there are plenty of people who will get rid of any vandalism to these articles, there is no need for it to be EK that does the reverting - and if that means vandalism goes unnoticed for an extra 20 or so minutes, I can't say I'm overly concerned. Kind regards, jguk 08:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we're kinda missing the point here: why should I not be allowed to revert vandalism? What is the practical reason for that? Wikipedia can only be harmed and not helped by that restriction, by anyone's standards. Since the last ruling included a vandalism provision, it's perfectly reasonable for me to think the same provision might be included this time. Everyking 08:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because in the main the vandalism is there to goad and get a reaction out of you:) All the best, jguk 08:42, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're saying that established users are editing anonymously to vandalize the article? Everyking 08:46, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Will I get a clarification eventually? I suppose there are two separate points: May I revert simple vandalism? And may I make minor edits such as typo fixes that do not have an effect on the basic content? Everyking 18:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have you considered listing this in the requests for clarification section on the main RFAr page? Snowspinner 18:58, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't actually know such a thing existed. Everyking 19:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)