Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:14, 1 December 2007

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area		6 November 2024	0/2/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al	none	(orig. case)	7 November 2024
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee	none	none	7 November 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Matthew Hoffman

Initiated by Charles Matthews at 08:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

MatthewHoffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), alternate Adam Cuerden 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Chaser (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Charles Matthews (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiating)
Carcharoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
GRBerry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I have informed all the parties. Charles Matthews 09:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The thread "Matthew Hoffman" at WP:AN/I (archived Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive333#MatthewHoffman) saw an extended discussion and the block on User:MatthewHoffman itself lifted; but left deadlock, with User:Adam Cuerden and User:Moreschi on one side, User:Carcharoth, User:GRBerry, User:Charles Matthews and User:Rodhullandemu on the other.

Statement by Charles Matthews

I'm asking for a review of admin actions in the matter of the indefinite blocking of User:MatthewHoffman; the indef block has been lifted, but the matter is still contested after serious discussion, and there are wider issues, such as the biting of newcomers of unpopular views. I feel that the ArbCom should look at each admin who validated the block: User:Adam Cuerden, who made the block; User:Moreschi and User:Jehochman who participated in an ad hoc discussion (archived) in which it was "decided" that a short block, itself suspect in my view, should be made indefinite with an allegation of sockpuppetry; and User:Chaser, who turned down the appeal of the block. I believe it is important to know to what extent such decisions have become endemic, as a workaround of the gathering of hard evidence confirming sockpuppetry.

In particular I'm calling for User:Adam Cuerden to lose his sysop powers. He admits no fault here. I cannot see how it is acceptable to summarise a user in the block log, which is an indelible record, as a "vandalism-only account", when it is no such thing. (He has said in an election statement: "I'm not advocating off-the-bat banning newbies, unless they're vandalism-only accounts or obvious sockpuppets." What these phrases actually mean, and who gets to say that, is at the heart of the case I'm proposing.) It seems plain to me that his actions were in fact affected by the opinions being expressed by User:MatthewHoffman; his comments placed on User talk:MatthewHoffman are contested for accuracy by other admins. If for no other reason, the AC should take this case to clarify the issue that has developed, between admins, of the rival versions; if Adam has been maligned, that should be cleared up. I hope that a case of wider scope will be accepted, to let us all see what has been going on, with the admins who think that the sockpuppet allegation was perfectly fine under scrutiny but able to put their side in evidence.

I was unable to engage User:Adam Cuerden in any private discussion of the block. There is essentially no meeting of minds on the central issues. With Adam saying he is being 'goaded' or 'bullied', I don't see that this discussion can be taken forward in the way it was first raised at WP:AN/I. He asked in the AN/I discussion "Why should we add a pointless layer of bureaucracy between the people monitoring the pages and actually dealing with problems?". This seems to attack the whole idea that admin actions are subject to review. And I note that even the ArbCom itself cannot hand down an indef block, so I'm certainly troubled by three admins doing it so quickly. Charles Matthews 08:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add comment to User:Moreschi's evidence. We want users to read our documentation. Accusing those of them who do of being reincarnations would tend to discourage that. Charles Matthews 11:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add comment to User:Future Perfect at Sunrise: I believe the same admins would act the same way tomorrow, if this case were not brought. The "escalation", as you call it, is because of the gulf between policy and their actions. As for unblocking myself, WP:BLOCK is quite clear: Administrators should not unblock users blocked by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. Adam made this impossible; in particular by not responding on his User talk. Charles Matthews 13:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add comment to User:Adam Cuerden: I don't see what "named user" or identification was ever brought up in this matter; diff please. Also, can you show me where you asked anyone to take over this block? You did say you'd unblock yourself, putting the user on a "short leash" and "probation". I think your response shows why a case is necessary. Your email quote shows you refusing to discuss the matter privately, so the consequences are really on your shoulders. Charles Matthews 14:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, engage brain before typing. This works in the real world, too. Charles Matthews 14:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moreschi

In all honesty I have no clue what's really going on here, but a user that, on his first edit, posts on a talk page discussing the concept of NPOV (using the acronym) with a full edit summary, and on his second edit starts a revert-war with a particularly biased and controversial edit using particularly - unbelievably - sophisticated wikimarkup? Then goes on to revert-war (and note the jargon of "reliable secondary sources" used already) despite 3 different users reverting him? How many newbies manage all of this in their first 5/6 edits? Quack quack, anyone? Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might, of course, be a perfectly legitimate alternate account. But one that gets blocked in under 10 edits for 3RR vio? I can't think of another genuine newbie that's done that, nor an innocent alternate account. The use of sockpuppet accounts is discouraged, particularly if you're going to create trouble with them in this manner. The ArbCom is not here to stamp upon common sense. Please reject. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carcharoth

The matter of the particular case at hand (the conduct of User:MatthewHoffman at Talk:Irreducible complexity and the subsequent blocks and allegations in the block logs by User:Adam Cuerden and the handling of the unblock requests and the various discussions) should be fairly simple to handle, with the deadlock being broken decisively one way or the other with a more extensive review.

Like Charles, though, I think there are wider issues that need examining, in particular the practice of jumping straight to an indefinite block, or extending a short block to indefinite, after a short review among a few admins (wider discussion is really needed in those cases - an ANI thread can sometime be missed or passed over - and the discussion should be logged and linked from the user's talk page). There is also a practice of handing out indefinite blocks to so-called "single-purpose accounts", often labelled as "trolls" or "disruptive". Some of these accounts are merely new (new accounts often look like single-purpose accounts), and people's definitions of trolling and disruption (and the extent to which "second chances" are given) vary widely. In my view, escalating blocks of a definite length are preferable to indefinite blocks - as Charles points out, even the Arbitration Committee does not hand down indefinite blocks.

In my view, an indefinite block should be a temporary block to allow further discussion to take place before deciding on what should be done. At the moment, contesting an indefinite block is difficult if the blocking admin stonewalls and refuses to unblock or make it a block of a definite length. In contrast, if you disagree with a block of a definite length, it is possible to suggest shortening it or waiting for it to expire and noting your concerns on the talk page of the user concerned. What I would like to see emerge from this is a recommendation that when blocks of an indefinite length are contested, that a review should be started with the following possible outcomes in mind.

The outcome of the review should be either: (a) unblock if another admin is willing to take responsibility for the unblock and notes this in the unblock log (the blocking admin should assume good faith and gracefully pass over responsibility for the block); (b) turn the indefinite block into a block of an agreed definite length (and trust later admins to act appropriately if the behaviour resumes after the block expires); (c) based on previous blocks and behaviour, propose turning the indefinite block into a community ban or seek ArbCom sanctions if the case is serious but still unclear or heavily contested. In all cases, the discussion should be logged and a link provided in the block log or on the user's talk page. What is not acceptable is to leave an indefinite block in place when other admins disagree with it.

There is a principle that an uncontested indefinite block is a de facto community ban, with the rule "if no other admin can be found to unblock". However, this can conflict with the understandable reluctance of some admins to undo another admin's actions. If they discuss with the blocking admin, deadlock is reached if the blocking admin refuses to unblock or turn the indefinite block into a definite block. In other words, I think in cases independently contested by other admins, indefinite blocks should only be a temporary solution, and should always be turned into something else more amenable to review. Carcharoth 10:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Moreschi: some people lurk before getting involved, and some people take to Wikipedia like a duck to water. Accusing such people of being sockpuppets without evidence of who they are a sockpuppet of, and/or with checkuser requests, is severe biting of a possibly new editor. Please undertake an extensive review of the habits of new accounts before coming up with blanket statements based on your personal experiences of new accounts (not just the ones you mentally label as sockpuppets). If we are going to get into discussion of common habits, how common is it for sockpuppet accounts to be registered under a real name, and how common is it for sockpuppets to e-mail an arbitrator asking for a review of their block? Carcharoth 11:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Fut.Perf.

I don't know why this had to escalate to Arbcom. I agree this was a mistaken block (I too find Moreschi's assessment unconvincing), but it was not a bad block in terms of the processes, criteria and authorities applied.

What happened? A person was blocked after an open notice board discussion led several adminstrators to believe he was a disruptive POV-pushing sock. He sought redress, and another adminstrator found the evidence wanting. So he was unblocked. That's how it should be. In the process, an e-mail got misplaced. (I know my own e-mail client often marks Wikipedia mails as "junk", so I can imagine how that could happen without any fault of the recipient.) Should that have been a problem? No. Finding that Adam failed to respond to Charles' inquiry, Charles could perfectly well have just gone ahead and initiated another ANI discussion or even unblocked unilaterally. That way, the user could have been unblocked much faster. There was no need to draw this out for over a month.

That said, what about the wider policy issue? Should administrators feel entitled to ban people they determine to be disruptive POV-pushing socks, after brief discussions on ANI? Absolutely yes. We need more bans, not less of them. We need more boldness in admins enforcing policy, not less of it. We need less tolerance for POV-pushers, not more of it. We need quick, decisive ways of getting rid of disruptive accounts. It makes no sense for the committee to hand out blanket authorities for administrators to make such judgment calls in an ever-growing archipelago of individual conflict areas (Eastern Europe, Armenia, Balkans, what next?), but then sanction admins who are bold enough to take comparable action in other areas that are just as notoriously contentious but just happen not to have gone through the Arbcom process yet. We need admins to be bold in making such decisions. Mistakes will be made, but they can be redressed.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Thatcher's statement below: "POV pushing by itself has never been grounds for banning" - Yes, that's the sad thing. It should be. It must be, if we are to take our own ideals and policies seriously. POV-pushing is the root of all evil; edit-warring and incivility are only superficial symptoms of it. The Arbcom has traditionally been far too soft on this issue; this needs to change. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thatcher131

I guess I'm just old-fashioned, but I thought that when new, strongly opinionated editors showed up, we were supposed to talk to them nicely, explain our policies and standards of behavior, and so on. Even a 24 hour block for one's first 3RR violation used to be unusual; 8 hours was more typical. And POV pushing by itself has never been grounds for banning. Arbcom has gone to great lengths in the Aremina-Azerbaijani, Irish Troubles, Dalmatia, and Macedonia cases to enable admins to place disruptive editors on 1RR per week parole, but it has certainly banned very few editors, and only then after persistent long-term disruptive editing. An indefinite block for 7 mainspace edits is really uncalled for, unless there is really good evidence that the account is not merely aggressive and biased, but the return of a specific banned user. "This user is making the exact same contentious edits as X and checkuser shows a possible connection" is one thing; "This user is pushing a POV and used edit summaries from his first edit" should not be grounds for indefinite blocking.

Statement by Adam Cuerden

This was, perhaps, the worst new user I've seen. He was giving lengthy rants, with some signs of attacking others, and being highly disruptive, as well as acting very strangely. A short block seemed in order to give him time to calm down. Upon it being said he was probably a sock of a named user, with no opposition to this identification at the time, it was upped to indef. If that was wrong, and he was not a sock, it's a pity, but it seems to have been resolved through proper processes, and there was no need for Charles Matthews to bully me because I didn't have time to review the case, had very little memory of it, and told him I was happy for him to take it over by bringing it up on WP:ANI. Instead, he bullied me and attacked me repeatedly, and turned someone willing to help into a stressed-out person on the defense. Frankly, if this is what he considers appropriate behaviour for a member of ArbCom, it makes my candidacy all the more important. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Charles Matthews: I see the user wasn't, in fact named, for which I apologise, I still haven't had time to really look this over, and, frankly, am unlikely to have the time until after exams. You know, those things that actually matter to my future life? However, from my e-mail to you: "Ah, yes. Hmm. Bring it up on the Administrator's Noticeboard. I'm not opposed to an unblock if that's the consensus, but don't want to do it without discussion." Your response was to say that was not good enough, and so force me to deal with something I barely remembered as best I could. I put it up on the ANI, and was promptly met with you attacking me over it, saying "It seems clear that Adam, by refusing to discuss the block with me privately, feels that the buck doesn't stop with him, but here." Yes, that's surely the right response to an administrator attempting to deal with a two-month-old block that he cannot really remember. I was bullied into dealing with the unblock as best I could at the time, and so made a lot of mistakes. I hardly think these mistakes are as significant as the bullying that led to them.Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

I said:

Thank you. There's no need to give multiple chances when the editor is an (abuse|spam|coi)-only account. That's been written into WP:BLOCK: "Accounts used primarily for disruption are blocked indefinitely."¹

That quotation from WP:BLOCK was written by me six months ago.[1] Nobody has felt the need to change it since then. My comment was motivated by the desire to inform people of what policy said.

That is the sum total of my involvement in this matter. Otherwise, I have no idea what is going on here. Nobody has spoken to me before about this dispute, so I find it odd to be summoned for making a short, sensible comment based on policy, in my capacity as an ordinary editor. Notice that no other admins joined the thread at ANI. Lots of people monitor that page, and none of them felt the need to comment further. I think an Arbcom member starting process against an Arbcom candidate over a disagreement like this one creates an appearance of attempting to influence the election. As the user has already been unblocked, what point does this case serve other than to attack the reputation of Adam Cuerden? - Jehochman ^Talk 15:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing to clarify. I wasn't an administrator when I made my single comment. [2] My RfA. That was just an ordinary user comment, not an administrator opinion. I believe Charles Matthews statement gives the wrong impression, and I recommend that he clarify. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Charles and Adam should do. Wikipedia is not a battleground. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRBerry

I think the committee should take the case to clarify existing policies. My gut sense is that there is a pattern far wider than this specific block or the named admins. Had this pattern matching algorithm been applied to me at the beginning of my editing; I might well have been blocked. Fortunately, I didn't start on a contentious - or even existing - page. It is pretty darn easy to have a first edit be decent, albeit imperfect. (That one lacks sourcing, etc...) Here is my sixth edit. Already at AFD, already understanding the basics. For an adult who takes the time to read documentation and look at examples of article text, it is trivial to understand what Wikipedia is and how it works before contributing. GRBerry 16:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

futurebird 19:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[3] Dbachmann
Ramdrake 15:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also let the other users who were involved in the RfC know.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

[4] here he refuses a scheme aimed at resolving edit-warring on the Afrocentrism page.
[5] here he is being warned his comments have been taken off the page for being uncivil.

An RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann 3 Multiple parties cited evidence of lack of civility and abuse of power.
He is asked to apologize,[6] but responds in a way that JJJamal felt was dismissive.(see: [7])
He is asked to participate in WP:CEM, but refuses.[8]

Statement by futurebird

Dbachmann has been condescending to me and to other users: [9], [10], [11], During a talk page argument at Afrocentricity over material Dbachmann deteled from the article, Dbachmann posted a link to a nearly two year old case on deeceevoice in order to "shame" her. Later Dbachmann openly asked another admin to look in to a block for him. (see: [12], [13]) He said that he could not do it himself because of his own incivility. Although he did not use his admin powers directly, he used his influence as an admin, his long standing membership in the community, and his reputation for making many positive contributions to take out his anger on another user. The user was initially blocked for a year for actions that are at worst on par with Dbachmann's actions and, in the opinion of a fair number of users, not even as egregious. (the block was first reduced, then lifted. since so many users objected) I am concerned about what appears to be an unfair double standard as well as Dbachmann's unwillingness to engage in any form of mediation to help bring this matter to a healthy close.

Response to Debachmann

A few questions since you do not understand what the problem is.

Do you think deeceevoice was blocked fairly?
Do you take any responsibility for her being blocked?
Is there anything that you might have done differently when editing the Afrocentricity article, or do you think you will continue to do such things in the future? futurebird 19:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is a request for arbitration. If you want my opinion on deeceevoice or any other topic, pray come to my talkpage. dab (𒁳) 19:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't respond to this in the RfC. I think we need outside help here at this point. futurebird 19:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

responsibility for the block lies with the blocking admin. As an involved party, I obviously was in no position to block her, but if I had been uninvolved, I might hypothetically have considered blocking her under her probation clause, yes. The Afrocentrism article needs more no-nonsense admin intervention enforcing strict adherence to policy, viz., less drama, more focus on encyclopedic content. Personally, I do not plan to invest much further effort in the article. dab (𒁳) 20:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dbachmann

I have been notified of this. Beyond violation of Wikipedia:Mild condescension, I find it difficult to understand what I am accused of. See User_talk:Dbachmann#WP:CEM for my (patient, civil, but mildly annoyed) replies to futurebird's complaints. I am not aware of any complaints regarding "abuse of power". On the RfC page, we can read futurebird arguing that

"although he did not use his admin powers directly, he used his influence as an admin, his long standing membership in the community, and his reputation for making many positive contributions to take out his anger on another user. That is abuse of power." [the "other user" being User:Deeceevoice ]

well, this is my understanding of Wikipedia as a meritocracy. I am being accused of being a veteran editor in excellent standing, then, and, indirectly, of the fact that Deeceevoice's standing isn't all that excellent? That's a rather astounding feat of rhetorics then... According to this line of argument, we should conclude that we should offer positive discrimination to slashdot trolls, because, hey, their reputation as trolls gives them considerable disadvantage in getting their voice heard on Wikipedia. If the arbcom decides to consider this case, I would like to include Bakasuprman (talk · contribs) as a party, who took the opportunity of the RfC under discussion to continue his year-old (actually, biannarian) campaign of harassment against me. I do not feel I simply have to silently accept protracted campaigns of character assassination. If I have not protested against this harassment before, that is because I did never think it worth the effort. dab (𒁳) 19:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never net Bakasuprman untill the RfC, I don't know why it would be a problem to inculde him, though I fear it may muddy the waters. (ie. I don't object, but I do wonder if that matter should not be treated separately? I leave it to arbcom members to make the choice) futurebird 20:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note you endorsed his muddying the waters with his undead 2005 harassment campaign as long as it seemed to make me look bad. Whatever serves your cause, eh? dab (𒁳) 20:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about that, Dbachmann, I just found that old first comment he linked to so offensive that it was hard not to respond. I did even at the time note that I thought it was a rather old comment to bring up. I suppose I felt it was "fair" because of the way that you brought up deeceevoice's old arbcom case. But you are right: it was wrong of me to get caught up in a game of tit-for-tat over old comments. In fact, that is why, when I asked you to try mediation with me, I said that I didn't want to talk about things you said way back in 2005. What concerns me are these recent events. futurebird 20:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Folantin

I will add more later if necessary, but I think this case should be thrown out as a waste of time. I would certainly like to note that Futurebird's statement at the top of this RfAr is false: "I also let the other users who were involved in the RfC know." I was involved in the RfC and I have not been informed. The users Futurebird has informed all seem to share a similar point of view to hers. --Folantin 20:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry. I didn't know I was meant to do everyone on the page, I used the list at the top and added JJJamal becuase I mentioned him. Crap. I really didn't mean to do that I'll inform everyone else right now. I've never done this before. futurebird 20:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, explanation accepted. This isn't an issue any more and Arb should ignore it. I still think this case is a waste of everybody's time but if it does go ahead and incivility and other policy violations are to be investigated then I think User:Deeceevoice should come in for some scrutiny, especially in the light of this ANI discussion from mid-November [14] (very top of page) which strangely ended in no sanction against her whatsoever. She has a long-term history of disruption, but seems to have been extended unlimited credit to accuse other editors of racism and fascism at will and generally act rancorously. Her understanding of WP:SOAPBOX is probably pretty rickety too. As for the other commenters at the RfC, I second Moreschi's suggestion regarding Bakaman. The mysterious single purpose account User:Xyzisequation was indefinitely banned half way through the RfC for harrassment, but it might be interesting to run a "check user" on that one. --Folantin 09:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise I have little or nothing to add to the statement I made at the RfC, especially the comments "Dbachmann is merely trying to enforce Wikipedia's core policies. After all, we're supposed to be creating an encyclopaedia here" and "More admins should be following dab's example, then perhaps he wouldn't get so frustrated" - with the proviso that I believe this case has little to do with Dab's role as an admin. Unfortunately, instead of applying policy with the aim of helping build an encyclopaedia - as Dab does - it seems all too many admins have got time to waste on farcical matters like this ANI fracas[15] over the humorous essay Wikipedia:Classification_of_administrators_by_name. Under such circumstances, I don't think we can afford even considering desysopping Dbachmann. --Folantin 11:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moreschi

Any suggestion that Dbachmann has abused his sysop bit is a ludicrous falsehood. Check his logs, he doesn't use the bit (in terms of blocks, protects, deletes) enough to abuse it. Other matters apart, of which I will say more later, this is not a question of admin abuse. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one idea, though - accept the case, relabel it from Dbachmann to Bakasuprman, whose comments at the RFC were appalling, and ban Baka as a disruptive editor. I, and other admins, will be delighted to provide plentiful evidence of time-wasting on Bakasuprman's part. Is this an option, or do I have to file a separate Bakasuprman case myself? Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second this idea. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Warlordjohncarter

I also was involved in the RfC but did not receive any notice. I ascribe this to the fact that Futurebird has stated that she was not sure exactly how to file an ArbCom case, not necessarily to any malicious intent. I also agree that I have seen no evidence whatsoever that Dbachmann has abused any admin powers. The sole basis for this request, so far as I can tell, is the question of Dbachmann's civility toward some other users. Dbachmann himself has pointed out that lack of civility is not limited to just him in many of these discussions, and, if this case is to proceed, I believe that the actions of several other people involved, probably including myself, although I really hope I haven't done anything to demand censure, would be within the scope of this request. However, as a purely personal judgement, I am not at all sure myself that the actions of Dbachmann necessarily are such that they rise to the level of ArbCom review. But, luckily for me, it's not my call, it's the call of the members of the committee, who I thank for responding to this and all the other matters brought before them. John Carter 20:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fullstop

As I noted on the RFC, dbachmann's behaviour may not always be exemplary, but there is nothing in it that is fundamentally detrimental to WP.

Nor is there anything in his actions that warrants treatment as an arbitration case. All but one of the points raised in this RFAR have significant deficits:

"he refuses a scheme aimed at resolving edit-warring" is not correct. What dbachmann is here (which is, to better demonstrate context, one paragraph earlier than the link provided by futurebird) refusing to do is accept Wikidudeman's stipulation to unprotect only if everyone agrees to 1RR. What dbachmann however insists on is that policy be enforced, and that edit warring should cease on that basis. This is a matter of talking past each other: Wikidudeman's immediate concern was unprotection, but dab was thinking one step further.
"openly asked another admin to look in to a block for him" is also not correct. The link provided shows dbachmann asking another admin to "try [his] hand at Afrocentrism too." Nothing more.
"He is asked to participate in WP:CEM, but refuses" is also not correct. What dbachmann really said was (paraphrasing for terseness) If futurebird has issues then bring them to him and he will reply, and that his replies would be identical regardless of whether the issues were communicated directly or via a mediator.
The other points (of all but one) are speculative and without diffs to support them.

The remaining issue relates to WP:CIVIL, and here I find that dbachmann does indeed sometimes overstep the boundaries of proper behavior. But as I noted on the RfC, this is neither typical for him, nor would it be realistic to expect him to always be the perfect angel. Dbachmann is one of the few tough guys we have on the good side. If the occasional burst of incivility is the price to pay for it, then its a very low price. As Folantin put it: "More admins should be following dab's example, then perhaps he wouldn't get so frustrated."

If this matter remains between futurebird and dbachmann, then perhaps it would be better if futurebird and dbachmann had a little fireside chat between them before proceeding for arbitration. dbachmann has more than once said that he will talk to anyone who is willing to talk to him. One occasion of him doing so is #6 above, linked to by futurebird as an indication of "refusal" to go to mediation.

I would also like to note that although I endorsed Folantin's comment on the RFC, I got a notice of this RFAR from futurbird anyway. As such, its not fair to suggest that futurebird only notified those people who agreed with his position.

-- Fullstop 23:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Futurebird did acknowledge above that she made a mistake, and that she would subsequently contact everyone else involved in the RfC who she hadn't previously notified. On this basis, I believe that her earlier failure to do so can and should be ascribed only as not knowing the precise rules here, not to any attempt to stack the outcome. Officially, I was never notified, but my obvious early awareness of the events here was seemingly reason enough to assume I wouldn't need to be. John Carter 23:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved) Priyanath

As one of many Wikipedia editors who have been on the receiving end of Dbachmann’s name-calling and incivility, I have much sympathy for Futurebird. Dbachmann’s attitude is habitual, and is surprisingly supported by other long-time editors and admins. My concern is not just Dbachmann, but the growing number of long-time editors or admins who seem to think that WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA do not apply to them. There does seem to be some sort of ‘meritocracy’ (Dbachmann's term) in which violations of long-time core policies are ok when certain editors claim to be defending the homeland (Wikipedia) - even though many innocent, good-faith editors are attacked. Other recent cases of uncivil or over-reaching admins coming before ArbCom seem to indicate that this approach is becoming institutionalized. I don’t plan on being involved if this case is accepted, but I would like to see ArbCom and the community give some clarity on the broader issue – do longtime admins have more leeway in violating WP’s most core policies? If so, what do we do about the growing number of editors who seem to be getting the idea that rude comments and incivility are the way things are now done on Wikipedia? –priyanath talk 00:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support this comment. futurebird 00:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fowler&fowler

This is a waste of everyone's time, not least futurebird's, who, to her/his credit, has contributed more in a handful of edits to the article Cauchy's integral formula than she/he can ever hope to in the thousands of words of this arbitration. As for the issue itself, I can only restate what I said in the RfC:

In his interview in the New York Times two weekends ago, Jimbo Wales, in talking about Wikipedia, said,

“

We aren't democratic. Our readers edit the entries, but we're actually quite snobby. The core community appreciates when someone is knowledgeable, and thinks some people are idiots and shouldn't be writing.

”

That Dab is knowledgeable is something I can personally attest to from his edits on India-related pages. Whether he is polite or not is less relevant to the enterprise of building an encyclopedia. "Civility is important, but it does not trump all other considerations" (Raymond Arritt). Wikipedia has to decide, at the highest levels, whether facile politeness displayed by persistent "idiots" should be valued more than occasional not-so-polite expression of exasperation by a knowledgeable person who the core community appreciates. Otherwise, I see a lot of time wasted by knowledgeable editors (like Dab) in bending over backwards to appease others who not only cannot write and are often ignorant, but who also unrelentingly verbalize the cockeyed perspectives of their particular upbringing, education, or milieu in the name of universal truth, and yet can quote chapter and verse from the Wikipedia rule book on politeness. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Univolved User:Rocksanddirt

I agree with Fowler&fowler. The community has long decided to tollerate a bit of incivility from users whose main purpose is the creation of good encyclopedia. Dab is by far not the worst offender in this situation. I recommend the committee not take this case, similar to the case of MONGO recently also declined. The issues are similar (though not the same). --Rocksanddirt 04:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Ramdrake

I emphatically agree with User:Futurebird I have seen Dbachmann egregiously and repeatedly violate Wikipedia policy on at least two articles: Afrocentrism and Race of Ancient Egyptians. He has been uncivil yes, but also has launched into personal attacks and revert-warring, all this purportedly in the name of upholding policy. What I believe should be looked into is the seriousness of his breaches of policy as ocmpared to the potential breaches of policy he says he's trying to prevent. Basically, most of his defense for his behavior is that "the end justifies the means". My contention is that the violations of policy he has committed are way more serious than those he pretends to help avoid (if they indeed exist), worse that his behavior, rather than helping correcting problems, actually amplifies the very problems he tries to correct. I will, however, give him the benefit of the doubt that he genuinely believes he is helping Wikipedia by acting the way he does. In this matter, the opinions of experienced, neutral third parties such as the Arbitration Committee members may help him see that his behaviour is actually not helping the project when he starts edit warring and being dismissive of his fellow editors.--Ramdrake 15:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/0/0/0)

Accept to examine the behavior of all parties. Kirill 02:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Mackensen (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korean cuisine

Initiated by Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) at 07:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Appletrees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Good friend100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Badagnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Melonbarmonster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bsharvy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jjk82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Patriotmissile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Keyngez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
CJ DUB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tanner-Christopher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jerem43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

All parties have been notified

Appletrees notification

Good friends100 notification

Badagnai notification

Melonbarmonster notification

Sennen goroshi notification

Bsharvy notification

Jjk82 notification

Patriotmissle notification

Keyngez notification

CJ DUB notification

Phlegmswicke of Numbtardia notification

Jerem43 notification

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by User:Tanner-Christopher

The original issue that started this ball rolling was edit warring on the dog meat section of the Korean cuisine article. This incident stemmed from consistent incivility on this article by certain editors that has exposed another long term issue.
The long term issue that has been exposing it self during the second step of the resolution process has been at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit war. It is clear that there are a number of what users have been calling "nationalists" of different Asian "viewpoints" that have been promoting an agenda on a multitude of Korean article which Korean cuisine is only a small part of. South Korea has also been blocked from editing for this reason.
Besides the edit warring, there are a number of parties involved that have been very hostile toward anyone working on the articles other than themselves and in addition, this stems from a larger issue with this users not being civil in many of there actions on Wikipedia unless another user agrees with them. So they are in clear violation of not only WP:Own, but also WP:Civility

Statement by Daniel

This case was listed for formal mediation with the Mediation Committee recently, however all the issues listed were primarily conduct-based. As I explained to the parties on the case page, formal mediation will only address disputes which have resolvable content issues (and we will only look at content, readily ignoring any conduct aspect unless it prevents mediation from working, in which case the request is closed). This is due to Committee convention which in turn is based from limits on the mediation model (see commentary).

Our goal is to resolve the content dispute which, in turn, will resolve the conduct issues having assisted the parties to a negotiated compromise. However, this requires for the content issues to be the primary issues and the conduct issues to be both secondary, manageable and not fatal to mediation attempts. In this case, it was clear that the conduct issues have slowly made their way from the primary to the secondary issue, and it was more-than-likely that the conduct issues would have made mediation unworkable.

I ask the Committee that if this case is rejected for whatever reason, that reason not be that "this request should go through mediation", unless the Arbitration Committee wishes for the Mediation Cabal to be involved prior to an arbitration case. Although I have absolutely no interest in the case whatsoever beyond wishing all parties well in resolving it, I felt it must be noted that the dispute as it currently stands (and is documented) was not applicable for formal mediation and this is why it was rejected/withdrawn.

Cheers, Daniel 07:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Sennen_goroshi

While there has been some considerable amount of friction in the article(s), I think the holier than thou attitude of some newcomers to the article is not productive. The editor(s) who are calling for permanent bans are just as guilty of provocative editing, as the long standing contributers. Of course no one owns the article, and anyone is able to edit it, but I can understand the annoyance of some editors who have been working on this article for a long time, to suddenly have new editors step in and demand that the editing is done according to their standards.

Perhaps a little reasoning by all editors, and people trying to get opinions, rather than a mere show of hands before major changes are made would be useful. Consensus should not be assumed just because 4 editors say yes, and 3 say no.

Compromise has to be accepted by all parties, when compromise is hard to reach, editors should look at the examples set by other difficult articles, and general rules that have been set down.

I do understand the opinions of Jerem and CCC, this is just a food article, it should not be so hard to edit, it isn't an article on Jesus or abortion, it is a damn shame that it has become a pro/anti Japan/Korea article.

As far as I am concerned the only understandably controversial aspect of the article is the dog meat section.

To have people complaining about whether item A is Korean food, Japanese food, Korean food influenced by Japan or Korean food that was stolen by Japan, due to Japan's occupation of Korean is pathetic.

In short, with a little respect for the time and effort put into these articles by all editors involved, Jerem and CCC showing how easy food articles can be edited, rather than screaming "lets block everyone", and the more antagonistic editors saving the controversy for an article than actually deserves it, there might be a lot of problems solved rather easily, without the need for another 10 billion ANI reports.Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User Spartaz

Good friend100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was previously indefinitly blocked following his 6th or 8th violation (I forget) of the 3RR but this was lifted to allow him to participate in the Liancort Rocks arbitration case after he agreed a strict 1RR condition. Subsequently he was blocked twice for violating this condition and a community ban was considered at ANI but failed to find a clear consensus to ban him. Since then, his editing restrictions - partricularly the 1RR have been restated more clearly and are recorded on his talk page. I am regularly monitoring his contributions. I have not seen any recent edits that have given me any cause for concern. Good friend100 is now very clear that he is on his very final last chance and is making a real effort to behave himself. Including him in this request appears to be judging him on his past behaviour which has already been fully considered. This is unfair. I would ask the committee, if accepted, to only include him as a party of this case if specific diffs of recent poor behaviour are submitted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User bsharvy

This request is unwarranted. It seems to be a substitute for making a sincere effort to discuss facts and reasons. The discourse concerning actual content (as opposed to personalities) has gone like this: 1) some people (including the requester) propose X, 2) some others (such as me) disagree and say why. Then, discussion stops and the requester declares a need for outside intervention, RFC, complaints to administrators, and now a request for arbitration. An editor should respond with reasons to another editor's different view, not just promptly go and request more opinions or some authority. I have no idea why editors disgree with the arguments I've presented. Nobody has responded in any signicant way to any point or principle I've asserted. On what grounds is there a claim of an impasse in the discussion of content? There has barely been an effort to discuss content (there has been plenty of effort to discuss personalities). It has been less than a week since the page was locked, but already the requester is describing it as a step that has been tried, and presumably failed (hence this next step). You have to talk to others; it is work. Requesting outside authorities the minute you hit disagreement (about content) is not consensus-building. Bsharvy 09:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"For requests involving groups of editors on a particular article or topic area, it is expected that mediation will be attempted." Was this done? If so, nobody told me. Odd, considering I seem to be the main dissenter in the discussion about content. Bsharvy 11:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

John Buscema

Initiated by User:Skyelarke at 05:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Tenebrae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Skyelarke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[16]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Talk:John Buscema#Request for Comment: NPOV and images - RfC begun Feb. 26, 2007, running through March 9, 2007

The page John Buscema was protected by admin Nishkid64 on 17:43, 12 June 2007

A request for mediation begun July 20th -[17]

was closed on November 12th due to mediator's unavailibility and User Tenebrae request to go to arbitration. [18]

Statement by User:Skyelarke

In December 2006, I began to participate in an article revision process with user Tenebrae on the [19] article. Having contributed the large majority of the article text up to that point but having neglected to include footnote references of my sources, I proposed to do so in mid-December - a process that user Tenebrae agreed to.

From practically the beginning I was faced with disruptive editing and uncivil behavior on the other party's part until I came to the conclusion the other party's behavior amounted to establishing ownership of said article. This was achieved basically through regular and systematic partial reversions and intimidating, disparaging, and uncivil remarks to other editors. I tried to proceed by encouraging proper editing protocol and etiquette, but by the time I had finished adding the footnotes at the beginning of June 2007, a dispute erupted and efforts to resolve that dispute have proven unsuccessful.

Sample proofs and examples

As an overall example of user Tenebrae's widespread peremptory, unsubstantiated removal of good-faith, credibly-referenced contributions compare the final updated version I presented on June 3-

[20]

with the current version reverted to by Tenebrae prior to requesting edit protection [21]

the June 3rd version has 44 numbered footnotes whereas the current version has only 22. Hence, at least half of the footnoted passages, 22 in all, have been removed. This is not counting various other non-referenced passages.

Moreover, of the 15 images contained in the June 3rd, version, 6 have been removed in the current version.

The only explanation given for 19 of the referenced passages removed was the following -

[22]

and

18:12, 7 June 2007 Tenebrae (rv to Terpsichoreus 00:59, 17 May 2007 for Skylarke's blatant, days-long series of fancruft edits, footnote misformatting, and over-illustration in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to settled RfC matters.)

Various examples of disruptive editing behavior regularly practiced by user Tenebrae since December 2006.

Basically, there are four different types:

1- Misuse and improper implementation and application of a RfC -

a- Premature implemenatation of RfC

[23]

It was implemented 5 hours after I had made mention of an initial disagreement, without any prior discussion.

b- Non-neutral canvassing of favored collaborators

[24]

c- Vote-Stacking and disregard of consensus process

[25]

The above statement to give an indication that the Rfc consisted mainly in the aforementioned 9 editors contributing perfunctory statements that had an uncommon level of agreement with user Tenebrae's statements and little in ways of explanations or compromise and consensus-minded discussion.

d- Using disputed RfC results as a pretext to reject edits that were clearly outside the boundaries and contents of said RfC

The version established after RfC process ended on March7, only had 4 referenced passages - [26]

This kind of repeated statement -

[27]

practically implies that the edits contributed after the RfC are somehow under restrictions of said RfC even though the were not present or discussed at the time of the RfC.

2- Improper editing protocol and disruptive editing behavior

a- Misleading, fallacious, and deceptive editing descriptions.

[28]

b- Making false policy claims to justify reversions.

[29]

3- Peremptory and antagonistic misuse of administrative procedures.

a- An inflammatory complaint made to the administrator's notice board -

April 27 -' Several editors, and heaven knows you can see them at Talk:John Buscema, have tried to work with a fanatic fan, User:Skyelarke, who is a single-purpose account... He has continually added POV and irrelevant, fan-page trivia,...' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive84

b- Misleading page protection request -

June 12 - Page Protection Request filed by user Tenebrae is characterized as 'Severe, longstanding edit war...protection is requested to stop edit war...' when actual reciprocal reversions only began on June 11, remaining under the 3rr barrier.

4- Incivility and personal attacks (designed to intimidate and discredit other editors.)

[30]

[31]

[32]

Final note

To indicate that user Tenebrae's behavior goes beyond a personal dispute with myself and extends to several editors' contributions from that article, I'd like to point out that when user Tenebrae reverted the article to the May 17th version on June 12th, the following editors' contributions were effectively removed -

18:12, 11 June 2007 Mmaillot (Exteranl links)

17:41, 10 June 2007 Tman930 (→References)

06:55, 7 June 2007 66.137.180.95 (→1970s)

01:15, 5 June 2007 71.215.128.73 (→1980s - Page shown is from Fantastic Four #306, not the Avengers)

20:36, 26 May 2007 Steven J. Anderson (Repairing link to disambiguation page - You can help!)

00:55, 22 May 2007 GentlemanGhost (→1970s - Missing space)

--Skyelarke (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John254

Tenebrae has engaged in disruptive canvassing to support his position in this content dispute -- see [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43], in which he notifies selected editors of the article RFC on their talk pages. It is suspected that Tenebrae chose the editors to contact based on the belief that they would favor his version of the article. This request for arbitration appears to present serious user conduct issues. John254 13:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {party 2}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/0)

Accept to examine behavior of all parties. Kirill 02:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Occupied" vs. "Disputed/Captured" Territories

Initiated by pedro gonnet - talk - 28.11.2007 16:01 at 16:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Pedro Gonnet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jaakobou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Jaakobou

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Has been many times in many places, most recently here and here

Statement by User:Pedro Gonnet

The issue concerns the use of the term Occupied Territories when referring to all territories militarily occupied by Israel. According to Wikipedia itself:

“

Several organizations have stated that these areas are occupied and that the Fourth Geneva Convention provisions regarding occupied territories apply. These organizations include the United Nations Security Council (in Resolution 446, Resolution 465 and Resolution 484, among others), the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the International Committee of the Red Cross. Also, in their decisions on the separation barrier, the International Court of Justice and Supreme Court of Israel have both ruled that the West Bank is occupied. The US State Department also considers the West Bank and Gaza Strip occupied.

”

Furthermore, the term "occupied territories" is used more often than "disputed territories", even in the Israeli meida (stats for Jerusalem Post and ynet) the term "occupied territories" is preferred.

The problem is that a subset of editors, mainly User:Jaakobou, insist on changing the term "occupied territories" to "disputed territories" in numerous articles regarding Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Usually the change is reverted and a long discussion with some low-scale edit-warring ensues and the term "occupied territories" is kept. User:Jaakobou and others, however, simply wait a few weeks and try again, sometimes on the same article, sometimes on a different article. In the latest iteration, User:Jaakobou went as far as changing the names of other occupation-related articles to make a WP:POINT (here and here) or crippling the readability of the article by rewording it such as to avoid the expression altogether (here).

The reason why I am posting this as a request for arbitration directly is that in every discussion on this topic, the offending parties (the anti-occpuationalists) have always backed out, only to replace the term a few weeks later, perhaps in the hope that nobody would be looking next time. This unwillingness to actually follow a discussion to the end and not just re-start the dispute elsewhere leads me to believe that WP:Mediation will not have any effect and that the issue would land here, albeit only a few months later. I also believe this is more of a WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT issue than a content dispute.

What I would like is an arbitration decision of the sort: The term "occupied territories" can and should be used to describe territories militarily occupied by the state of Israel. This would avoid this recurring dispute in the future.

Statement by User:Jaakobou

i'm not sure why i'm the only one mentioned other than pedro. i haven't been quite so active on the page until recently where i tried to resolve the dispute by opening subsections diff for each of 3 small changes in dispute by pedro (and a few others, mostly anon. IPs). i actually got some fair responses for my suggestion before implementing changes according to discussion, and i feel pedro has been a tad uncivil telling me not to revert [44] after he's gone and done just that. [45]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GRBerry

There is an allegation of a conduct issue contained within the complaint. What I don't see is any prior attempt to attract the attention of outside editors, such as via a RfC. If there have been such attempts, can they be clearly linked to? If there haven't been tried, they should be tried before coming here. GRBerry 17:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - i suggested that one here: [46]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suggested taking the issue to WP:DR a number of times, which User:Jaakobou ignored. Funny he should point out the one single time he suggested it. Anyway, as per the votes below, I have submitted this as an RfC here. Cheers and thank you for your time and efforts, pedro gonnet - talk - 29.11.2007 08:08

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

Decline. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC) The committee does not issue content remedies like the one you are seeking. I am not persuaded by your assertion that this is a WP:POINT matter since there is every reason to believe that the other editors are making a good-faith effort to improve the content. I suggest you get other seasoned Wikipedians involved instead.[reply]
Reject, content dispute. Kirill 17:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, content. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, mainly a content dispute. It appears an RfC is going now to handle the conduct issues. Mackensen (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burntsauce appeal

Initiated by Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) at 12:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Burntsauce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Nwwaew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (communicating with Burntsauce via e-mail)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Burntsauce notified by e-mail that this was posted.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar

Statement by Burntsauce via e-mail to Nwwaew

In the interest of getting straight to the point, I will keep this as brief as possible. I am carbon copying Jimmy Wales directly to make extra sure that he is aware of this situation.

The reason I am writing is to request that my account be reinstated and block log cleared. On November 8 2007 I was blocked for being JB196 (and if not this person directly, a friend, helper, assistant, or "puppet" of sorts). Allow me to make it myself clear: I am not JB196. I do not know JB196. Never once have I exchanged words with this person and I have never made a point to assist JB196 in any kind of agenda.

I have made well over 8,000 different edits to Wikipedia. These edits include removal of vandalism, identifying spam articles, hoax articles, general purpose editing, and the removal of unsourced material in biographies of living persons.

My records show that I have communicated with Jimmy Wales via email on multiple occassions regarding this unsourced material, and in general he supported my actions. I have discussed my actions ad nauseum on various administrative noticeboards prior to taking action, and there too I have generally received support from the community on my actions, granted there have been some detractors but many of them have a vested conflict of interest in making sure unsourced information stays in articles as long as possible -- something which both Jimmy Wales and the Arbitration Committee has repeatedly, time and time again, has said is a huge no no.

Unfortunately for me (and Wikipedia I might add), I stumbled upon a huge category of articles that contained heaping piles of BLP problems. The category I'm referring to is the pro-wrestling category, where, and I kid not, 99% of the articles were either not sourced or attributing the likes of geocities and yahoo message boards for sources. My taking action in this area of Wikipedia resulted in the administrator known as DUROVA to block me as a sockpuppet "JB196", and from there on my life on Wikipedia has been an uphill battle. To make matters worse, it became clear to me that JB196 himself or an impostor would follow me around whenever I would get into a dispute or leave me messages on my talk page. I never responded to his messages and would clear them as soon as I noticed them (if they weren't removed by another user first).

I would like to think that I have taken things in stride, and managed to be fairly reasonable about being blocked for someone I am not. Yes, I lost my cool a few times but what would you do if you were in my situation?

The follow diffs are examples of the type of resistance (and poor attitude in general) that Jimmy Wales himself was met with when he asked certain editors to provide reliable sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=130235125 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sabian_%28wrestler%29&diff=prev&oldid=131487540 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=130638394 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Govvy&diff=prev&oldid=130374561 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lid&diff=prev&oldid=130233378

I promised I would keep this short, and I think I've failed in that regard. Thanks for hearing me out.

--Burntsauce

Statement by User:Wikidemo

User:Burntsauce participated in one of the most contentious content deletion campaigns Wikipedia saw this fall, precipitating events that lead to blocks and bans of two administrators and a number of non-administrators. He was named as a party to an ArbCom case over his behavior, was informed of the case, and had every opportunity to defend himself. In its ruling ArbCom determined that User:Burntsauce was a meatpuppet of User:JB196, and banned him for disruption (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar#Burntsauce banned).

Even if there is sometimes a reason for ArbCom to re-hear and reverse decisions less than a month after making them, this is not the time. We participated in a long, difficult arbitration case plagued by sockpuppets. Alkivar chose not to participate in the case. We should not have to start from scratch simply because Burntsauce changed his mind now. This matter is done. It is not a proper subject for an ArbCom case. Let us please avoid further disruption and close it now.

Further comment

It appears that ArbCom will consider the matter as a request for reconsideration, which means no public comment. I urge ArbCom to keep the ban in place unless (1) it misinterpreted the evidence that he is a meatpuppet, and (2) Burntsauce promises he will not repeat the disruptive behavior that caused the last two flare-ups. His statement above indicates he considers his actions justified. Instead of promising not disrupt the project again, he says Jimbo Wales is on his side and claims that his massive content deletions were to get rid of "heaping piles" of policy violations. It is clear that he would consider reinstatement to be a license to resume his disruptive ways.

However, I don't think we should carry a grudge. If he is a legitimate editor, and if he will pledge to contribute to the project instead of instigating trouble, we should forgive the past and welcome him back. It is a shame that we went through the effort and angst of a difficult ArbCom case that he ignored, only to have him try re-open the case in a forum where we have no input. But there too, we should forgive if he will move on too. Only if he will move on.

Please see my note on the talk page regarding this request.

Statement by Durova

Burntsauce contacted me via chat client regarding this request. I have no objection if the Committee chooses to open a formal review and I would gladly post an expanded version of my evidence onsite at review, except for private correspondence. Durova^Charge! 23:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Although captioned as an appeal, this is effectively a request for reconsideration of a portion of this committee's decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar, in which the committee found that Burntsauce was a sockpuppet of a banned user and accordingly determined that Burntsauce was covered by the ban. Ordinarily, requests by or on behalf of banned users are considered on the ArbCom mailing list rather than on-wiki. However, in this instance, the request has been posted by a user in good standing and there may be considerations weighing in favor of consideration on-wiki. Accordingly, the Clerk has not removed this request but is leaving it for the arbitrators to determine how to proceed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noting a question about the authenticity of this request, Burntsauce has posted the same request on his own talk page. Thatcher131 20:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

Reject as a case; this is a request for modification, in my eyes. Also, we were sent this message a few hours ago to our own list. It bears consideration. James F. (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, per James. If any modifications are necessary, we will make them without the need for a full case. Kirill 01:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, per James. FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, likewise. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geobox and categories

Initiated by – Caroig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 17:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Caroig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Darwinek (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Request for Comments - no answer from involved parties
announcement on the new categories - no comment from involved parties
Deletion review - my comment (requested for) completely dismissed
Template talk:Geobox#Auto categories - running discussion at the time the CfD was closed
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 2#Question - repeated requests for a discussion
Original CfD - efforts to start a regular discussions and dismiss false accusations
In some of the discussions User:SEWilco acted as a mediator, correcting mistakes, hist posts were never answered by the involved parties

Statement by Caroig

I feel very uncomfortable from bring this case here yet I see no other alternative after so many objections and discussions very ignored. I think, and so do many other editors, the categories are useful for improving Wikipedia and as such they should be acceptable. What they should be named is a fair question, left for a consensus which can't be reached if some admins just delete first. This is all I ask for, to allow a discussion, consensus and fair treatment and not just delete and go. My previous thorough account has been copied to User:Caroig/Arbitration.

I'm the main author of the {{Geobox}} template which is a universal infobox for any geography related feature. After a request from some users I added code which put the pages with Geobox to some categories. I had checked WP:CAT and the categories seemed in accordance with these guidelines (as I understood them). User:Darwinek put a "suggestion" on my talk page in which he raised objections to the template without clearly stating what the problem was, just very vague statements. He also removed a part of the {{Geobox}} code without any rationale which I reverted. I re-read the policy, found the line I thought he was relating to and responded. There was never any answer, User:Darwinek started another "discussion" in which I was accused of claiming ownership of the template (no reason given), refusing cooperation (I answered every post, since the beginning I had been suggesting the categories will go if they indeed broke any rules), claiming they were needed (which I never did), they suggested removing the {{Geobox}}, there were completely off-topic comments and various other accusations. I only learned about this discussion when User:Darwinek put those categories at CfD. Countless times I asked everyone to discuss the issue at Geobox template talk page.

There I acknowleged the naming scheme was not perfect and I wrote I was working on an improved version. There were many comments and suggestions, yet User:BrownHairedGirl closed the debate while no solution had been agreed on and wrote the outcome was to delete which left me agape again. She wrote she expected objections and asked them to be first discussed with her, which I did.

I was waiting for an answer for almost two weeks but it never came. In the meantime I was working on a new, improved version which would address, in my best faith, the major objections. I first put it at Rfc, which didn't get much attention and later added the new code and manually created some categories for regions where users were systematically adding Geoboxes. Yet User:BrownHairedGirl deleted the code as recreated contents though the categories were generated on a completely different basis, without reading any of the previous posts, introducing a bug to the template. After my many objections she filed a Deletion review but only after I suggested arbitration. This CfD didn't dealt with the merit of the thing at all. I tried to address this by a longer answer in which I tried to explain the issue (as requested by another user). Yet this answer was dismissed by her completely, stating it was off-topic (part of those tried to answer her own off-topic comments).

Statement by Darwinek

This is a clear, settled and solved issue. I see no point in getting an ArbCom to this. Caroig took whole this case very personally, I don't know why, that's why we are here. Someone also stated that it is a conflict between Me and Caroig. It is not, I never had any intention to be in conflict with Caroig. I like his work, considered awarding him with a barnstar and many times praised and endorsed his work. This is, however, a community dispute, more precisely Caroig vs. the Community. Categories were deleted because they violate Wikipedia precedence and general consensus. They were recreated and deleted again by BrownHairedGirl. Caroig complained and complained, so whole case was brought to Deletion Review which unanimously upheld the decision to delete it. There is nothing to solve here. Solved issue. Period. - Darwinek (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BrownHairedGirl

This request conflates several two related issues: a dispute between two editors about the use of the {{geobox}} template, and my closure of the CfD debate.

I have no view on the dispute between Darwinek and Caroig, nor any evidence to offer on that subject; I was not involved in it and have not reviewed it.

I believe that I closed the CfD fairly, based on the strength of the arguments wrt policies and guidelines and conventions.[47]. It was clear from the debate that there was a history of acrimony between the nominator (Darwinek) and the category creator (Caroig), so I set that aside: the issue at CfD is the merits or otherwise of the category, not the the prior conduct of the participants.

Because of the heated nature of the debate, I asked in the closure, that concerned editors raise the matter on my talk page, which Caroig did here. Unfortunately most of the points raised were irrelevant to the CfD, and I set the issue aside for a while so I could think of a diplomatic way of separating the two. Unfortunately, I got sidetracked onto other issues, my talk page filled up with other discussions, and I forgot about the issue until I was told by Darwinek that a substantially similar set of categories had been re-created.[48]

I checked, found that they were substantially the same, and speedily deleted them, notifying Caroig on his/her talk page, and apologising for my lack of a reply.[49] In the process, I did introduce a small error into the template: two stray characters which appeared beside the infobox, and were promptly corrected. This oversight of mine was a cosmetic issue, for which I apologised here, and it did not in any way damage the functioning of the template.

That triggered a discussion on my talk page[50] and on Caroig's[51], and when it became clear that Caroig was still unhappy, I initiated[52] a deletion review, which endorsed the deletions. Caroig had asked for other reviews, but it seemed to me to be best for a CfD issue to be reviewed first at DRV rather than going straight to arbcom (see WP:RFAr#Before_requesting_Arbitration).

Caroig is wrong to say that her/his reply was "dismissed by her[i.e. me] completely". My comment was to suggest that rather than a huge explanation of a dispute with another user, it would have more useful to focus the question of why Caroig believes that is appropriate to have categories in mainspace based on the presence of an infobox. [53]

I am unclear why this issue has been brought to arbcom. The categories were deleted at CfD; the coding methods behind their re-creation is irrelevant to the fact that self-referencing mainspace categories were re-created, and all the deletions were upheld at deletion review, where Caroig was the only person who sought the overturn of the deletions. I don't know what arbcom is being asked to decide on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on statement by uninvolved AGK: I'm really don't see what there is to mediate about. The only issue involving me was my closure of the CfD and the subsequent speedy, both of which were upheld at WP:DRV: so far as I can see, the question of those categories is now closed. Caroig seems to have some beef with Darwinek, but I really think that Caroig be much better advised to move on than to place more energy into raking over the coals of an issue which is now settled. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved AGK

Whilst the Arbitrators seem to have picked up on this already, I shall give my opinion nonetheless. Although there have been several, in-depth attempts at prior Dispute Resolution, this is an out-and-out content issue, which the Arbitration Committee generally does not handle.

The DR attempts also appear to be very much on the "regimented" process areas, a surprisingly few number of the more content-orientated avenues have been attempted, which leads me to believe that this Arbitration Request is rather premature. From the information provided, the Parties have not attempted informal or formal Mediation, which could be highly beneficial in this matter. Perhaps the Parties could direct their attention there?

Anthøny 20:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your idea and suggestion. Could you help me with that? Yes, part of the dispute is content related - the reason I put my request here was far too many steps breaking the basic Wikipedia policies and etiquette. And there seems to be a misunderstanding what the problem is.

Neither of the two involved parties has answered to the propsal of the second categorization which took into account various comments (mainly those on the Geobox talkpage) which clearly stated that the template should either generate existing categories or temporary categories (which should follow the usual naming schemes) until the work is done. The second categorization was set-up to do exactly that and it was up to individual users what scheme they chose for their country/state etc. If these users do read that proposal, do post their comments and refrain from off-topic comments I'll gladly remove this request. – Caroig (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to. If you send me an email (see here) with the relevant information, I'll assist you in seeking Mediation. (You may prefer to leave me a talk page message instead). Anthøny 07:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

Reject, content dispute. Mackensen (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, content dispute. Kirill 18:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. From the information presented here, I also see this as primarily a content dispute and our involvement is not needed. FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject, content. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong

Initiated by Videmus Omnia ^Talk at 19:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Videmus Omnia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiating party)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Ryulong

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryulong

Statement by Videmus Omnia

Ryulong is a prolific and hard-working administrator. However, a concern of many editors at Ryulong's RfA was that Ryulong would be too hasty and harsh with the "block" button. I'm sorry to say this has been the case, as expressed in the above-linked RfC. Even after the request for comment, Ryulong has continued to make blocks unjustified by the blocking policy - a notorious example would be his block of the administrator CattleGirl, among others, for making insufficient contributions to article space. That resulted in this thread initiated by Newyorkbrad, which I strongly encourage everyone considering this case to review.

Unfortunately, Ryulong has not been willing or able to honor his pledges to moderate his use of the block button. A review of his talk page archives shows a multitude of complaints for unjustified and overly-harsh blocks, inappropriately broad rangeblocks, and IPs incorrectly blocked as "open proxies" when they are not. As just one recent example, Ryulong indef-blocked the users Yugiohmike2001 (talk · contribs) and Chaingang29 (talk · contribs). Their offense was apparently "inserting unverifiable information". There was not a single attempt to work with those users, or even to warn them, prior to indef-block. No block explanation was left on their talk page. When asked to explain this, Ryulong simply stated "I did not think of it at the time".[54] In response to a third opinion about the blocks left on his talk page[55], Ryulong reiterated that he feels his blocks are "beneficial to the encyclopedia".[56] I'm afraid this demonstrates to me that Ryulong has little concern for the damage his actions cause to the encyclopedia in lost good-faith contributors, and his conduct should be examined with an eye toward removing his access to the admin tools.

I respectfully suggest that Raul654 recuse himself from this case, as he was the one who promoted Ryulong to adminship, a decision that many in the community found controversial.

Response to Ryulong's statement below

In response to Ryulong's statement below that I've been seeking his desysopping for some time, I'll point out that I've actually publicly stated before, more than once, that I would prefer that he retain his tools and reform his conduct.[57] [58]. I would have continued to address these issues with him on his talk page, but I was advised by another administrator that to continue to do so would be harrassment, and that I needed to bring my concerns here.[59] Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryulong

These are a handful of blocks that are deviations from my improvements since the RFC. CattleGirl's block I immediately fixed, and after Yugiohmike2001 e-mailed me, I unblocked him (I should probably send him a reply via e-mail that I have done so, as it does not appear that he has edited). I do not think that these few bad blocks, most of which have been resolved, require the investigation of the arbitration committee.

The only thing that has been a problem with me is that Videmus Omnia (VO) has been persistently scrutinizing my every action and from all standpoints has been seeking that I be desysoped for some time now. I am the only administrator who has put any blocks in his block log, the first which was a mistaken application of WP:SOCK (from which I had discovered VO's initial account on my own, and then unblocked him) and a realization that he was not currently disrupting the encyclopedia with his user talk page posts about improper fair use images (he had stopped editing for some time after the block, thread at my talk page archived here). Since then, all he has done in relation to conversations with me is question blocks that I perform that are not explicitly allowed or forbidden by any of the WP:BLOCK policy. Examples are at User_talk:Ryulong/Archive_18#Proxy_range block, my range block to prevent Joehazelton from editing, my block of a genuinely disruptive user, my removal from the voluntary admin recall category, Newyorkbrad's statement, questioning my personal protected titles page (something else that at the time was not explicitly forbidden by policy), his MfD of that page, another statement that I'm not sure if it fits in exactly.

Other than that, any potentially bad blocks I have made since Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryulong, I have fixed and apologized for. There is nothing for the arbitration committee to do about occasional slip ups that I ameliorate as soon as I can.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:24, November 24, 2007

Infinitely recursive responses

The full thread on VO's talk page for a full understanding.—20:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GRBerry

The RFC ended three months ago. Would it be more useful to have another RfC? I think it would be better, but I certainly can't certify. GRBerry 02:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by ZordZapper

Though I haven't edited (but only read pages like these from time to time) in a while, I think it's a good idea to do another RFC should this request fail. Because I confronted this user by him blocking me, I feel I must give my 2 cents. Administrators must have patience, accept responsibility for actions like blocking, and be ready to accept criticism. While, I'll admit my first edits were borderline, I think assuming good faith is a huge job for editors who are privvy to blocking others. Ryulong has been the role model of a user that can't seem to tolerate criticism and will react by blocking when he doesn't like what he hears or what other say to him and I am glad Videmus Omnia took the time to file this request.

Comment by bbatsell

I think that a request for arbitration is premature in this particular instance. I would support and participate in a second RFC. The only thing that concerns me is Ryulong's insistence that he not be faulted for good-faith mistakes. Well, yes, they are mistakes, and they are made in good faith — but if you keep making the same mistake without actually changing your approach to blocking that leads to said mistakes, then you can be faulted. To crib from Newyorkbrad when this was discussed recently on your talk page, Ryulong stating, "I did not think of it at the time" regarding warning a user (who had a redlinked talk page) before blocking is seriously disturbing considering the history involved here. If you don't want to deal with "vultures" (as you have described VO) in the future (and you will, if continue exhibiting poor judgment), then simply think twice before pressing the block button. I assure you, it's not that difficult. Blocks are easy to overturn, but they're impossible to remove from history, and it is impossible to remove the negative feelings that they can engender from the blockee. No account starts out perfect, and if zero attempts at discussion (or reform) are undertaken, then we have no idea what the editor could have become. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like to respectfully, but firmly, dispute UC's characterization of the RFC. I've read through it several times today to refresh my memory and to see if perhaps I misremembered its conclusions; I had not. I simply can't fathom how anyone could read that and claim that, "the community by and large supports what Ryulong is doing." In fact, the conclusion in every comment that was supported by a large majority was that Ryulong is a good administrator who needs to exercise caution (some asserted extreme caution) when using the block button. That is precisely what has not happened; Ryulong has failed to recognize that. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Recuse from any clerk activity in this case. (Today seems to be my day for doing that—just a coincidence.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/4/1/0)

Accept. Kirill 20:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. RFC shows that the community by and large supports what Ryulong is doing. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per UC. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. Raul654 (talk) 05:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject as premature. I see issues that need to be addressed by Ryulong but do not think that the Arbitration Committee needs to intervene now (or hopefully ever.) FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reject as premature; if problems persist, come back. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Place new requests at the top.

Armenia-Azerbaijan

There seems to be a decent amount of activity. For the sake of convenience the logs of these two cases should be somehow merged, perhaps templatified so that same log is visible on both pages and when a new entry is added it shows on both pages. This is trivially easy to do. {{Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Enforcement Log}} can be created and transcluded on both pages for this task.

-- Cat ^chi? 12:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have created the sub page per WP:BOLD. I have not transcluded it yet tho (I am not THAT bold). I'd like to do so per some sort of approval. -- Cat ^chi? 06:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"For the sake of conveniece" Do you mean for your convenience? If so,why would it be convenient for you, and why should your convenience be a reason to merge two separate and extremely controversial RfC records? Meowy 03:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? My convenience? I am neither an admin nor an involved party. How does this make it "more convenient" for me? These are two closely RfAr cases and not RfCs at all. The record in question are copies of block logs. Same information is available in the form of block logs. Merge suggestion was to simplify an already complex case with a centralized list as both cases are very closely related. Frankly this opposition baffled me. Yes I am quite surprised. -- Cat ^chi? 15:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how it would be "more convenient" for you. You made the "convenience" comment, so you are the one who should know! The case is complex because the second RfA case was exceptional in its outcome, especially in its draconian powers and in (what I believe to be) the unparallelled breadth of its scope which extended the remit of the original RfA far beyond reasonable and normal limits. There should be no move to minimise or disguise that situation. Meowy 01:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is that "draconian" argument relevant to the block log? This is merely merge the block logs, something available in machine generated logs...

It helps distinguish really disruptive users that got regular blocks from others. For example, we had several users that had engaged in disruptive sockpuppetary. Past blocks may be overlooked in a hypothetical situation if a user was blocked per RfAR case 1 and needs to be blocked again per RfAR case 2. The complicated nature of the cases as you pointed out makes review rather difficult which exactly why simplifying that process as much as possible is necessary. Some logs are relentless! Such a synchronized block log would minimize the confusion. Block logs are public data and this suggestion isn't even remotely controversial.

Does you opposition have a reason? If so please state it because I do not see the mention of such a reason so far.

-- Cat ^chi? 06:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Status of TruthCrusader block review?

On October 31st User:TruthCrusader was indefinitely blocked for off-wiki harassment of User:Calton. TruthCrusader maintains that he did not make the off-wiki postings he was blocked for and requested that the blocking admin, User:Jpgordon, provide evidence justifying the block. Jpgordon declined to discuss the matter on the grounds that reviewing the material would further aggravate the harassment by making the attacks known to a wider population. The suggestion was made that only ArbCom should review the evidence because of its inflammatory nature and TruthCrusader thus submitted the matter to ArbCom for review. TruthCrusader states that no response has been forthcoming to date.

Generally, I think the less which is done 'behind closed doors' the better. Making the evidence publicly available exposes it to additional eyes who may see things that a handful of arbitrators do not and thus actually prove the truth of the matter one way or the other. We've recently seen how that works in the !! case. We should only be invoking 'secrecy' in the most extreme of cases where personally identifying information, legal complications, or the like are involved... and then only for the smallest portion of those cases which actually must be kept from the public.

Regardless, it has been a past axiom of ArbCom cases (and common sense) that admins must be prepared to explain and justify their actions. If Jpgordon will not publicly discuss how he determined that TruthCrusader was behind the off-wiki actions attributed to him then at the least we need to hear from ArbCom that they have reviewed the matter. As it stands we've got a user blocked for nearly a month for actions he allegedly committed off-wiki. If he is or may be innocent that's unacceptable. If he is guilty then it is well past time to say so and close this matter out. --CBD 14:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Application of the Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks policies

Can the Arbitration committee please clarify their position on the application of these policies. There seems to be notable general feeling that past rulings by the committee have set precedent that 'Standing', ie history of contributions and administrative work, can be used as mitigation for incivil behavior and personal attacks against other editors. Specifically, I ask if 'Standing' can be used as defense even if past history indicates the editor will continue to make personal attacks and other disruptive incivility, something that policy indicates should result in preventative block. --Barberio (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Standing" should obviously have no effect on findings of fact. Our custom is to allow standing to affect any remedy. If "remedy" is taken literally - the AC actually does try to fix up situations - it should be clear why that is. The process is not punitive, but has regard to the work going on daily on the site. Analogy with criminal proceedings can mislead. If you are asking whether the AC should apply remedies it knows in advance are likely to fail, the answer is "no"; though of course we are allowed to take a more optimistic view than self-appointed prosecutors. And mixing in policy is an odd thing here; certain kinds of disruption are within the remit of any admin, quite independent of what the AC says. But it is true that an AC case ought to be considered to have 'dealt with' past history, given in evidence. After all, blocking productive editors is a loss to the project. Generally it is not that helpful if ancient incidents are brought up against people. Charles Matthews (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, however I'm not sure you clarified the point I was asking about. I find your statement that "certain kinds of disruption are within the remit of any admin" very confusing.

You also seem to contradict the policy by saying past history of personal attacks should not be considered. To quote WP:NPA : "Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered 'disruption'. Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks." This seems to me clear indication that someone with an obvious past history of personal attacks, who makes no effort or only token efforts to reform, and continues to make personal attacks may be blocked as a preventative measure regardless of their 'standing'.

I'm not entirely sure if you are saying that an editor who habitually makes personal attacks, and thus could be preventively blocked, can be a productive editor. It would seem to me that such an editor is being counter-productive. --Barberio (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement about admins is consistent with what you quoted from policy, no? "Recurring" needs sensible interpretation; once a week, yes, if you go back six months, no. Admins do have some discretion here; blocks for disruption are always in some measure judgement calls. You asked how the AC sees it, and I am of course speaking for myself here. But the AC tends to work from principles, not detailed policy wording (which is always very much subject to mission creep). "Preventive" blocking; I think we'd not be happy to see indefinite blocks, but "cooling off" blocks are within admin discretion, assuming they are proportionate to the situation. On your last point, it seems clear that some productive editors do also indulge in personal attacks. There is no "entitlement"; what actually happens is that the AC is only happy to take cases on this alone (loudmouth stuff) when there is something fairly definite to point to. One final point is that civility paroles are a standard remedy, which the AC will use in cases (and if we don't, it is some indication). Charles Matthews (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This raises the question of someone who after being warned about Personal Attacks, 'cleans up their act' for six months, but then reverts back to making personal attacks with signs they will continue. By your standard, we should not consider their history as it's 'the far past'. It is notable that application of 'civility parole' could lead to cases of this type arising where the editor returns to bad behavior some time after the period of parole is over.

This is explicitly not the standard that is applied to other cases of disruptive behavior such as edit waring. In those cases past history has been considered when an editor reverts to that behavior and appears ready to continue doing so. I'm confused as to why you feel this should not be applied to NPA and civility?

I'm afraid I must strongly disagree with you on your point that 'productive editors' may engage in personal attacks. By definition, productive editors are those who make contributions to the project. Making personal attacks significantly and strongly detracts from the project. Editors who are making personal attacks are not productive members of the project, and shouldn't be treated as if they are. A plumber who unclogs my toilet, repairs my shower, fixes my sink, then smashes all my windows; was not being productive. --Barberio (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) That's anyway not what I said. I said there is no entitlement to be incivil, whatever an editor's contribution. And you were asking about the AC's collective view, which I have tried to explain. Personally I'm a hawk on incivility - I always vote for civility parole remedies, as you could see from my voting record. I would answer your point by saying simply that the AC's real expertise is in the field of editor behaviour. We are expected to take everything into account, case-by-case. Your hypothetical plumber would be a vandalism case, not an incivility case. We are expected to place decisions in some sort of framework. That's what the principles are for. There are some relevant principles, but not what you are saying. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to restate, or link to, those principles you feel express the opinion of the ArbCom on this issue? --Barberio (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, I just read what you wrote above about "cooling off" blocks. My thought was that this had generally been regarded as an unhelpful thing to do. Blocks tend to generate heat, not coolness, especially when the person being issued a "cooling off" block is already quite angry. I believe I've seen users blocked for being irritible come back enraged after the block expires. IronDuke 21:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

I'm requesting a review on my placement under supervision by User:Ryan Postlethwaite for the following reason. The AA2 remedy #2 states: "Any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions." Ryan Postletwaite claims that "Although I don't see any incivility, the scope of the remedy was supposed to cover disruption via incivility or edit warring". I don't see the word OR, which Ryan felt so strong about that he made it appear bold.

This is what Thatcher131 told me month ago: "So far, no admin including myself has found that you yourself have edited these articles in an "aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility" and so you have not yet been placed under the restrictions described here. Thatcher131 01:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)"[60]

Am I being compared to E104421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Previously indef banned for edit warring, who was simultaneously edit warring with me and another user [61], [62], [63], . Who breached WP:3RR [64], [65], [66], [67], Who kept insisting (by reverting) that its gonna be his way and no other? even by reverting my minor edits [68]. Who generally disregarded the talkpage and is yet to give justification for most of his POV reverts. Was I wrong, when I tried to compromise and only reverted partially? Was I wrong when I tried to keep the article as neutral as possible? As I said before, even though I was not under the restriction and supervised editing, I never reverted without justification, always explained and justified my edits in the talkpage. Most importantly my edits were not marked by incivility.

In fear of turning this board into another "he said she said" I request that only administrators respond to this request. VartanM (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration remedies are not meant to be carte blanche for administrators unless they explicitly provide for such authority. Ryan's interpretation of the decision here is incorrect; the remedy is applicable only to cases where the editor is incivil. Kirill 05:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about many other users, such as User:Aynabend and User:Baku87, who were placed on parole without any prior warning, while they both had a clean block log and never made any incivil comments? I don't think E104421 was incivil either. Both VartanM and E104421 were placed on parole for edit warring on Shusha article, since they made 3rvs each. VartanM had a previous official warning from another admin to stop edit warring, otherwise he would be placed on parole [69]. So I think we need a clarification here. Can admins place users on parole for just edit warring, or they need to be engaged in both edit warring and incivility to be placed on parole? If the latter, then parole of some users has to be lifted. Grandmaster (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Krill for a super fast reply. Grandmaster the answer to your question is most probably that they need to personally come here and make their case. Assuming good faith on GM's part for ignoring my kind request. Good night to all. VartanM (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need to clarify the general principle of application of this remedy. If it applies only for incivilty, then User:E104421, User:Aynabend and User:Baku87 should be all relieved of it, since they never violated any civility rules, and the latter 2 editors have no previous blocks, warnings, etc, unlike User:VartanM. Grandmaster (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, User:VartanM is violating Users national background and neutrality principle by engaging in edit warring and POV pushing across several articles without restriction. We are yet to see how you address that by giving him a green light to continue doing what he is doing. And if VartanM's behavior was not marked by incivility, then how did the ArbCom address these [70], several counts of incivility not ever supervised, restricted or paroled? And if the VartanM's continuous editing conduct allows for interpretation against supervised editing, then how would supervised editing apply in case of the other user User:E104421, whose edits were not incivil. Based on POV pushed by User:VartanM throughout Wikipedia without any review or restriction, and paroles being deliberately applied only to contributors of certain one side, lifting the supervised editing is a delibreate violation of neutrality. Atabek (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why does VartanM cross out administrator's decision [71] when this should be done either by administrator or arbitrator? Atabek (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom notice reads: "Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions, by notice on that editor's talk page." I edited the Shusha article for the first time yesterday. I did not edited in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. I provided sources, cited the references, commented on the talk pages and edit summaries. On the other hand, VartanM deleted the new section, references and quotatins on "cultural life" added by myself from cited references. VartanM's POV is focused on my previous block-log due to my long term conflicts with Tajik on Nomadic Empires related topics. My last block is dated 1 April 2007. That case was closed. I edited for the first time an Az-Ar related topic in my life (just 4 times + 1 minor spell check), but it's claimed that i have history of Az-Ar related topics. Now, i was placed under the parole, but VartanM's parole is removed. What kind of double standard is this? Deletion of referenced material constantly is not regarded as edit-warring, but addition of "new section and references" are claimed to be edit-warring. What happened to the basic Wikipedia policies: "WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:DR"? Regards. E104421 (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kiril for the response here. I was under the impression that this remedy tried to stop disruption in all forms (i.e. edit warring or incivility) due to the history of editing on these pages. Whilst I see that both users here have edit warred on the pages, I fail to see any incivility coming from them, so unless there's evidence of that, I'll remove both names from the supervised editing log. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both User:Aynabend and User:Baku87 were placed under the same parole for a single page edit and without any incivility cited. So please, review their paroles as well. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Baku87 and VartanM for now - I'll wait for a response from the administrators that put E104421 and Aynabend under supervised editing before removing their names. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ryan. Atabek (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill, if I get this right, the remedy implies that the editors are free to edit war on topic related articles as long as they remain civil? If not, what the arbcom remedy proposes to stop edit wars, which were the reason to 2 arbcom cases in the first place? Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I share a similar concern with this remedy. Given the scale of the disruption on this topic, I don't think it's a good idea that users must be incivil with edit warring. Edit warring is disruptive on its own and this does seem to advocate edit warring on the pages provided that the users remain civil. I think when a case like this goes to arbitration twice, administrators should be given a little bit more freedom to interpret decisions because per the clarification from Kirill yesterday, I've had to remove five names from the supervised editing list that should all most probably have had their editing placed under supervision, but can't because of a technicality. In many ways it seems it's a way to game the system. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last month I requested a RfC on the apparent arbitrary extensions of the powers that the RfA Armenia-Azerbaijan2 remedy created. Being out of the country for 4 weeks, I did not have the opportunity to see its result. Where (if anywhere?) would the archive of that discussion material be stored? I must point out to the initiator of this RfC, that remedy 2 does not actually contain the words he has quoted. The fact that it does not, was the crux of my RfC. Meowy 18:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that one of the arbitrators said that he was happy with the way the remedy was enforced, and that was after a number of editors were placed on parole for edit warring and sockpuppetry. [72] Grandmaster (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but they aren't the ones that have to deal with the situation day in, day out, and might not be fully aware as to the extent of the problems on these pages. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the other 5 arbitrators didn't even bother to respond? Astonishing, especially since I personally asked each of them to do so and also pointed out in some detail the flaws in both the use and scope of the RfA remedy. I am seriously considering making a RfA on the validity of the mess that is the Armenian-Azerbaijan2 RfA remedy. Meowy 02:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was another prior discussion here: [73], and I might be wrong, but the remedy seemed to be interpreted differently at the time. Grandmaster (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for this initative. I indeed have no problem in coming ahead, stating and being very proud that I have never used any incivility in my communications neither in this page nor somewhere else, and would highly appreciate if this injustice be corrected. Thanks again --Aynabend (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EK3 residual prohibition

On November 11, the main elements of the ruling Everyking 3, first imposed two years prior, expired. However, an AN discussion followed in which two arbitrators (Raul654 and Jpgordon) denied that some elements of the ruling had expired (remedies 5 and "X"), on the basis that those elements were not listed by name as expiring this November in the amended ruling of July 2006. However, I think that, because the amended ruling says that my previous restrictions (those imposed in November 2005) expire in November 2007, this logically must include everything that was imposed in November 2005, because it did not provide for any exceptions.

(The following, which could be interpreted as a violation of one of the prohibitions claimed to still be in effect, was approved for posting on WP:RFAR by Raul654.)

One of the prohibitions which I believe should now be considered expired deals with a certain user with whom I had a series of disagreements in 2005. This user has now left Wikipedia, with a parting message that gives every impression of finality. The practical reason I have sought to have my restrictions removed is not that I want to do the things they prohibit me from doing, but that the restrictions serve as a kind of "scarlet letter", and a case where I am prohibited from discussing or interacting with a user who has left Wikipedia is a perfect example of this: no benefit can come to that user from my restriction, since he has left, but I continue to suffer from the stigma of having that restriction formally applied to me.

I request, therefore, that the ArbCom determine whether the restrictions in question should be considered to have expired or to remain in effect, and if the answer to that is the latter, then I request that the ArbCom lift the restriction described in the previous paragraph. Everyking (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(a) The user EK is referring to is Phil Sandifer. (b) Reject, because EK - against my advice - made this request prematurely and now it appears it was filed in error because Phil has not left. Raul654 (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it appears he has decided to come back. Nevertheless, there are issues to look at here. Everyking (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

I've been contacted by User:Certified.Gangsta, who left the project in June 2007 in consequence of the sanctions imposed on him in the Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram RFAR. He was finding it impossible to edit under them, and was feeling very frustrated. User:Ideogram is now under a community ban, where he was found to have baited Certified.Gangsta and attempted to drive him off the project (successfully). CG is thinking about returning, and wonders if he might possibly have his editing restrictions revoked, despite the infractions he has indeed committed. Would the arbitrators like to take a look at this case, please? To remind you of how it went, I've written up a short overview of the circumstances here. Other users should feel free to add their views of the matter at that subpage, or at this notification, whichever works. Bishonen | talk 09:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Committee is discussing this matter. Kirill 13:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. I would not personally recommend a lifting of the restriction, since Ideogram was not the only editor that encountered his edit warring and I fail to see a pressing need in the absence of his primary antagonist. Giving such a user the extra wiggle room of two to three non-vandalism reverts seems like a poor idea for an established edit warrior. However, I would not be opposed to the editing restrictions being lifted, since the community tends to take a dim view of continued nonsense from editors with a problematic history. If CG were to relapse towards poor behaviour, I'm fairly confidant it would be handled quite quickly without kid gloves. I doubt great harm would result from allowing him the chance to participate in Wikipedia productively without editing restrictions. Additionally, the endorsement of Bishonen and Jehochman for the lifting of restrictions is a strong point in its favour. A bit of thought on both sides of the coin. *hands out grains of salt* Vassyana 00:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Disclosure: I was the blocking sysop for the most recent parole violation.[reply]

Thank you, Vassyana. Some recent developments: in his edits of today, November 10, Certified.Gangsta points (on request) to his positive contributions to the project.[74]. Please note especially his appeal here, and the new section "Contribution" on his talkpage, which he's in the process of adding to. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Motions in prior cases

Motions

Shortcuts

This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions.

Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives.

Make a motion (Arbitrators only)

You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

@@ Line 104: / Line 104: @@
 : [[WP:XOX|This is what Charles and Adam should do.]] Wikipedia is not a battleground. - [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]]  <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 15:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
+==== Statement by [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] ====
+I think the committee should take the case to clarify existing policies.  My gut sense is that there is a pattern far wider than this specific block or the named admins.  Had this pattern matching algorithm been applied to me at the beginning of my editing; I might well have been blocked.  Fortunately, I didn't [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earnings_call&diff=prev&oldid=48940199 start] on a contentious - or even existing - page.  It is pretty darn easy to have a first edit be decent, albeit imperfect.  (That one lacks sourcing, etc...)  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Authorship_and_Date_of_the_Synoptic_Gospels_and_of_Acts&diff=prev&oldid=49070141 Here] is my sixth edit.  Already at AFD, already understanding the basics.  For an adult who takes the time to read documentation and look at examples of article text, it is trivial to understand what Wikipedia is and how it works before contributing.  [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 16:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 ==== Clerk notes ====

Revision as of 16:14, 1 December 2007

Current requests

Matthew Hoffman

Involved parties

Statement by Charles Matthews

Statement by Moreschi

Statement by Carcharoth

Statement by uninvolved Fut.Perf.

Statement by Thatcher131

Statement by Adam Cuerden

Statement by Jehochman

Statement by GRBerry

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/1)

Dbachmann

Involved parties

Statement by futurebird

Response to Debachmann

Statement by Dbachmann

Statement by Folantin

Statement by Moreschi

Statement by User:Warlordjohncarter

Statement by Fullstop

Statement by (uninvolved) Priyanath

Statement by Fowler&fowler

Statement by Univolved User:Rocksanddirt

Statement by User:Ramdrake

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/0/0/0)

Korean cuisine

Involved parties

Statement by User:Tanner-Christopher

Statement by Daniel

Statement by User:Sennen_goroshi

Statement by User Spartaz

Statement by User bsharvy

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

John Buscema

Involved parties

Statement by User:Skyelarke

Statement by John254

Statement by {party 2}

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/0)

"Occupied" vs. "Disputed/Captured" Territories

Involved parties

Statement by User:Pedro Gonnet

Statement by User:Jaakobou

Comment by GRBerry

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

Burntsauce appeal

Involved parties

Statement by Burntsauce via e-mail to Nwwaew

Statement by User:Wikidemo

Further comment

Statement by Durova

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

Geobox and categories

Involved parties

Statement by Caroig

Statement by Darwinek

Statement by BrownHairedGirl

Statement by uninvolved AGK

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

Ryulong

Involved parties

Statement by Videmus Omnia

Response to Ryulong's statement below

Statement by Ryulong

Infinitely recursive responses

Comment by GRBerry

Comment by ZordZapper

Comment by bbatsell

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/4/1/0)

Requests for clarification