Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Historical elections	13 Sep 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	Motion	none	26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	none	none	17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	8 September 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

• Arbitration policy
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template
• Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents

Purge the server cache

How to list cases

Under the below Current requests section:

• Click "[edit]";
• Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), omitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
• Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
• Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
• Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

Cunado19 and Jeffmichaud regarding Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant

Involved parties

Cunado19 is a Bahá'í who is in dispute with Jeffmichaud over repeated deletions and sourcing issues regarding information on Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant, and a few similar pages.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Posted on talk page here

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Here for an example of previous administrator intervention. He made these edits [1] [2], which are not directly related to the current issue. The pages are low traffic, so there are no other editors to gain a consensus.

Statement by party 1

Some background on the situation The Bahá'í Faith is a worldwide religion representing approximately 6 million people. Wikipedia has over a hundred articles related to its teachings, history, apologetics, etc... The religion is somewhat unique in that it has not significantly broken up into major divisions. The most recent attempt at a major division was in 1960 by Mason Remey. His efforts were unsuccessful, and he did not succeed in bringing the majority of Baha'is into the view that he should be the new leader (less than 0.5% of all Baha'is). By the end of his life the followers that did believe in him broke up into several major factions, one of them developing into the Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant. Jeffmichaud is a follower of this particular division. He appeared in November 2005, and made 4 pages related to his beliefs. After reviewing the pages and doing some research, I felt that his edits were incredibly POV and one-sided in nature. I provided several references to counter his POV, mainly a court case, information about their approximate size, and the existence of a dissident who used to be the second highest position in their leadership. All of this has caused Jeffmichaud to revert, protest, and now threaten that he will edit the other Bahá'í Faith pages as payback. The most recent discussion, and the issue that I'm requesting arbitration for is on this talk page. Cuñado - Talk 01:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As a response, this is in no way a two-day-old dispute, since the issues of sourcing information have gone back in detail over a week.

1. Yes, he's correct, I did a bad job of looking for other avenues of resolution in this case. The only other contributor has expressed his disinterest in getting involved.
2. None of the information on the personal website is being used as information. The dispute is over mentioning that the website exists. Jeffmichaud is throwing out a red herring by saying that it's a self-published website. The information being proven is that Dave Cornell exists and maintains a website. If I were to use Dave Cornell's information as facts on the page (the way Jeffmichaud does with the BUPC website) then it would be a different story.
3. The relevancy is obvious. Baha'i divisions mentions the existence of several obscure expulsions and links to their web pages. These are people who have no position of authority among 6 million. In the case of Dave Cornell, he was in the second highest position for 7 years, and appointed by the religion's founder. He's one among less than one thousand. Cuñado - Talk 17:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement by party 2 ~Jeffmichaud

Please forgive me if my response to these allegations appears scattered, but Cunado has not put forth a specific allegation or issue for this arbitration request. The statements above are themselves sqattered and vague without a specific issue being targeted. Therefore I will respond accordingly to all these vague unspecific charges.

Please note that none of these other avenues of Informal Mediation, Discuss with third parties, Mediation, or Requesting an advocate have been attempted by Cunado to resolve this 2 day old dispute. I welcome any or all of the above avenues, as in many such cases MARussellPESE, Christian Edward Gruber, and others have proven level headed third parties, none of whom have yet been sought in this 2 day old dispute (began 2/6/06). I did not wish to request arbitration, although the threat of this was presented by Cunado long before any of the previously stated options were discussed. Issues of reversion on several other pages like Baha'i faith, Baha'i divisions, and Neal Chase have been solved with third-party input, and compromises on word-smithing reached, in almost every case the sway was towards my original sentiments as the history on those articles show.

It is clear when one veiws the history of mine and Cunado's exchanges that defending the BUPC pages from POV contributions has always been the crux. It can be shown in all the mentioned history pages, as well as many others that many contributions I've made to previously existing pages on Cunado's watchlist have initially been unilaterally reverted without discussion or consideration (see latest edits on Baha'i Faith). This happens over and over, yet his beleivers from his own sect like MARussellPESE have stepped up and reverted Cunado's deletion and reposted what I wrote defending that what I wrote is verifiable and relevent. In the example of the Baha'i Faith reversions today, Russell actually provide the source for my statement in the reference section. This is the spirit of contributing that I enjoy about Wikipedia, for me and MARussell are not of like mind in our beliefs, but are both interested in what's true and verifiable. Cunado is simply a nemesis to any work I wish to particpate in. Plenty more examples of this can be pointed to if necessary.

It can be shown that in the case of the previous dispute resolution mentioned that my sentiments were deemed correct by User:Geni with respect to the claims of Neal Chase being the third Guardian of the Baha'i Faith (see Geni's opinion from 12:53, 27 January 2006), and that I was the contributor who added the clause that the mainstream group doesn't accept this claim, per User:Geni's suggestion. Cunado was attempting to declare a monopoly to the term "Baha'i Faith", and when shown in error, claimed to only be concerned about the title caption under the picture in the article.

Previous edits that have been resolved by third party inquiries have been resolved amicably, such as the case with the statistics of the group, where it was pointed out by MARussellPESE that the source Cunado was attempting to use to bias the reader with was a "personal website and a secondary source so it isn't reliable" (seen here). Only then did Cunado concede, whereas my points were ignored entirely during the exchange. That is exactly the same problem we're faced with in this current situation. The statements Cunado contributed here under "Schism" section are derived from a personal website (a secondary source), as is the embedded link that was provided (a self-published website).

Cunado's statement that "I provided several references to counter his POV" is an enormous understatement. Since the inception of these 4 pages mentioned (1, 2, 3, and 4), along with the existing Baha'i divisions page, the history of them can show that they have been under an almost daily attack of revision with little regard for NPOV. To assert that Cunado's edits are an attempt to neutralize my POV contributions is misleading. Cunado's edits are in my POV blatant attacks to bias the reader on these pages in question, for every contribution's content is negative and require rewording every single time. Defending these pages is an obligation I have self-imposed upon myself as their creator. The extent of information about the BUPC before I began contributing was derived of copy edit from this document created by his group's adminstrative body; not a word of which was NPOV and barely accurate. All of my contributions to date have involved neutralizing the POV slant that the mainstream Baha'is previously created about all the Baha'i divisions groups. I've worked in cleaning up several other Baha'i divisions pages as well; of groups at variance with my personal beliefs, that have been blatantly biased by Cunado's POV "contributions".

I've suggested that Cunado's energy could be better spent expanding and improving the many stubs he's created instead of tearing down the BUPC's and other division's articles; which are obviously threatening to his belief system. Whenever the contributions are NPOV and relevent, they were not objected to, despite the seemingly negative shadow cast upon my obvious stance (see this talk). When I have been in error, I have promptly admitted so, and conceded (here's one of many examples)). Cunado can show no examples of this, except when members of his own sect have stepped in. Whenever something new has been brought to these pages by Cunado, the relevence has been weighed, and the appropriate place for it in the article has been found, for in most cases they have simply been awkwardly jammed into the introduction. For example, the mentioned court case that Cunado brought forward was given a section in the article, by me, without protest after it's initial inappropriate insertion into the intro section. After a back and forth about it's wording, MARussell's wording was accepted as an appropriate compromise. And, with regards to the statistics, MARussell suggested to Cunado that "Perhaps this subject can rest?" for the above stated reasons (seen here). Third-parties have proven useful in many cases, and to assert that they are hard to come by is misleading, as this talk page at issue shows. The contribution I've vehemently oppossed specifically being discussed in talk is this:

"The vice-president of the council, appointed by Jensen in 1994, was removed from the BUPC in 1999, and continues to voice opposition to Neal Chase by publishing letters on his website, pointing to evidence that contradicts Chase's claim to being the Guardian." (note:subsequent revisions by Cunado nearly identical)

The crux of this request for arbitration lies in Cunado's own assertion that mentioning the ex-BUPC member Dave Cornell is relevent. I have opposed this for specific reasons discussed at length in the talk. Reviewing this, one will see that I've never threatened vandalism to other pages, but that this proposed contribution was a form of vandalism, and would never be deemed acceptable anywhere else. I feel it necessary to quote that talk page and let the Board decide if this is a threat, or a well reasoned arguement:

"If you want to add information to an article, then the information that you believe is a "fact" should be able to be sourced and verifiable, which in this case has fallen short, as what's been provided is information from a "secondary source", for the tenth time. I've attempted to ease these concerns by adding a link to the page in the external links, but no compromise appears reconcialable. I've since removed it, for if you won't compromise and dig your heels in, why should anyone else, when clearly you're wrong here? If Dave's position is so important then create a page for it. He's no more relevent to the BUPC then any of the other declared covenant-breakers who have issues begging for a soap-box.

"What's at issue here is not a small thing to me. Bringing forward all the ex-BUPC and airing their gripes on this page is not appropriate. No more than it would be for the BUPC and OBF [Orthodox Baha'i Faith] to start airing their issues on the Baha'i Faith's main page with embedded links to those respective websites. Where does it end? The web is full of message boards and sites with ex-BUPC, ex-Haifans, etc. all with axes to grind. Can you see this position? You're proposing a double-standard in my POV. User:Jeffmichaud Feb. 7, 2006"

A few exchanges later and this was the one other statement made regarding this alleged threat of mine:

"4. My POV is that these types of underhanded statements regarding the petty gripes of ex-members of a community amount to vandilsm. This would set a precedent to embed HTML's throughout all the pages. Is that what we now want? The same argument could be made to embed links into the Baha'i Faith main pages for Mason [Mason Remey], OBF, BUPC, and everyone who has "a site that opposes these views", right? You can make a page for Dave, or maybe go with my first suggestion and put it in the external links with whatever title and summary you want. User:Jeffmichaud Feb. 7, 2006

My opposition to this paragraph in the article is defined in the posts from the talk page. Per policy on verifiability, which I quoted from in the talk, the statements I've removed from the page don't meet policy. I've also asserted that as an ex member of the BUPC, he's not relevent to the BUPC, and is not deemed worthy of mention. Any more than people like Ruth White, Amad Sohrab, or Ruhi Afnan Effendi are worthy of noting on the main Baha'i page; all of which are dissidents who wrote published books voicing their opposition to the Administration. Cornell is but a sole dissident, not a group, just like the aforementioned ex-believers who are not worthy of mention on the articles about that group.

With regard to dissidents, no other pages on the Baha'i Faith make mention of them outside of the Baha'i divisions page. I've suggested that a section or page be made for Cornell, but to no avail or compromise. This same action to voice the dissenting opinions of ex members of the Faith would meet the same strong oposition on the main Baha'i Faith page, which is what I was pointing out. I trust that this issue will be dismissed on the following grounds:

1. No other avenues have been sought by Cunado.
2. The statements do not meet verifiability policies.
3. As an isolated ex-BUPC member of 7+ years, he has long since ceased to be relevent. His sole purpose for the website in question is to promote himself as the leader of the BUPC, a sentiment not shared by even one supporter following 7 years of effort.

Thank you. User:Jeffmichaud 20:55 7 February 2006

User:Sam_Sloan against User:Howcheng regarding Tom Dorsch

Involved parties

User:Sam_Sloan User:Howcheng

Also User:Billbrock and User:Pierremenard are indirectly (not directly) involved.

All parties are aware of the request

All steps have been tried and all further steps would prove fruitless because the underlying dispute with Bill Brock has been going on for seven years and User:Howcheng intervened on the side of Bill Brock on December 29, 2005 and refuses to back down.

Statement by Sam Sloan

I am having a dispute with User:Howcheng and I request the Arbitration Committee to resolve it. On December 11, 2005, I posted a biography of Tom Dorsch, who was Treasurer of the United States Chess Federation and twice President of the California Chess Association, but was best known for his attacks on the Administration of the United States Chess Federation in which he accused them of financial improprieties and even outright thievery. His attacks included 2,680 Usenet postings and made him one of the best known chess personalities in the world, even though he was voted out of office in 1999.

I was asked by another chess player to write a biography of Dorsch for Wikipedia, because I have known Dorsch since 1962, and I know him better than almost anybody. I was also his roommate in college. There are, however, other chess players who know him even longer and better than I do.

User:Billbrock whose real name is, oddly enough, Bill Brock, is known for his more than 500 personal attacks on me, usually accusing me of being a child molester, a rapist and so on and so forth. He accuses me of being just about everything other than a serial killer.

To cite a dozen recent examples of this, look at http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics under the heading: "New evidence that Sam Sloan did in fact admit to have illicit sex with an underaged prostitute". His current email address is politikalhack@gmail.com

Bill Brock has vandalized or removed content from many of my Wikipedia biographies. He tried to blank my biography of Tom Dorsch as well, but was reverted.

After being warned by other administrators to stop doing this, Bill Brock appealed to User:Howcheng. User:Howcheng immediately not only blanked the entire Tom Dorsch article, but, using his powers as administrator, blanked the entire history and discussion as well, so that nobody can see or recover what happened. By that time, more than a dozen different editors had edited my Tom Dorsch biography and as a result it was considerably different from the way I had originally posted it on Wikipedia.

When I complained to User:Howcheng about doing this, he repeatedly threatened to block me if I do not stop complaining. Prior to this action by User:Howcheng, I had posted about one hundred biographies mostly of chess grandmasters and chess personalities to Wikipedia. Because of the threats by User:Howcheng to block me, I have almost completely stopped posting biographies to Wikipedia. There is no point to my going to all the effort and trouble of writing a biography of somebody, if vandals who follow all my postings can immediately substantially delete most of it. This applies not only to User:Billbrock, but also to a few other vandals like User:Rook_wave, User:Samscone and User:Pierremenard. I do not object of course to other editors rewriting, modifying and updating my biographies. Indeed, the main reason why I write and post these biographies to Wikipedia is I want to learn more about the person and I want to see what others say about him. However, User:Billbrock, User:Rook_wave, User:Samscone and User:Pierremenard do not try to improve or expand the biographies. They simply delete almost all of it. (User:Samscone has recently been blocked by another administrator for doing this.)

If you will look under User:Sam_Sloan#Your_war_with_Bill_Brock you will see that User:Howcheng repeatedly threatened to block me. However, I do not have an edit war with Bill Brock. He has an edit war with me. Bill Brock has been attacking me for years, long before Wikipedia even existed. On the other hand, I have never edited anything written by Bill Brock, for the simple reason that Bill Brock has never written anything, except for attacks of me.

If you will look under Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch you will see that the vote for deletion was almost evenly divided. Almost all of the votes for deletion were either by non-chess players or people who dislike Tom Dorsch. Tom Dorsch is clearly notable. Just ask any tournament chess player and you will find that he has heard of Tom Dorsch.

At User:Billbrock#Your_war_with_Sam_Sloan, User:Howcheng writes:

Your war with Sam Sloan

I highly suggest you refrain from editing the Sam Sloan article, especially if your contributions are going to be on the level of [1]. The category is for convicted pedophiles, just as Category:Rapists is for convicted rapists (you have no idea how many times people have tried to put Kobe Bryant in there). You need to stop bringing your outside feud into Wikipedia. If this escalates, I'll have to block both of you for disrupting the community (think of it as a time out), and I would rather not have to. Calling him a pedophile serves no purpose. As WP:NPA states, "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." If you feel his edits violate policy, state how and limit your comments to policy only. Given what I've seen of his contributions, most editors will likely agree with you. Regards, howcheng {chat} 17:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

On the surface, this appears to be a neutral comment. However, in context one should realize that Bill Brock has only one purpose to being on Wikipedia, which is to get me blocked. This comment by User:Howcheng says that if User:Billbrock continues to attack me, then User:Howcheng will block both of us. Since the purpose and objective of User:Billbrock is to get me blocked and he does not care if he is blocked himself, since he has nothing to contribute here anyway, this posting just encourages Bill Brock to attack me more and indeed he has continued to attack me even today.

Regarding the Biography of Tom Dorsch I believe that User:Howcheng misused his authority by blanking that article since Tom Dorsch is a well known and notable person. I cannot reinstate the article myself, because there were dozens of edits by other users and I do not know what the final version was before User:Howcheng blanked it as well as the history and the discussion of the article.

Accordingly, I request that the Arbitration Committee decide to reinstate the Tom Dorsch article.

Statement by User:Howcheng

Relevant discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Dorsch

I believe this is essentially a request for undeletion and therefore is outside the purview of ArbCom. User:Sam Sloan is free to request a review of the deletion at WP:DRV. I suppose I did not need to make the snarky comment about meatpuppets, but Mr Sloan clearly does not understand AfD is not a vote.

However, allow me to address individual points raised by Mr Sloan. First, I had no knowledge of this dispute prior to this article deletion. I was simply closed the AfD and deleted the article per consensus. User:Billbrock did appeal to me to intervene on Talk:Chess Life [3] and I posted [4] in response. My so-called "threats" [5] to block Mr Sloan were simply statements to the effect that if he engaged in blockable actions then he would blocked.

My impression of Mr Sloan is that he does not and refuses to understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have given him numerous links to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:DEL, but he has repeatedly demonstrated no comprehension of these. He distorts my words [6] and continues to violate these policies ([7] [8]). He considers removal of unverified content vandalism [9]. I believe he is operating with a m:MPOV.

Furthermore, he has not even engaged in any of the steps for resolving disputes before filing this request. No RFC has been filed and he specifically rejected mediation [10]. If ArbCom were to accept this request, I personally feel Mr Sloan would not like the outcome.

howcheng {chat} 18:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Rook wave

I was not regarded as involved, but this is a bit strange, when talking about the specific Tom Dorsch article. I was the first one to make major changes in the article (called vandalism by User:Sam_Sloan) and I was the one who later initiated the Request for Deletion. There is an ongoing quarrel between User:Billbrock and User:Sam_Sloan, but User:Billbrock played only a small role in the deletion of this specific article. He was just one of many who gave their opinion in this process, so I don't see, why this dispute and the deletion of the Tom Dorsch article are put together. Rook wave 12:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

• Reject. 'Preposterous' seems the only word, and I can't imagine the ArbCom wishing to take this on, except as a way of sanctioning User:Sam Sloan for posting potential defamation. Charles Matthews 13:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. Howcheng, has done nothing wrong, and seems to have been quite reasonable throughout. It does, however, seem like there might be a case to be made over the conflict between Billbrock and Sam Sloan. - SimonP 14:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

SimonP and the entire source text of the King James Bible

Involved parties

• -Ril- (talk • contribs) et al.

vs.

• SimonP (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

SimonP has been informed

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The issue has been discussed-

• On article talk pages:
  • Matthew 1: -Ril- & Carnildo vs. SimonP
  • Matthew 1: Ed2gs vs. SimonP
  • Matthew 1: Robert A West vs. SimonP
• A well advertised survey
  • 65-70% to remove the text
• Centralised discussion:
  • Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text - Consensus was to remove the text from the articles specified below, since it is already at wikisource

Despite this, Simon has consistently refused to budge, reverting anyone who attempts to remove it, for example, for Matthew 1:

• morning of July 2nd 05
• afternoon of July 2nd 05
• 7th July 05
• 9th July 05
• 20th July 05
• 22nd July 05
• 24th August 05 - note that the other minor changes in this diff were done by editors other than SimonP.
• 31st January 06

Behaviour on the other articles involved is very similar

Statement by party 1

The policies and guidelines involved here are

• Three revert rule
• Neutral point of view
• Consensus
• Don't include copies of primary sources

SimonP has included the entire source text of a whole chapter of the bible in each of the following articles

• Matthew 1
• Matthew 2
• Matthew 3
• Matthew 4
• Matthew 5
• Matthew 6
• John 15
• John 20

This on its own violates Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, but also violates WP:NPOV since it places one translation above another - Simon consistently uses only the King James Version, which is now regarded as heavily outdated by everyone except the fringe King James Only movement. In some chapters, the KJV even contains text that is now near-universally regarded as mediaeval forgery - for example the Comma Johanneum, and Pericope Adulteræ - and so its use in preference to other more recent or scholarly translations completely violates NPOV - as if Simon is saying that the KJV is the most reliable source.

The text, being part of the Bible, happens to be one of the easiest texts to find copies of in the world. In some parts of the world, you only need to go to a hotel room to find it, it is located in numerous locations on the internet, its in virtually every library, both public and private, in the western world, and it is even on wikisource. If Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources was ever meant to apply to anything, then this is the one text that it absolutely was created for.

Consensus in the wider community is quite clear that including the text violates Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, and that the text should be removed:

• Wikipedia:Bible_verses/Survey (advertised at "current surveys" for weeks)
• Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text (advertised on AFD for weeks)

Despite this clear consensus for the removal of this text, Simon repeatedly ignores the consensus, deliberately misconstruing parts of the outcome, reverting its removal, i.e. restoring its presence, even on some occasions violating WP:3RR - [11] [12] [13] [14] (as pointed out by Theresa Knott - [15] )

A formal ruling needs to be made by the arbitration committee about both Simon's behaviour here, and what ought to be done with the text, otherwise this will go on forever, as Simon has shown absolutely no willingness to ever concede the matter.

I would like it known, that owing to SimonP's angry comment that discussion should have involved "people who actually work in the area", I strongly suspect that SimonP works for an evangelical organisation of some kind, and thus has an ulterior motive to his/her behaviour in this matter.

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 20:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement by SimonP

It seems I've now managed to top the ignominy of trying to open a case in my first week as an Arbitrator, by arbitration case brought against me in the second.

I would not object to an ArbCom hearing on Bible verses articles. While I don't think anyone is breaking any policies here, other than some eight month old edit warring, there are some serious issues. It has been almost exactly a year since I added the first of these articles, John 20:16, which was fairly resoundingly kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John 20:16. Since then I have had to deal with no end of strife from a small group of editors who seem to loathe these articles and have employed all means fair and foul to try to get them out of Wikipedia. By my count we have now had 11 VfDs and 6 centralized discussions on Bible verses, all of which have caused a great deal of stress and aggravation, but none of which have ended with anything except the verse in question being kept. The articles are almost universally praised as being accurate, well referenced, and interesting. Yet for almost a year I've been in a near constant battle to prevent them being removed.

As to the more specific debate over source texts, it is based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. That page was created back when we had full copies of Macbeth and the United States constitution on Wikipedia. The policy was created to get rid of those, not to ban the use of example texts. Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry specifically states that full song lyrics and copies of poems should be included in articles when there are no copyright concerns. I see no reason why Bible chapters, which take up less that a single page a piece in most printed Bibles, should not similarly have the full text. That -Ril- is so keen to have the Bible treated differently from other texts is more a sign of his/her particular POV than anything. It should also be noted that more users than just myself have reverted -Ril- removal of the chapter texts. A quick check of the page history will show that JYolkowski was the first to revert him, and that Kappa did so as well. - SimonP 21:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Radiant and Rich Farmbrough

I'm not sure who is giving up here. -Ril- launched his first attempt to get rid of these articles in July and, except for the periods where he has been blocked, he has pursued this cause ever since. - SimonP 15:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Marginally outside statement by Doc glasgow

Personally, I’m generally indifferent on the inclusion of text – providing there is no 'ban’ on it. (In a long article dealing with a short text, it would be crazy to exclude it). However, Arbcom should reject this case with prejudice, for the following reasons:

1. This is a content dispute (and a stylistic one at that) and should be handled by editors working on such articles on the articles themselves. That holds as good for biblical as for any other subject.
2. A decision on this issue must be solely governed by the principle 'what makes better, verifiable, NPOV, articles on the subject?’ It must not be governed by rules, polls, bans, or worse editors pushing a pro- or anti Bible POV.
3. I am of the opinion that -Ril- is trolling and certainly pov-pushing. He does not have any interest in editing Bible articles. He states himself I am indeed not a substantial contributor of material to Bible articles. I have little interest in the subject in general …. I am here because I hate sophistry, fancruft, and spam, of which this is a pure and obvious example. [16] (see also [17]). Until recently, his signature tailed with 'help remove biblecruft’ – hardly a declaration that he strives here for NPOV. Yet this non-contributor has edit warred, mass nominated Bible articles for deletion ([18], [19] etc), opened two polls ([20], and [21]), three simultaneous centralised discussions ([22], [23] [24]) and finally attempted to get a policy pre-emptively 'banning’ certain Bible articles from creation - effectively adding them as a special case to the 'criteria for speedy deletion’ [25]. When one scheme has failed, he has tried another to push his obvious POV.

In short, Arbcom might wish to question the faith in which this request is brought. If they do see fit to take the case, I might suggest they consider discouraging Ril from opening further fronts in his obviously ideologically-driven campaign.--Doc ^ask? 23:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sort-of outside view by Thryduulf

I've been a contributor to some of the debates cited by -Ril- after seing a couple advertised on Centralised discussions and then being invited to express my views by -Ril-. Basically, what I see as the heart of the matter is an apparent refusal to accept consensus by SimonP. The place this is best evidenced is Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew, where SimonP repeatedly sees different outcomes from debates to (almost?) everyone else.

The pratcial outcome of all these various debates, in the opinion of apprently everyone except SimonP, is:

• Bible verses that are notable in and of themselves, should have their own article.
• Most Bible verses are not notable in this way, and articles for these verses should be merged/not created.
• The entire text of the Bible or of Bible verses does not belong on Wikipedia - but does belong on Wikisource (where several versions already exist - Wikisource:Wikisource:Religeous texts).

The result of SimonP's refusal to act according to conses is edit wars, bad feeling and endless polls and discussions that come up with the same answers, which are preventing good articles being written on these topics. In the interests of brevity, I will not cite evidence here, as it has already been provided by -Ril- in his section above.

The arbcom, imho, should accept this case to look into SimonP's edit warring and refusal to accept consensus.

For full disclosure, I do not edit in the area of religion on Wikipedia as I'm not that interested in it. What I am interested in is seeing a comprehenisve encylopaedia, which obviously inlcudes articles on religion. I am interested in harmonious, consensus-driven editing to achieve this. I am also interested in maintaining the separation between Wikipedia and Wikisource, following Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, as this will (imo) strengthen the goal of Wikipedia to become the best free-content encyclopaedia and Wikisource to become the best library of free content documents. I sadly can't see any way to resolve this dispute without arbcom intervention. Thryduulf 00:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC) ps: I would appreciate a note on my talk page if this case is accepted.

Have diffs for "SimonP's edit warring and refusal to accept consensus"? Dmcdevit·t 01:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Links as requested

• Refusal to accept consensus here, where Inshaneee writes a summary of the repetitive debate backed by Thryduulf and myself, and countered by a wide variety of unsourced objections by SimonP. Simon's claims have included the vacuous truth that "there is no official policy on bible verses", and seem to rely on the fallacy that a "keep" vote on AFD precludes merging. Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources is one of our older guidelines and seems relevant.
• Some evidence of edit warring here and here. There's probably more. I'm hardly involved in bible-related articles myself but was asked to comment at some point by -Ril- and Inshaneee.
• For more edit warring, a cursory glance over SimonP's contribs for last month leads us to Matthew 1, Matthew 5, John 15 and John 20. Most aren't full-scale revert wars because generally the other editor gives up quickly after being reverted by SimonP, but it does appear to be an attempt to assert WP:OWNership.
• >Radiant< 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Rich Farmbrough.

Insofar as this is a content dispute it should be rejected. It does however raise the hoary question of one side prevailing because "generally the other editor gives up" (Radiant) which again is not for this forum, but should be thrashed out somewhere. Rich Farmbrough. 09:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a content dispute. This is a dispute about the conduct of a user over a consensus that has already been reached (see above), where the user consistently refuses to adhere to that consensus, deliberately misconstrues it so as to ignore it, and has attempted to assert ownership over a large number of articles. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 15:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If this were a content dispute, I would expect the arbitrators to say "go away and come to a consensus. If you can't implement that consensus because of one or more editors refusing to accept it then come back to us". Well, consensus has already been reached - or at least everybody except SimonP believes consensus has been reached - so we don't need to do the first step. The only thing preventing the consensus being implemented one editor (SimonP) refusing to accept that consensus by trying to excert Ownership of articles. Ergo this is not a content dispute, but an interpersonal dispute between SimonP and everyone else involved. Thryduulf 23:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/3/3/0)

• Recuse, as before. Dmcdevit·t 01:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Recuse. Charles Matthews 16:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. Premature; this is still a content dispute. Mackensen (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Recuse, just in case it wasn't obvious. - SimonP 15:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reject — content dispute ➥the Epopt 21:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. What is within our jurisdiction is minor. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC) I clearly wasn't thinking straight. Comes of trying to think while gripped with flu. Accept per James. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. The allegations of ownership and ignoring consensus are troubling. James F. (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reject, content dispute, outside our mandate. Neutrality^talk 01:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Requests for Clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process.

24.147.103.146

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

That was the intent, yes.

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

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

Copperchair

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

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

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

Netoholic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Um. When was it approved?

I remain open to anyone who wants to assume good faith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Descriptions of edits

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

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

Checkuser vetting

This is not a request for checkuser rights. Rather, the Arbitration Committee has decided to list users (non-arbitrators) here to whom we are considering giving Checkuser rights, to solicit feedback from the community. Note that being listed here does not guarantee arbcom approval - it simply means we are entertaining discussion and wish community feedback.

• user:Curps - (Contingent on him setting an email address in his preference so "Email this user" works) Raul654 09:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support with e-mail address set. Ral315 (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support with above caveats. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as above. — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose I have to strongly oppose this, even though he's been a great editor and a good administrator I don't think he should have checkuser privileges especially since he currently has a longrunning (and unauthorized) bot running on his account that makes use of his admin privileges and I am already uneasy about that and am strongly opposed to him adding the ability to see editor's IP to that. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

    I would plan to use checkuser only for cases of clearcut vandalism, mostly by recently created throwaway accounts, to identify IPs and IP ranges for blocking purposes. I don't imagine I would ever run it on a user such as yourself... if someone wanted to know if a user like yourself had any sockpuppets, they should ask one of the ArbCom checkuser users. -- Curps 23:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Who'd you use it on isn't the issue, the issue is the fact that I don't think it's appropriate for a user who has an unauthrized blocking bot which you apparently get away with on the same account with checkuser access and we have no way of knowing how the bot will play into checkuser or visa versa and either if neither do I still don't feel comfortable with it as long as that block bot is running since your checkuers whether you know it or not will play into decisions you factor into your bot program. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe the bot is tacitly accepted by many members of the community including the Arb Com. -- Curps 05:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearly it isn't otherwise there'd be a policy exception for such things. The only thing that has prevented me so far from actually enforcing policy and blocking you for using an unauthorized bot is A) you could easily unblock yourself and for all I know you have scripted your bot to unblock itself if it's ever blocked, and B) the fact that I would be vilified for actually enforcing an accepted Wikipedia policy despite the fact that I would be backed up on the issue by general consensus. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 18:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record my issue btw isn't with ignoring policy as policy in certain cases should be sidestepped or ignored. The main issue I have is this is something that was sprung out of nowhere and has been run 24/7 with no oversight or general approval. I also would feel more comfortable knowing whether checkuser is going to be playing into the bot at all and if so how? I have sent an email (using his recently enabled email me link) to curps even requesting it privately since he has quite valid concerns about everyone knowing the inner workings of his bot but as of yet he has not seen fit to reply and as such I must strongly state again how bad of an idea it is to give him and his alter ego blocker bot checkuser privileges until this can all be cleared up. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 18:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Undecided. Can we get more information about Curp's "blockbot" and his use of it? Kaldari 03:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

    I'd prefer to say as little as possible, since it is very clear that at least one of our vandals reads discussions such as this one daily, creating usernames that are riffs off of very recent discussions. -- Curps 23:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

    See for example, User:Riffs off of very recent discussions and User:Tacitly accepted, both created just now. -- Curps 05:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Support very active in RC patrolling and user blocking... would make the bot much more effective if it could auto check for socks.  ALKIVAR™ 06:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral Removed administrator reason, posted in error. Netkinetic 06:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Uhm dude... I think you need to check what the hell your talking about here... Curps has been an admin since before you even HEARD of wikipedia.  ALKIVAR™ 06:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible support - if I had to choose just one non-arb/ex-arb to have CheckUser, it'd be Curps. I suspect many people really don't understand just how much complete crap he and his robot friends save Wikipedia from drowning in. (Note that bot access to CheckUser would be monstrously inefficient, so he might have to talk to the devs about some other method if he sees a reasonable [from a dev's point of view] need to do it other than by hand.) I still have to catch him on IRC to sort out a gmail ... anyone else should feel free to do so also - David Gerard 07:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I have to point out that I don't actually use IRC (there's just not enough time in the day). I hope no one has been impersonating me on IRC. In any case I did finally set up an e-mail. -- Curps 05:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, although aren't admins who block already supposed to have an email registered. -- Solipsist 08:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • In theory. In practice, you can't force someone to read or answer their email even if they have an address set up - David Gerard 11:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Per Jtkiefer, weak oppose. NSLE _(T+C) 09:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support anyone who does not see Curps bot at work cannot understand how much good he does. This bot has singlehandedly neutralised WOW and much of the threat of vandal bots. Two requests 1) e-mail availability 2) any auto-boting of the checkuser ability be discussed with devs and cleared with Arbcom. --Doc ^ask? 11:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Someone who does not have the courtesy to respond to talk page messages is clearly not trustworthy enough to deal with the kind of confidential information checkuser gives access to. Not only that, but Curps' block messages are already very cryptic and the mailing list regularly gets emails from someone who has been autoblocked due to one of Curps' blocks. Understandably they have no idea why they can't edit due to the complete lack of information given out by Curps' blocks. Someone who doesn't take responsibility for his actions is not a suitable candidate for privileged information. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • My talk page messages to him get a response ... and as the listadmin, I can't say I've seen a flood of autoblock victims to wikien-l. Almost all block complaints to wikien-l IME are due to a block by hand and I can't recall one by Curps (though there may be one or two). Do you have numbers? - David Gerard 14:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Autoblock is a perennial problem, because even if you give an exact reason (eg, "vandalism"), the autoblocked user usually doesn't read it carefully and believes the message is for him/her ("What do you mean vandalism? I've never vandalized"). So a clear message actually does more harm than good if the blocked username is an obvious throwaway sockpuppet and the only person likely to read the message is a confused autoblocked user. In some cases I do leave a more informative message though. -- Curps 00:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
      • If someone is autoblocked with the reason "user...", I believe they are less likely to challenge this (due to the complete lack of information in the block message) than if it says "you have been blocked for an inappropriate username". We already have a template for username blocks, {{UsernameBlocked}}. My opposition still stands. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • How should I know? Checkuser access should be extended to a few people who really know what they're doing, which in my book means the most important factor is professional experience in DoS attack or intrustion hunting. An IP address isn't an identity, and what exactly it means in the context of an editor or two having edited from one depends on situational context. We seem to already make mistakes in judging this, so I hope the arbitration committee will consider this--experience--in its decision. The second factor is that Curps, or any CheckUser user, must be held--absolutely held--to the privacy policy, and not just in its letter but in spirit as well. Again, this requires the establishment of out-of-Wikipedia bona fides we can't have access to--experience and proven conduct handling confidential information. Curps has had a minor problem with responsiveness (the lack of a mail address is well-known, Curps has ignored it; the desire for informative block summaries is well-known, Curps hasn't addressed it). I'm not thrilled with running a bot with administrative privileges outside the control of the Foundation operations staff; however, Curps' bot provides features missing from MediaWiki that we need, namely page move throttling and username blacklisting. Not recognizing its utility would be wrong. I don't think Curps' general ability or goodwill is questionable, which I suppose is the question being asked in this vetting. But ultimately the arbitration committee should be evaluating Curps as they would a job candidate who was being hired by the Foundation to perform this task. Demi ^T/_C 15:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You raise some good points. However, it's worth pointing out that there's at least one developer who is not an admin on English Wikipedia and whose RfAdmin failed, however paradoxical that may be. I'm not sure anyone is running any background checks on our developers. Also, an IP address is quite limited information (as you point out) and the amount and sensitivity of confidential information is thus greatly reduced compared to other situations with other organizations (eg, medical records, Social Security number, address and telephone, cell phone calling history, etc). Clause 5 of the privacy policy does provide for using IP addresses for purposes of formulating a complaint to an ISP, however I would never contact ISPs myself, rather if this was necessary or desirable I might possibly do "evidence gathering" consisting of diffs (in a format similar to Arb Com evidence gathering) and hand it off to the Arb Com or some designated Wikimedia Foundation employee or officer who would be designated as having the authority to speak in Wikipedia's name when contacting ISPs for "terms of service" complaints. -- Curps 07:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, perhaps my thrust wasn't clear: when I say "How should I know?" I mean that the primary means of vetting people should be done by representatives of the foundation, not members of the community, using information we don't have. And I wouldn't suggest a "background check," just a verifiable history of applicable experience. In any case, your conduct as an editor and administrator reflects to your credit, and your willingness to perform this task even more so, and I hope no one interprets my comments in any other way. Demi ^T/_C 16:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose same concerns as Demi. — Omegatron 15:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. No big deal. The second you get on the internet, you are broadcasting your IP address. If you forget to log in to WP, your IP is there for all the world to see. Same with anons. It's not exactly confidential. And personally, I don't see what having/not having an email address listed or even running a bot from his account has anything to do with the ability to do a sock check. --Kbdank71 15:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Curps does some good work, but his lack of response to any inquiries from others really bothers me. And I don't think that making "email this user" work is going to fix that. Splash and I have been having problems with him for awhile with such basic stuff as putting reasons in his protection summaries. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. I'd like to find out more about how he blocks accounts so quickly. --TML1988 20:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - again, nothing personal against Curps, but I still feel hesitant at handing out priviledges to a non-ArbCom member. I understand that there's a backlog at WP:RFCU, but I don't think that adding another non-Arbitrator with access is the right thing to do at the moment. In my opinion, we're already getting lenient about granting requests for checkusers to be performed; they used to be strictly for Arbitration matters only. Let me also take this opportunity to commend Curps for his amazing vandal-fighting and his bot as well. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - This opinion is specific towards the CheckUser aspect of the proposal. Let me start by saying that I think Curps has contributed a lot to Wikipedia, but I think CheckUser capabilities for users should be kept as conservatively used and given as is practically possible. For one thing, I would prefer to see that these users are personally known to the Wikimedia Foundation. However, this is also an opinion that is not a well-informed one, so if there is a pressing need to extend the current group of users with CheckUser access, my opinion may not be so inclined as it is. --HappyCamper 03:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Curps is doing a tremendous job in stopping vandal-bots and other blatant abuses of wikipedia. I wish there were a way to restrict some lookup accesses to only newly made and blocked accounts and that such privileges were given out a tad more freely to trusted admins. But here I'm more than confident that Curps will not abuse this tool and that it will be of great help to him and us. Shanes 04:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support iff those users who currently have access genuinely believe there is a need for more users to have it, AND the arbitrators, foundation officers, etc. and Curps himself are confident that he has the necessary technical knowhow and skills. Thryduulf 12:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: I am opposed to anyone being given or even using checkuser rights until such time as a publicly available log of these actions is put into place. I am not saying the results of the use should be posted. It would be enough to see "* 01:23 February 9, 2006 (UTC) User:BobtheCheckUserGuy ran checkuser against User:InevitableTroll". I am aware of abuses of checkuser, and refuse to agree to support its use until there is some form of checks and balances against its misuses. Virtually everything else is logged, why not this? --Durin 14:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • All uses of checkuser are logged. The log is not made public for the obvious reason that if I run checkuser against user:Foo, and then immediately run it again on IP 1.2.3.4, it's quite obvious to anyone viewing the log what Foo's IP address was (which is a violation of our privacy policy). Your complaint is without merit. Raul654 17:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh this is getting ridiculously political. The Committee whould endorse candidate checkuser users who in its opinion, that of the developers, and the foundation, are trustworthy and competent. I don't know quite what this silly poll was supposed to tell us except that Wikipedians will argue about anything. --Tony Sidaway 17:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It shows that there are many valid (and invalid in the case of the above) concerns about Curps getting checkuser access and it allows the community's input so we don't have (another) unilateral decision from the arbcom. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 18:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Archives

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (unofficial)