Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
FeloniousMonk (talk | contribs)
18,409 edits
Line 74: Line 74:
==== Statement by FCYTravis ====
==== Statement by FCYTravis ====
I request that the Arbitration Committee look into whether the allegations about Min Zhu and his relationship with Erin Zhu and his departure from WebEx, made solely by Michael Zeleny (editing as [[User:Larvatus]]), are properly sourced, verifiable and encyclopedic. Given that no independent sources are available to confirm or deny some of these allegations, I am concerned that they represent [[WP:OR|original research]] and [[WP:NOT|soapboxing]] by a legally involved party. Furthermore, none of his allegations appear to have gained a broader audience - Zeleny has failed to produce any news articles, magazine reports or other [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] that have independently reported his allegations. There appears to be no broader information available other than an article reporting that he protested outside a "WebEx User Conference." There are no independent reports on the allegations of sexual abuse, no independent reports on the insinuation that he left "amid controversy," etc. The only source available that suggests there even is a "controversy" is Zeleny's own blog. The question is, are damaging allegations made by only one person and published only on Usenet and Internet message boards, and not reported by any objective [[WP:V|verifiable source]], material for encyclopedic inclusion in Wikipedia articles? I am tired of edit-warring on the issue and wish to submit this dispute for a final decision either way. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 05:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I request that the Arbitration Committee look into whether the allegations about Min Zhu and his relationship with Erin Zhu and his departure from WebEx, made solely by Michael Zeleny (editing as [[User:Larvatus]]), are properly sourced, verifiable and encyclopedic. Given that no independent sources are available to confirm or deny some of these allegations, I am concerned that they represent [[WP:OR|original research]] and [[WP:NOT|soapboxing]] by a legally involved party. Furthermore, none of his allegations appear to have gained a broader audience - Zeleny has failed to produce any news articles, magazine reports or other [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] that have independently reported his allegations. There appears to be no broader information available other than an article reporting that he protested outside a "WebEx User Conference." There are no independent reports on the allegations of sexual abuse, no independent reports on the insinuation that he left "amid controversy," etc. The only source available that suggests there even is a "controversy" is Zeleny's own blog. The question is, are damaging allegations made by only one person and published only on Usenet and Internet message boards, and not reported by any objective [[WP:V|verifiable source]], material for encyclopedic inclusion in Wikipedia articles? I am tired of edit-warring on the issue and wish to submit this dispute for a final decision either way. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 05:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

==== Statement by Demi ====
I see this as breaking down into a few separate issues:
#Usenet posts, forum posts and personal blogs are not suitable sources for anything.
#Even if technically accurate (for example, sourced from a deposition transcript), the mere fact that someone has made an accusation "in the public record" or "as part of a court case" (an unrelated, settled court case in which the court does not consider the fact of the accusation) does not inherently make it encyclopedic coverage to be included in an article (in this case [[Min Zhu]]). Whether it is or not should be up to the judgment of the community, which is hampered in this case by...
#The fact that [[User:Larvatus|Larvatus]] is a disputant in this case, to the extent of causing security problems at a WebEx function, having active and recently-settled lawsuits against the subject, and is using any means possible (including Wikipedia) to publicize his and his ex-girlfriend's accusations against Min Zhu. Wikipedia is not a venue to get one's story more note than it has already, which is what Larvatus is using it for.
#FeloniusMonk, in support of Larvatus' theories and accusations, has short-circuited consensus editing. After involving himself on one side of the dispute, he has erroneously accused FCYTravis of vandalism and threatened to block for making edits he disagrees with. Administrators should not use their privileges (or threaten to use them) in support of a particular side in a content dispute in which they are involved.

[[User:Demi|Demi]] <sup>[[User_talk:Demi|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Demi|C]]</sub> 06:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


==== Statement by party 2 ====
==== Statement by party 2 ====

Revision as of 06:40, 27 December 2005

Shortcut

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.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Aug 2024 03 Sep 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion none 26 July 2024
Clarification request: Appeal methods for Lima Bean Farmer topic ban none none 12 August 2024
Amendment request: German war effort none (orig. case) 13 August 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) none none 17 August 2024

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 you lodge a complaint against.

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

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

How to list cases

Under the below Current requests section:

  • Click "[edit]";
  • Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), ommitting 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

WebEx and Min Zhu

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by FCYTravis

I request that the Arbitration Committee look into whether the allegations about Min Zhu and his relationship with Erin Zhu and his departure from WebEx, made solely by Michael Zeleny (editing as User:Larvatus), are properly sourced, verifiable and encyclopedic. Given that no independent sources are available to confirm or deny some of these allegations, I am concerned that they represent original research and soapboxing by a legally involved party. Furthermore, none of his allegations appear to have gained a broader audience - Zeleny has failed to produce any news articles, magazine reports or other reliable sources that have independently reported his allegations. There appears to be no broader information available other than an article reporting that he protested outside a "WebEx User Conference." There are no independent reports on the allegations of sexual abuse, no independent reports on the insinuation that he left "amid controversy," etc. The only source available that suggests there even is a "controversy" is Zeleny's own blog. The question is, are damaging allegations made by only one person and published only on Usenet and Internet message boards, and not reported by any objective verifiable source, material for encyclopedic inclusion in Wikipedia articles? I am tired of edit-warring on the issue and wish to submit this dispute for a final decision either way. FCYTravis 05:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Demi

I see this as breaking down into a few separate issues:

  1. Usenet posts, forum posts and personal blogs are not suitable sources for anything.
  2. Even if technically accurate (for example, sourced from a deposition transcript), the mere fact that someone has made an accusation "in the public record" or "as part of a court case" (an unrelated, settled court case in which the court does not consider the fact of the accusation) does not inherently make it encyclopedic coverage to be included in an article (in this case Min Zhu). Whether it is or not should be up to the judgment of the community, which is hampered in this case by...
  3. The fact that Larvatus is a disputant in this case, to the extent of causing security problems at a WebEx function, having active and recently-settled lawsuits against the subject, and is using any means possible (including Wikipedia) to publicize his and his ex-girlfriend's accusations against Min Zhu. Wikipedia is not a venue to get one's story more note than it has already, which is what Larvatus is using it for.
  4. FeloniusMonk, in support of Larvatus' theories and accusations, has short-circuited consensus editing. After involving himself on one side of the dispute, he has erroneously accused FCYTravis of vandalism and threatened to block for making edits he disagrees with. Administrators should not use their privileges (or threaten to use them) in support of a particular side in a content dispute in which they are involved.

Demi T/C 06:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

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

Rajput

Involved parties

editors involved in the Rajput article

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • see the 17 archives of Talk:Rajput. Several admins have attempted to moderate, and have given up in despair.

Statement by Dbachmann

I request arbitration on events occurring at Rajput (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where mind-boggling edit-warring and shouting matches have been occurring for the best part of half a year. The question holding the article hostage is "Can there be such a thing as a 'Muslim Rajput'?". The simple answer is that this is disputed. But far from documenting the controversy, a tag team of "Hindus only" editors (very difficult to keep track of, fraying into throwaway accounts, anon IPs, and probable sockpuppets) vigorously opposes the mere description of such a controversy. The talkpage has long degenerated into an unreadable shouting match, making it impossible for the bona fide editors (which exist on both sides, "Hindus only" and "Muslims too") to have a meaningful discussion. I request of the arbcom to

  • establish possible identities of involved editors (sockpuppet checks)
  • review the behaviour of the more disruptive editors, and pronounce bans or probations
  • lay out guidelines for admins, enabling them to deal with trolling on the article in the future (e.g., authorizing blocks for personal attacks or rolling back of offtopic rants)

I should mention that I became involved, as an admin, on 13 December (reacting to a complaint on WP:AN/I, and tried to enforce wikiquette and policy; as a result I have been accused of taking sides, resulting in an "RfC". I have not taken administrative action since, and if the arbcom enters upon this case, I will further agree to consider myself an involved party, as the case's submitter, and will voluntarily abstain from editing the article for the duration of the case. dab (ᛏ) 18:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statements by involved parties

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)
Statement by Zora

Admin Dmcdevut asked me to take a look at the article several months ago -- he knew I had some basic knowledge of India and thought I might be able to help the warring parties compromise. I failed utterly. Any attempt to revise the article to say that there was a debate re Rajput identity or outline the several positions involved was instantly reverted by Shivraj Singh, Sissodia, etc.. They used as many sockpuppet accounts or anonIPs as necessary to squelch any challenge. I was also reviled and accused of being an ignorant foreigner, a Muslim jihadi, etc. I have not been doing much on the article of late; I want to do a rewrite, but it's not my area of academic expertise and I need to make the time for a fair bit of reading. I hope that this arbcom case will help us come up with some policies of broader application in dealing with POV warriors who will not allow alternate viewpoints to even be mentioned. Zora 20:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Mcfly85 -- Emergency injunction requested

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I've attempted to warn Mcfly85; he disregarded my warning. Given that the admins are genuinely split on this issue (User:Celestianpower believes that Mcfly85's vote should count; User:Howcheng does not and neither do I), I don't think we can get the dispute resolved before Mcfly85's behavior further taints the renewed RfA.

Statement by User:Nlu

Mcfly85's sock puppetry in inflencing SWD316's prior RfA tainted that vote (see WP:AN#Mcfly85 for details), and so I brought the new RfA. Mcfly85 then insisted on injecting himself into this RfA despite his prior behavior. I am requesting an emergency injunction to not allow him to vote or to make any further comments on the RfA. I am not, at this point, asking for any additional sanctions, as I am otherwise unfamiliar with the history between him and SWD316. In the meantime, I blocked Mcfly85 for three hours for disregarding my instruction to backoff SWD316's RfA. Please also review if this was proper action on my part. --Nlu (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I see User:Fred Bauder's comment that he would like to see Mcfly85 and his sock puppets blocked indefinitely. Obviously, the ArbCom has the power to do what it believes is right, but I (as I explained to Mcfly85 on my talk page) do not want to see this. I think he can become a productive editor, and he has made productive edits before. --Nlu (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mcfly85

(Copied over from User talk:Mcfly85 by User:Nlu as Mcfly85 is himself unable to do so during the block) OK, I'm just sorry for all of this. Please remove my vote, please block me indefinetly. I'm sorry, please block me, I don't want to cause any more harm. You guys do a fine job with this site. SWD316, I'm very sorry for all of this, I think you will make a good mod. Mcfly85 04:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SWD316

Where to begin, well he vandalized my user page several times. (see:My User Page for the full listing) Also he creates several accounts strickly used for vandalism. Also signed in as IP addresses, also listed on my user page, to vandalize my user page, my talk page, my RFA, and various areas on Wikipedia.

He first got upset when I edited his user page censoring the word "fuckers". I apologize for doing so. Anyways, in the edit summary I misspelled "vulger" and typed "fulger". Months later Mcfly85, under an IP address, vandalized my user page here. I immediately knew it was him. When confronted, he simply blanked his talk page.

In all of this mess, Mcfly85 was determined to prove his innocence to Wikipedia as he contacted the Administrators' noticeboard, The Mediation Cabal and other user trying to ruin my name on Wikipedia.

I ran fro adminship on December 14 resulting in me getting frustrated and closing the RFA. I closed it because Mcfly85 voted oppose causing major controversy on my RFA. He even signed in under sockpuppet accounts as Rock09 and Sigma995 and voted once again.

Banes found more incriminating evidence today further leading to this RFAr (see: my talk page for evidence). Later that day Fred Bauder ran a CheckUser on Mcfly85 and saw where he created numerous accounts for vandalizing my user page, RFA, etc.

I was renominated today to run for adminship based on Mcfly85's edits to the previous RFA. He interjected himself into this one as well tring to influence the voters to vote oppose saying I was a bad user. Im just glad Mcfly85 has now given up. SWD316 05:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Howcheng

According to a checkuser run by User:Fred Bauder (see [2]), User:Mcfly85 is a confirmed sockpuppeteer. He voted against SWD316 multiple times with the puppets during SWD316's second RfA attempt (see [3]) in clear violation of WP:SOCK. As one possible penalty is a permanent block, I believe it should apply retroactively to the time when he wielded his puppets, thus disqualifying his vote on the resubmitted RfA. Even if a block is not applied, at the very least his vote should not count and he should be censured and an injunction prohibiting him from working on the same articles as SWD316 or those articles that SWD316 is likely to touch (i.e., those that fall under the sphere of Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling) should be issued. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 07:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CBDunkerson

It might help if any/all sockpuppets at the RFA were identified as such. Technically, Mcfly85 has the right to comment as much as he likes... but other users should be made aware when multiple comments actually come from the same person. Multiple sock-votes should be blocked / discounted of course. Arguably the RFA might already have been 'poisoned' by this sock-puppetry, but there is little which can be done about that now. I'd suggest having sock-checker support pre-arranged whenever the next SWD316 RFA comes up (though waiting a bit might help)... identify sock comments and remove repeat votes as they take place. --CBD ☎ ✉ 22:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/4/0/0)

Requests for Clarification

Requests for clarification from the Arbcom on matters related to the arbitration process.


Zen-master again

Zen-master is on probation regarding all articles. Does that include pages in the Wikipedia namespace? The reason I'm asking is that he's recently been active in some (rather spurious) policy proposals. Radiant_>|< 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in hearing any evidence or argument Radiant can come up with that explains and justifies his labeling Peter's WP:0RR guideline or any other "policy" proposal I've "recently been active in" as being "spurious". I will also note the coincidence that Peter is unable to defend his guideline against charges of being "spurious" as he was just blocked for 24 hours for accusing Carbonite of being a "troll" because Carbonite initially moved the WP:0RR guideline to Peter's user namespace because of a header dispute (among other actions that are seemingly unbecomming of an admin and don't appear to have been done with an assumption of good faith in mind). Feel free to disagree with any guideline but please don't thwart its acceptance by others. zen master T 23:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master#Zen-master_placed_on_probation includes any page other than his own user and talk pages. Whether he is being disruptive is up to the determination of the banning administrator. Any ban should be logged and documented. Fred Bauder 23:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But some actual reasonable argument has to be attempted that explains specifically how I have, if ever, been "disruptive". Instead of repeating labels over and over again why don't you or someone get down to specifics? Please note WP:Probation policy: "A [probation] ban may be imposed only for good cause which shall be documented in a section set aside for that purpose in the arbitration case. Banning without good cause or in bad faith shall be grounds for censure, restriction, or removal of administrative access". At this point I interpret everytime I've been labeled as "disruptive" was and is some sort of misdirection ploy so people don't focus on numerous highly biased and biasing articles, with the most notable and nefarious example being race and intelligence. zen master T 01:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic

I would like to discuss my status with respect to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2.

The mentorship agreement specified that users Raul654, Kim Bruning and Grunt would act as my mentors. It said also "If the mentors think it is working, they can lessen or end their supervision of Netoholic's editing. If they consider it has failed — at the six month review or at any earlier time — the namespace and revert restriction in remedy 2 will take effect."

Over time, all three of my mentors ended their supervision for various reasons. On June 28th, Kim Bruning stepped aside as my mentor. Grunt became inactive as of July 5. On July 19th, Raul654 resigned recommending an alternate "probation" approach.

What I'd like confirmation is whether these resignations fulfilled the "end their supervision" clause. In the above linked resignations, neither Kim or Raul654 indicated that the mentorship failed, but mentioned leaving for personal reasons or because of the way the mentorship arrangement was designed. That arrangement was flawed because the community was asked to bring up concerns with the mentors directly. This meant that even minor disagreements were propogated to three different talk pages, which lead to a lot of stress.

In short, I'd like to ask to be relieved of any Arbitration edit restrictions presently in place. -- Netoholic @ 18:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree strongly that Netoholic should not be, at this point, under as draconian a set of restrictions as he currently is - particularly the template restrictions, where I think he's a needed force for pointing out that consensus does not get to override the developers saying "Please don't do this," I would caution on the other hand that edits such as [4] do make me worry that some of the incivility problems have not corrected themselves. On the other hand, that Netoholic's behavior has in general improved while under parole seems clear, and it may be that the remaining issues can only be fixed through experience. So I, at least, offer my tepid support of this. Which, considering my history with this conflict, probably actually still counts for a lot. :) Phil Sandifer 18:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Netoholic and Snowspinner are actually working together. Holy goodness me! Net still needs to grasp the finer points of dealing with f*ckw diplomacy, but has come to both of us for help in these matters, with good productive effect. A strong caution about dealing gently with policy should remain - but he seems to be getting this point, which is excellent. We each have our strengths and weaknesses, after all ... - David Gerard 20:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please get some comments here? Netoholic has been tremendously helpful of late in dealing with the requirements of WP:AUM, but has had to do so flouting his parole and editing templates... which is unfortunate, and a situation that ought to be brought to an end. Phil Sandifer 06:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on Wiki-break for a while but one of the first things I checked when I got back was what Neto has been up to and I am pleased to see things have really turned around. I agree with David's proposal on this 100% and if I can assist in any way I would be happy to. --Wgfinley 20:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While we're appealing this case, btw, can we also overturn the findings that say that AUM is not policy, since they imply a really godawful precedent that the community can meaningfully have a lack of consensus to obey the developers? Phil Sandifer 06:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not policy, because there are occasions where it is fruitful to use them. That doesn't mean it's not damn good advice and should still be followed. There must be a good reason to use a meta-template, and anyone who says otherwise is a fool. The MoS still should be obeyed, personal attacks must not be made, nor may original research be put into the main namespace. The ArbCom may not create policy. AUM completely fits in the template category without losing its effect. That said, I fully support any motion to remove Netoholic's restrictions on editing categories. I would, on the other hand, also support a motion to put him on probation with regard to the template namespace only. [[Sam Korn]] 19:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ed's "false"(?) claim that FuelWagon's talk page contained personal attacks

Another "finding of fact" accuses Ed of claiming falsely that FuelWagon's talk page contained personal attacks.

I originally queried that finding for two reasons – one that Ed had used the word "remarks", not "attacks", and two that FuelWagon between the moment of blocking and the moment that Ed protected his talk page had made 108 edits, many of them full of sarcasm and sneers (in my view). With regard to my first query, Raul654 referred me to the block log, where Ed did indeed use the word "attack". I accept that. I asked for further clarification here, as I felt that the words "claiming falsely" could give the impression that the ArbCom found FuelWagon's 108 posts acceptable. At the time that I queried it, five arbitrators had endorsed it. Two more have done so since then, and there has been no clarification.

Since FuelWagon has undoubtedly been guilty of violating WP:NPA on many occasions, it might seem relatively unimportant to make a judgment as to whether or not he was violating it on his talk page during his block on that particular date. I raise the issue again because it has been officially judged that Ed Poor made a false claim, and since making a false claim is a rather shabby thing to do, I think that perhaps the evidence could have been examined a little more thoroughly before reaching that official decision, or that the ArbCom should have given a little more clarification so that we could know on what grounds they judged that Ed's claim was "false".

On 12 December, I wrote as follows (in italics):

Do the five arbitrators who signed the proposed finding of fact all stand over the claim that none of the following

contains any personal remarks?

I would ask you all please to take a little time to go through those posts, and perhaps reconsider your proposed finding of fact. I realize you may still decide that Ed was wrong to protect FuelWagon's talk page after the 108 posts (though I have known other admins to take similar action, and personally supported it), but at least it should be worded in such a way as not to accuse Ed of something which he did not do.

I would still like clarification on this "finding". If seven arbitrators judged that Ed made a false claim, does that mean that all seven found FuelWagon's 108 posts perfectly acceptable, or found them inappropriate but not attacks, or found them bordering on attacks but not quite attacks, or even just got bogged down with the enormous amount of evidence, and made an understandable error? I personally found that some of his posts were attacks, but if ArbCom members found that they were borderline rather than clear-cut, wouldn't it be fairer to say that Ed exaggerated, rather than the he made a false claim? AnnH (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an exerpt from the email I sent the arbcom mailing list on December 13th regarding the issues you brought up: I don't believe any of the diffs she cited contain personal *attacks*, but a reasonable person could disagree with me on this point. They are personal remarks; whether or not they are attacks is - at best- debatable Raul654 05:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Raul654 for clarifying that. I still think that the wording chosen is too harsh on Ed. If you felt that "a reasonable person" could think they were personal attacks, then you must feel that Ed could reasonably have thought they were personal attacks. So the blunt wording that he claimed falsely etc. suggests that he (perhaps deliberately?) made an untrue assertion (perhaps as an excuse to protect the page without justification?). It reflects badly (and unfairly) on Ed, and I feel that wording should, at least, have been softened by suggesting that he simply exaggerated the seriousness of inappropriate remarks, or something like that. Otherwise, it suggests deliberate untruthfulness on Ed's part, rather than a sincere opinion which happens to differ (legitimately) from that of the ArbCom members. (I'd be a bit surprised to find that the seven members who endorsed that finding all felt that Ed made a false claim.)
On a related note, if it can be accepted that Ed blocked FuelWagon justly and protected the talk page in good faith, then perhaps his "I'm getting away with it because I've been around a long time" remark could be seen as tactless and imprudent rather than actually malicious. I've noticed that he tends to change his mind a lot. Note how he signed the RfC against SlimVirgin, and then unsigned it, blocked FuelWagon and then apologized, opposed Lord Voldemort's RfA and then supported it. I would see it as a tendency to occasionally act or speak first and think second, rather than actually think he can break rules because he's been around for a long time. AnnH (talk) 08:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of SEWilco probation

The terms of the probation at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute_2 say: 

3) SEWilco should not use a bot to convert citations on articles, nor should he manually 
convert citation styles on any articles.

I'd like to understand if this diff is a permissible use of a bot, or a violation of the arbcom decision. On the face of it it seems like a contravention of the decision. Is there something I'm missing? I have blocked the bot temporarily (24 hours) while trying to understand this issue. If I'm mistaken and this is a permissible use, any admin should feel free to undo the block (but please explain to me how to distinguish permissible from impermissible bot edits). Thanks, Nandesuka 15:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SEWilco indicates on my talk page that he thinks its a permissible use because the article style already uses WP:FN. But the way the remedy is written is "should not use a bot to convert citations on articles" (emphasis added), not "convert articles". So if this use is permissible, a clarification is very much needed. Nandesuka 15:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article already uses WP:FN style, and I created a citation where there had been none.. A URL link alone is not a citation. "complete citations — also called "references," because the citations identify the referred-to sources — are collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading". (SEWilco 16:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

He is correct, the article is already using Wikipedia:Footnotes style. He is technically violating the arbitration remedy but the violation is harmless. I don't think we will modify the remedy, but the evil addressed is changing a bunch of articles that are in some other format to the footnotes format without concensus not the particular use here. As we impressed on SEWilco, at great length, merely technical violations may or may not be enforced. Fred Bauder 16:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SEWilco is gaming. I just blocked RefBot indefinitely (second account created to evade ArbCom ruling) and SEWilco 48 hours (creating second account to evade ArbCom ruling) - David Gerard 18:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. RefBot is my third account, not second. It was not created to evade the ArbCom ruling; not only was it created before the ArbCom ruling, and the ruling does not distinguish between my accounts, but actually User:RefBot was created because its abilities are becoming too specialized for the utility account User:SEWilcoBot. So far 0.5% of the Admins have been involved, and it would save everyone effort if you'd ask questions before acting in ignorance. (SEWilco 01:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Clarification necessary

The phrasing "convert citations on articles, nor should he manually convert citation styles on any articles." is overly ambiguous. I've been blocked due to following WP:CITE and defining a missing citation in an article which uses WP:FN. Apparently any change from [[http://example.com/]] to {{ref|example.com}} is not allowed. Is changing * John Smith: "My Autobiography" to * Smith, John: "My Autobiography" allowed? There are many things which can be called "citations" and "citation styles", such as changing (pp. 33-41) to (Smith pp. 33-41) when content changes make the first format incorrect. The discussion had only mentioned a few situations. (SEWilco 01:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Motions to extend ban on Ciz editing

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz#Prevention_from_editing_Zoophilia is modified to:

Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) is prevented indefinitely from editing Zoophilia and its closely-related articles, or any editing related to the subjects of zoophilia, bestiality, animal sexuality, or human-animal relationships in any article, including their talk pages. Whether an article or page concerns these subjects shall be determined by the enforcing administrator.
Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz#Attempts_to_edit_Zoophilia is modified to:

If Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) edits Zoophilia or its closely related articles, or makes any edit which relates to zoophilia, bestiality, animal sexuality, or human-animal relationships in any article, or their talk pages, such changes made may be reverted by any editor and any administrator may, at his/her discretion, briefly block Ciz (up to a week in the case of repeat violations). After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.
Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz#User:_DrBat_--_continuing_breaches_of_previous_ArbCom_ruling

Motion to desysop Karmafist

Move to reopen Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing and desysop Karmafist (talk · contribs) based on inappropriate blocks of kmweber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) , see [5], Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Kurt and User_talk:Kmweber#Block_Notice.

[Support options split & comments copied/moved as appropriate. James F. (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)][reply]

Support reopening:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Concur. While we're there we should broaden the restrictions on POTW as well, possibly even ban him altogether. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree to reopen the case; do not agree to any foregone conclusions ➥the Epopt 19:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support reopening to consider all parties, but not necessarily this specific action. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I am willing to reopen Pigsonthewing, I am not willing at this stage to desysop Karmafist. He has twice indefinately blocked someone when a finite block was required? If he repeatedly redoes the indefinite block after other admins shoerten it then I will support a desysop. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:59, 21 Dec
Support desysoping:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Concur. While we're there we should broaden the restrictions on POTW as well, possibly even ban him altogether. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Reject. Karmafist said some things in the heat of the moment that shouldn't be held against him. He needs to ignore Kwebber and POTW and do something more productive and less frustrating, and leave someone else to handle those two. Arbitration, in this case, is not likely to produce a good result and would only exacerbate the situation. Raul654 20:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Reject for now - let's see if Karmafist calms down and Kmweber and POTW knock it off. If the behaviour continues for another day, then I'd support re-opening. Jayjg (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Emphatically reject. I strongly oppose desysopping Karmafist. ➥the Epopt 22:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I'm note sure; on the matter of reopening, I'm not opposed to it but am not entirely sure that it is needed. Certainly, I am with Epopt/Kat/Theresa in that I am not sure that karmafist needs desysoping (but I will, as always, keep an open mind). James F. (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

I'm not currently AC-active, but I want to say that this move to desysop Karmafist is premature. Kmweber has a history of driving otherwise calm people into an incandescent rage. Combine that with Pigsonthewing, who does the same thing deliberately, and I think very few of us would manage to keep our cool. Punishing Karmafist is not helpful IMO. Certainly please wait 24 hours for everyone to calm down a bit.

I've asked him to pretend Kurt doesn't exist from now on, and I think he will try to do so. See also the "Kurt" section on WP:ANI - I've unblocked Kmweber and asked other admins to keep blocks to loving and educational 24-hour zaps, but have noted that I'm not going to undo further blocks. See also User talk:Kmweber, down the bottom. - David Gerard 20:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I previously asked Karmafist to pretend that Pigsonthewing didn't exist, and he repeatedly promised to do so -- but didn't. His track record in this regard is absymal, and on my scorecard he is out of chances. Kurt may be the sort of person to drive people into incandescant rage, but Karmafist is the sort of person who gets driven into such rages very easily. If this is the "heat of the moment", it's a moment that has lasted at least a month now. All the evidence I see is that he is simply not fit to be an admin. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: Karmafist has said on my talk page he'll cool it and washes his hands of the problem, but reserves the right to point and laugh at me if it all blows up again, which is entirely fair enough - David Gerard 12:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others:

Do we really want the sysop bit to be held by people who can be driven into an incandescent rage? Come on, we should expect some degree of maturity and reliability from our admins, otherwise what's the point? - -Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kurt is pretty special that way. Phil Sandifer 05:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If losing your cool at any one time from some people continually annoying you, over and over, is a grounds for desysop, then I believe we'll only have 3 admins left, if we're lucky. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with Redwolf24 on this one. It's like Chinese water torture... when you're being constantly harassed by someone you're bound to act at least somewhat irrationally. I'm not saying that what he did was in the right, because it wasn't... but I am saying that if you're going to desysop Karmafist for an easily revertable action that stemed from being driven over the edge, then hold every single admin to the same standards, including yourselves. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kurt certainly is special that way. He achieved it with me, after all, and I don't think he was even particularly trying to - David Gerard 12:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to thank all those who offered kind words here, and offer forgiveness for the misunderstandings for those here who do not understand my zeal against those who wish to hurt Wikipedia or those who are caught in our broken system of internal governance. If any of you would like to further understand my viewpoints on situations such as those being discussed here, please feel free to contact me on my talk page, and before you come over, I'd like to remind you of the situations i've diffused at places like Ward Churchill, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Democrat userbox, on Kumanovo to an extent, in addition to being the current vote leader in the Esperanza Advisory Council Race, welcoming 550 users as of this edit, winning my rfa in October 53-2, and adding nearly 8,000 edits now to our project.
For a lack of a better analogy, I'd see a de-sysopping as a failure to fufill "Wiki-Bushido" in the eyes of my peers, thus requiring a "Wiki-Seppuku" more or less, which nearly happened 3 weeks ago.
I will do anything to protect Wikipedia, but I will not be shamed in the attempt to do so. I just wanted to inform you of this in case any of you hadn't heard before. karmafist 20:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not being involved, my observation is a simple one. Zeal is a good thing if balanced, but unbalanced zeal is a flaw, as frequently a social problem as a social help, and often leads people to impulsive, poor or even abusive decisions. "I did it to protect you" is often cited as a justification both online and offline for fanatical, excessive or unwarranted behavior. There are many editors who support Wikipedia strongly, karmafist is not alone in this. But not all have found it necessary to construct a Bushido-like "honor or die" philosophy to justify fanatical intensity, or to avoid criticisms regarding the occasional problematic aspects of behavior.
"Bold but fair" is also a necessary part of a senior role. But a dozen good acts do not mean that the abusive, rash, excessive or poorly judged ones may be ignored if they persist. It's generally a good principle to appreciate good conduct, but not use it to justify condoning lack of change on less positive conduct. It's also a generally good principle that higher power must be balanced with more thought in its use under all circumstances, and not to use "zeal" to excuse or justify excessive action. Misapplied zeal is often a considerable problem within any community.
Note that these points apply to many situations and are not specific to this one. They should not be taken by karmafist as any form of personal negative comment. They are merely an observation on problems that often come with being too forceful and ego-involved in many situations. It's more important to be able to balance with moderation when given power beyond the norm. FT2 (Talk) 04:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. Shorter version, 'A fanatic is someone who redoubles their efforts while losing sight of their goals' - George Santayana. --CBD ☎ ✉ 04:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Or to put it more bluntly, he seems to have dropped into the fantasy that he's some kind of bloody Samurai rather than (like everyone here) an amateur editor of an online encyclopedia. His view that previous misdemeanours justify any hostility against an editor are against guidelines, and have repeatedly exacerbated problem situations. Tearlach 03:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
even more bluntly, the self image he has of himself as some kind of knight or samurai when his behavior is simply that of a bully promoted to town cop (they gave him a badge and gun, but he's still a rude and abusive bully under the uniform) is delusional. the WP project is not simply a business or simply defined institution, but some simple comparisons can be made. a business needs founders, investors, customers, and employees. the leadership would include the company founder(s) and some of the top level employees. all of these editors who are adding content of value to the project are like investors (they are investing their own person capital, at some risk, for the benefit of the project). people coming here to read about learn something are like customers, and, although you're not getting paid for it, the sysops (admin and arbcom) are like employees. imagine a business where a prominent (mid-level) employee treats some of its investors the way karmafist deals with (potentially valuable) editors. once the leadership finds out about it, how long would that employee last at that company? or, on the other hand, if the boss didn't do anything about such an employee, what would happen to the "corporate culture"? with more karmafists appearing (which is what happens if this behavior is rewarded) and doing the same thing to the investors and potential investors, what will be the future of this business? Karma, shame is unavoidable at this point, but if you truly "will do anything to protect Wikipedia", the best thing you can do for that aim is to leave. r b-j 03:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Fantasy"? Did you miss the part where he used the word "analogy" to describe his comparison to a Samurai? —Locke Cole 03:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
the question we all have to ask (particularly the ArbCom and Jimbo) is if that analogy fits the reality in any way. which analogy fits better, the chivalrous samurai or the bully that became the town cop and now he has a gun and a veneer of authority to abuse people with impunity? r b-j 03:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


We need more people like Karmafist who are willing to apply WP:IAR when it comes to trolls, and much less WP:AGF for people who have abused our trust over and over again. Zoe (216.234.130.130 22:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I am absolutely horrified by this comment, and even more horrified that there appears to be an increasingly large culture of admins who have such little regard for assumptions of good faith, particularly in those they disagree with. Kurt is a master of getting on people's nerves, but there is absolutely no way that Karmafist's actions can be read as in line with any precedent or rules. Phil Sandifer 06:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I just died from irony poisoning. Nandesuka 03:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Zoe! You remind me of something that's often overlooked in AGF, the "A". There's no point in assuming when you've experienced something first hand, and even though it's currently not widely seen as part of WP:V, Verification should be made with users just as much as it is with content. karmafist 05:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Amen! I'm just a humble ordinary editor who brought the problem at Ward Churchill to him, with trepidation that the best I could expect was some months-long painful process to deal with a POV-troll at that page User:Keetoowah. Though I would not have thought to ask, Karmafist pro-actively protected the page for a short time to fend off edit warring, launched a well written RfC, and then after giving plenty of opportunity for cooperation, blocked Keetoowah under an admittedly somewhat broad interpretation of a prior RfAr against Keetoowah. The end result of bold adminship is a usable, relatively high-quality page with one fewer POV-trolls. A little bit of WP:IAR combined with good judgement is exactly what we need to fend off the growing vandalism, belligerence, and POV-mongering that takes far too much effort to work around or against. We need 50 more admins like Karmafist! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No. We really don't. Phil Sandifer 06:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If has quit block warring with other administrators that will be sufficient Fred Bauder 23:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I never started, Fred. I figured that I was at the situation I described above, thus basically beginning what I figured would be the end of my time at Wikipedia. Then about 10 editors came out of nowhere, including the one who blocked me, said that it was nothing personal and they still respected me, and the situation ended. If you respect me Fred, you will not have a problem. karmafist 05:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It takes two to revert war. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Karmafist has left an imprint in many other cases than just POTW. if the issue is whether or not he should be vested with admin authority, his entire record (with all editors) is relevant. in my case (RFAr above) Karmafist assumes the worst (ABF?) and makes no attempt to check it out. if he denies that, he is clearly being (possibly self?) deceptive. note: "If anymore Harrassment of Phroziac or anyone else occurs from Rbj, i'll open up an rfc in the next week or so, I'll keep you all informed." -- he has this axiom that i've been harrassing Phroziac without ever believing he needs to support that with evidence (such as what sentences or words of mine are harrassing?). this guy has the maturity of a high-school kid with numchucks and you guys made him an admin?? WP is (or should be) a serious place where adults can do some work without getting harrassed by the very people entrusted to enforce the rules. undoubtably, he'll label this harrassment and retaliate. r b-j 06:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has been critical of Karmafist's actions as an admin in the past, and who has also had run-ins with both Kmweber and Pigsonthewing, I can't say I blame Karmafist for blowing his top with either of those two editors. I would be comfortable with Karmafist retaining his adminship as long as he pretends they don't exist, as David put it. Karmafist acts perhaps a bit too rashly when someone pegs his trollmeter; he just needs to learn to let cooler heads prevail (and get community input) when these situations arise. android79 00:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Any motion which desysops Karmafist for doing his best to deal with Kurt and Pigsonthewing is completely off-target. While I enjoy "arguing" with Kurt on IRC I have seen first-hand just how much of a PITA he is. And looking through Pigs' comments doesn't exactly inspire confidence that he is out to participate nicely in the community. Karmafist is doing his best in admittedly tough situations to deal with two very argumentative and difficult people. I'm not surprised he gets angry sometimes. I also would point out that some of the current arbitrators have acted in a similar fashion to Karmafist in comparable situations - and I'd advise against them hasty decisions. Talrias (t | e | c) 04:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm one of the ones who questioned the block of Kurt, and I stand vehemently opposed to this motion. This motion is more of an overreaction to an incendiary situation than karma's block of Kurt was. The block was absolutely valid, it was only the length that was a problem, and it was supported by a couple of other admins. POTW has done nothing but attempt to incite something with karma recently, and karma has responded pretty well in my opinion. Add Kurt's bad faith/WP:POINT edits into the mix, and his reaction is understandable. Last I checked, not being human wasn't a requirement of having a few extra janitorial functions. If this turns into a consistent problem, then it's something to look into. At the moment, it's not. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 12:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Kelly Martin's comments above:

I previously asked Karmafist to pretend that Pigsonthewing didn't exist, and he repeatedly promised to do so -- but didn't.

I understand what you're saying, but in order to ignore someone it needs to be possible to do so. For example, Karmafist tried to ignore this comment [6] by Pigsonthewing, only for the user to take it to the Village pump. [7] And he keeps shopping these things around to other pages, making it extremely difficult for Karmafist or any reasonable to person to ignore them. [8]. Demi T/C 16:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there is general disagreement on what the situation is and how to handle it, but it seems like the motion to re-open for further discussion passed. Can we either reopen or dismiss this? Either way it'd help to get the 'Karmafist & Pigsonthewing bashfest' off of this page. --CBD ☎ ✉ 16:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=32850189"