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

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).

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
Amendment request: Pseudoscience	none	(orig. case)	9 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 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.

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

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

---

Marsden et al.

Involved parties

• 210.177.242.221 (talk · contribs)
• Carbonite (talk · contribs)
• Dissident (talk · contribs) (initiator of this request)
• David Gerard (talk · contribs)
• Dmcdevit (talk · contribs)
• El C (talk · contribs)
• Everyking (talk · contribs)
• FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs)
• Fred Bauder (talk · contribs)
• Grace Note (talk · contribs)
• Jayjg (talk · contribs)
• Jpgordon (talk · contribs)
• Marsden (talk · contribs)
  • 59.120.243.127 (talk · contribs)
  • 219.23.172.144 (talk · contribs)
  • 222.99.239.170 (talk · contribs)
• Nandesuka (talk · contribs)
• Raul654 (talk · contribs)
• Rd232 (talk · contribs)
• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs)
• Snowspinner (talk · contribs)
• Talrias (talk · contribs)
• Theresa knott (talk · contribs)
• Tznkai (talk · contribs)
• TShilo12 (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Dissident (Talk) 02:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Marsden (last relevant edit as of this writing)

Statement by Dissident

My grievances are with both the circumstances in which User:Marsden got indefinitely blocked as well the conduct of certain administrators after I brought this to attention at the Administrators'_noticeboard. [1] [2]

I have in no way been involved with Marsden's dispute with others before he got indefinitely blocked, but place high importance on due process as it leads to a better editing atmosphere and higher quality articles, especially with controversial subjects. When I found out he was blocked I believed and still believe this to be a violation of the both the letter as well as the spirit of Wikipedia's blocking policy, as indefinite blocks are either the result of persistent vandalism or a judgement made by the Arbitration Committee, neither which apply here. The claim of a "Wikipedia consensus" is belied by the fact that two administrators, User:Rd232 and User:Talrias agreed with my view and turned the indefinite block into a month (with time served), but this was later single handedly undone again by User:FeloniousMonk [3] (fellow administrator User:Everyking apparently feared the repercussions of going against User:Snowspinner [4] [5]). Other controversial events include:

• User:SlimVirgin repeatedly removing sections from Marsden's talk page without apparent justification and protecting his talk page, even after him being blocked indefinitely. [6] [7] [8] [9]
• User:Fred Bauder implying that Marsden made threats without backing it up with evidence (which apparently has subsequently been taken at face value by User:David Gerard). [10] [11]
• David Gerard treating me in bad faith by doing an identity check on me simply because I brought it up in the first place, likely by doing an IP check. [12]
• SlimVirgin's constant suggesting that either I or Rd232 have been contacted by Marsden. [13]

I'm more than certain that this is a more than sufficient controversy to warrant official intervention by the ArbCom. -- Dissident (Talk) 02:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Citing credible sources: Zeq and Heptor

Involved parties

• Ian Pitchford (talk · contribs) (filer of this request)
• Zeq (talk · contribs)
• Heptor (talk · contribs)
• Sean Black (talk · contribs)
• Zero0000 (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notice to Zeq
• Notice to Heptor

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Yes:

• RfC, 4 December, 2005 (1948 Arab-Israeli War) and 5 December, 2005 (Palestinian exodus).
• Direct appeal on Zeq's talk page, 7 December, 2005.
• Direct appeal on Heptor's talk page, 7 December, 2005.
• Extensive discussions regarding the credibility of sources on the article talk pages - here and here
• Mediation by Sean Black
• Appeal to Jimmy Wales
• Email correspondence with Wales, Sean Black and Jayjg.

Statement by Ian Pitchford (talk · contribs)

I would be grateful if Wikipedia's policy that articles must cite credible sources could be enforced in the articles on the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the Palestinian exodus. I have tried to get these two editors to abide by the policy without success. In this case the material being added to the articles is blatantly inappropriate and no credible sources have been cited at all, whilst that being deleted, (as for example, here), is quite clearly relevant, appropriate and well-sourced. I enjoy editing Wikipedia, but like most editors have limited time to spend on the project and don't want to waste the bulk of that time trying to make sure that editors comply with minimum standards. Is arbitration really the only way viable of making sure that policies are implemented? If so, I think it is going to be difficult to justify the time I spend on the project. --Ian Pitchford 20:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Zeq

Ian refuse to accept what was decided in the mediation: That the info that can not be sourced will be taken out and that the info that has sources will remain in. My agreement to the mediator is clearly indicated on the talk page. Ian "implemented" the mediator suggestion by removing sourced info. I suggested to him that if he has sources that say differently (from the sourced info in the article) he should add those sources to the text so we have both versions in the article. Instead he rushed to the ArbCom. (after both he and Zero wrote very starnge interpretations of the NPOV policy on the talk page such as Zero on Pal exodus talk claiming: "NPOV does not consist of multiple POVs" )

The problem in the Palestinian exodus article is not so simple. This article (please see talk page) 3 years ago was pro Israeli , now it is completly Pro- Palestinian (see version prior to the current protected one which is a bit more NPOV). For month and month editors have complianed about the lack of neutrality of that page (long before I have registed with wikipedia - just see the complete talk page one of many examples is [14]) but one after another editor are "chased away" from that page by those who seem to think they "own" it and do not allow any other editor there. This article is at the core palestinian narraitive of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinian version is well desrve to be on that page but so does the other POV.

All I have to say about the problem is stated here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=29193600#complete_failure_of_wikipedia_NPOV_policy and part of the solution is here:

One Critical aspect of the Pal Exodus dispute is decribed here:

Benni Morris in his book "The Birth of the palestinian Refugees problem" page 286 of the 1991 Hebrew version (and also as far as I know in the British version from 1987) wrote:

"This tragedy (refering to the exodus) is a result of a war, not of pre meditated intention, nor Israeli Nither Arab "

These words, are why some Palestinians (after seeing him as a hero) now see in him yet another zionist propagadist. You can not have both ways: Either you rely on Morris as a reliable historic source or you don't. One can not cherrypick some quotes from Morris and give tham an interprestation that Morris clearly sais is not there.

We can not by including this text about transfer here in this article create the impression that the talk of transfer caused the exodus. That claim is controvesial even among scholars.

There should be an encylopedia discussion of the transfer ideas (as one possible way) as well as alternatives that have been discussed by all the parties invlovd in the conflict over the years. (example is the peel comission) that discussion must be in a seprate artcle (something like : "The transfer concept in Israeli-palestinina conflict") unless we can find a mainstream schoalrs who claim that it what caused the exodus, in fact we must rely on what slim has said in User_talk:Zeq#Palestinian_exodus : " If you want to add a paragraph about X, you would have to find a mainstream academic source who made a strong and direct connection, and not only that, but who argued that the Palestinian exodus could not, and should not, be regarded as separable from X. Even then, you'd have to argue your case to have it included, unless you can show that it's the consensus among Israeli historians, for example, that the first could not be examined without examining the second." (X in that case was the jewish exodus, although since we are dealing with policy any other subject could apply instead of X)

Good luck to you sorting this out, it is not am easy one. Zeq 21:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

PS The mediation (which really never ended cause Ian dispute it's results) is just one step of many poiisble dispute resolution mechanism and I will gladly participate in a wider RFC on these subjects. Zeq 21:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Sean Black

I am distressed that this has escalated to this point. I believe that this case does not have enough merit to, but I feel that my attempts to assist the parties in working out a compromise were at least partially successful. This may be a premature request, but I am confident that that the ArbCom will come to a sensible conclusion, whatever it is.--Sean|Black 22:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Heptor (talk · contribs)

The core of this dispute seems to be a quotation by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husayni. This mufti has collaborated with the Nazis during the WW2. Among other things he assisted in formation of Bosnian [Waffen_SS |Waffen SS]] troops who fought Yugoslav Partisans, and also made broadcasts aimed for the Arab World, in which he agitated Arabs to support the Nazis. In one of those broadcasts he, according to Pearlman and Schechtman, expressed himself in following way: "Arabs, arise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you". Ian Pitchford is disputing credibility of Pearlman and Schechtman.

Ian Pitchford has also erased/commented out some other material regarding the mufti: [15]. For example, I have not seen any explanation why he commented out that "the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was involved in much of the high level negotiations between the Arab leaders in the 1948 War."

The matter has been under mediation by Sean Black. Interestingly enough, both he, me and Zeq concluded that a compromise has been reached. I implemented it here. However, Ian Pitchford and Zero claimed there was has never been any compromise, and started removing material soon after. The page had to be protected again.

During the dispute, Ian threatened to submit the matter to ArbCom repeatedly (an example from my talk page), violated the 3RR ( more on my talk page) and immediately afterwards asked to protect the article as it was after his fourth revert, threatened to quit editing Wikipedia, complained to Jimbo Wales on his talk page and, evidently, also per e-mail.

To make it clear, Ian Pitchford also made some solid work on Wikipedia, I did note that (look for the bold text). Unfortunately, most if not all of his edits concerning the Middle East are pro-Palestinian/leftist biased, and this not how an encyclopedia should be. Even if his edits are extensive, they are aimed to move Wikipedia in a certain political direction. I am not sure if it is a good thing.

I agree with Sean Black that this request is somewhat premature – mediation bore fruits before, and should have been tried further. But it also would be nice if the Arbitration Committee settles the matter once and for all.

Heptor _talk 00:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

PS: I really recommend to check some of the articles I linked to. Not only to understand this current dispute better, but also because the articles are interesting. I am reading the Waffen SS now. -- Heptor _talk 00:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Zero

(I'll make a statement in the next 13 hours.)

Statement by party 6

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Tony Sidaway

Me

• Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Yes.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I tried talking to myself, but the result was quite fruitless. I simply cannot get myself to agree to disagree. Every conversation ends in vehement agreement.

Statement by party 1

I've deleted an obviously moribund project page rather a lot of times. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Alliance of wikipedia. Other administrators undelete it. I think it must be deleted. It must not be allowed to exist because it refers to articles on Wikipedia in partisan terms and expresses an interest in those articles' retention. Specifically, it says:

The Catholic Alliance of wikipedia is an wiki-organisation intended to nurture and keep wikipedia's pro-life/pro-catholic articles and categories. It is not intended to eliminate all pro-choice articles, nor intended to skew any results.

It must die. It must not be allowed to live for one minute. There is a massive consensus to delete it, but even if 1,000 wikipedians said that it must exist, it would still have to be killed immediately. It must die because it promotes Wikipedia as a place to campaign again neutrality. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

I'm seeing people blocked indefinitely for making a few silly edits, but we're having a huge argument over whether such poisonous material should be held on our project pages. A project devoted to nurturing and keeping articles that are supposedly "pro-life/pro-catholic". Wikipedia articles we know should always be neutral, reporting only external comments in a manner that seeks to represent the facts about what is being said. They should never adopt a partisan viewpoint and no group within Wikipedia should be permitted to suggest that this is remotely acceptable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by some random outsider

This is overdoing it. The page was deleted and undeleted eight times within three days, and if revert wars are harmful then so are wheel wars. I haven't been following this debate, but it is apparent that while few people object to the deletion of this page, several people object to Tony ignoring or overriding an ongoing discussion to do what he feels is right. He seems to have a reputation for doing that.

The issue then isn't whether he is right (as seems to be the case here), but that when something is under consideration, those people considering it don't appreciate being ignored; it's a matter of civility, really. Since such debates tend not to last more than a couple of days, one might wonder what the point is in rushing the issue, since this can cause undue wikistress with no difference to the end result. The end might justify the means, but if the same end can be reached by different means, then it's preferable to use the means that causes the least wikistress. And if an action is contested, discussion is always preferable over edit wars, regardless of which side is correct. WP:HEC, anyone?

Radiant_>|< 02:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement By Less Random Party

Which i'm going to place on the talk page to save some space. karmafist 07:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by brenneman

What exactly does it take to get administrator review happening? Tony's the walking definition of the death by a thousand cuts, and in light of the recent lowering of the bar if there's not some "admonishment" at least, how is anyone supposed to take the ArbCom seriously? - brenneman^(t)(c) 15:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Erm, I know you have issues with Tony, but there's times when some common sense really wouldn't go astray. Ambi 02:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Really official request for injunction

I move that Tony be put under the mentorship of a cup of tea. Whenever he feels the need to perform an admin action twice (because the first action was undone by some other admin) he should instead take the issue up with a cup of tea, and under the mediating influence of a cup of tea discuss the matter with that other admin. Radiant_>|< 17:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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

• Reject, while some issues are raised, the contestant should give in to his better nature. Fred Bauder 14:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly (commentator): Edits by User:Fluterst

Involved parties

• User:Fluterst
• User:Ilyag

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [16]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Mediation Cabal mediation[17]
• See article's talk page for extensive attempts at dialogue and resolution

Statement by User:Ilyag

I request arbitration over User:Fluterst's extensive unilateral edits on the Bill O'Reilly (commentator) article. This user has performed a large amount of edits with minimal commenting, no discussion in the article's Talk page until significantly pressured for it, and has engaged in revert and edit wars with myself and other Wikipedia contributors, who believe this user is including large amounts of bias in her contributions to the article. During discussions, the user has revealed a personal stake in the matter, including suggestions that Bill O'Reilly's producers will be notified over the article's (supposedly biased) contents if her edits continue to be reverted. In addition, the user has threatened legal action against Wikipedia and it's contributors for the same reason, in violation of Wikipedia policy against such threats. It is my opinion that the user mostly participates in this edit "war" due to the recent attention from the press over Wikipedia's accuracy and defamation of character of the subjects of Wikipedia's articles, and has taken it up as her duty to fill the article with conservative bias and then claim that, when those edits are reverted, it is because of Wikipedia's liberal bias (which she has likely read about in the press).

Fluterst apparently believes that the contents of the article are biased against Bill O'Reilly, an allegation that most other contributors (including myself) have acknowledged to some degree. The user proceeded to make very significant edits to the article, changing entire section titles (ex: "Sexual Harassment Lawsuit" section, which is based around Bill O'Reilly's former employee filing a lawsuit against him over sexual harassment, has been renamed to "Extortion Lawsuit", and Fluterst continues to revert back to this new section title every time the change is reverted). Additionally, extensive amounts of noteworthy criticism of Bill O'Reilly have either been removed or recieved a pro-O'Reilly spin by Fluterst, and all attempts to revert these changes as well as to attempt a more moderate wording of the subject matter has been reverted by Fluterst as well.

It is not my belief that edits by users to present a more moderate and centrist article of Bill O'Reilly should be forbidden. However, because of the extensive nature of edits by Fluterst, and because she has not engaged in concensus-building debates until quite recently (and on a rather superficial item of whether or not Bill O'Reilly should be called a "journalist" or a "commentator"), and because it is my (and others contributors') opinion that, rather than putting forth an unbiased point of view, Fluterst has engaged in a systematic white-washing of the O'Reilly article with no intention of it being unbiased at all, I believe this user should no longer be allowed to edit this article.

Instead of the article leaning to the liberal side of things (by including noteworthy and cited criticism of O'Reilly), Fluterst's edits quite obviously force the article over to the conservative pro-O'Reilly side. There is enough concensus on the Talk page of the article to show that most other contributors agree with this assertion. --Ilyag 18:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Fluterst

I will not be able to participate in this arbitration but as presumably those in charge of Wikipedia will read this arbitration thing, I will take the opportunity to bring some matters to your attention:

• I came to see whether Wikipedia was as bad as its reputation in terms of defaming people, I looked at Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh's article isn't too bad. The O'Reilly one reads like an undergraduate political rant.

• Any attempts to modify the bias and unverified, unsourced "facts" in the article is resisted even to the extent of resisting calling him a journalist. It's quite comic really, especially when I listed dozens of examples of news anchor hosts (including one direct competitor on CNN with a show of very similar format) being accurately referred to as journalists. I encourage those in charge to look at this closely.

• Throughout these discussions, I have said truthfully that I intend to bring the attention of Bill O'Reilly's producers and the lawyers running the class action against wikipedia the whole interaction. That involves no threat on my part, in fact I'd already done it by the time I mentioned it, I just thought I should be honest enough to say so. It in no meant a legal threat from me (I can't sue over someone else's defamation as is pretty obvious)

• I certainly have intention either of participating in an edit war, I made it clear I would not be active on Wikipedia for very long and was just interested to see whether it was as bad as I'd heard on USA Today and elsewhere.

• Most acknowledge that O'Reilly article is biased but are unwilling to do anything about it. Perhaps those in charge of wikipedia will attempt to minimize their legal liability and take some action to remove unverified false claims against O'Reilly and many other people so defamed on Wikipedia. It turns out that O'Reilly is criticized across dozens and dozens of different articles on here, presumably including those that don't get much attention.

• I think it's amazing really that the institutional response of those active in the article is to bring action against those trying to remove bias and to get them banned from editing. It shows an intolerance and contempt for the truth that I suspect only a class action will resolve.

• In conclusion, I hope you all learn from this situation you find yourselves in. The lawsuit is definitely in train, it appears to be well funded and there are some aspects to Wikipedia I think those in charge will have a devil of a time explaining and defending in court in a libel case. Good luck, you're all going to need it. Fluterst 22:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Evidence

• [18] - Violation of NPOV by removing well-known information critical of O'Reilly.
• [19] - Change of section title in article creates pro-O'Reilly bias rather than factual description of the topic discussed.
• [20] & [21] - Removal of much noteworthy criticism of O'Reilly without concensus.
• [22] - Refusal to rely on concencus-building to make large edits.
• [23] - Has since attempted to build concensus, only to be unanimously and repeatedly out-voted, resulting in user lashing out at the whole of Wikipedia with personal threats, and references to contributing to lawsuits against Wikipedia and it's contributors.
• [24] - The previous item has lead the user to repeatedly apply TotallyDisputed tag to article without merit.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)

• Reject pending resolution of all legal controversies Fred Bauder 15:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Reject and ban Fluterst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) while legal threats are outstanding ➥the Epopt 17:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Reject - concur with the above. Raul654 17:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Reject as above. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Reject as above. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Requests for Clarification

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

Criticisms of communism

I posted some of my concerns about what I am worried is narrow and inflexible wording used in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine decision on the talk page there, but I got no answer unfortunately. Now it seems that User:Ultramarine and User:172 are starting the revert war back up again. This is problematic since the decision does not list 172 as a user who may be blocked for reverting. I'm warning the users not to engage in sterile revert warring but I think some clarification or revision of that decision is badly needed. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think that the decision has solved little. Some of the involved editors seem to have left Wikipedia. However, other who edited constructively as long as the arbitration case was open have now again started to blankly delete well-referenced material. They have now deleted many extremely well-referenced statements and whole sections of the prior article. I try to discuss the differences but they refuse to give sources for their statements and claims which makes reaching any consensus difficult. I would greatly appreciate if Wikipedia policies such as Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view would be uphold. I see no way out of the current controversy until the arbitration committee makes this clear also for this maybe very politicaly sensitive article. Unfortunately, the other side seems to respect Wikipedia policy only when there is an ongoing case.

I would also request that Ryan Delaney should be prohibited from applying any remedies, since he and I have longstanding issues regarding other articles and he unfortunately seems to be stalking me. Ultramarine 10:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have also suggested moving the contents to other articles that maybe have better and less POV names, as this may resolve some issues, but they insist that all the criticisms of communism should be in this article, which they now claim ownership of and as noted refuse to engage in factual discussions and refuse to give sources for claims. Ultramarine 10:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I support Ryan's efforts. The dispute indeed is quite sterile and it is time to just write a new article. I posted a note on the talk page stating a pledge to follow the "one-revert rule on the page" and asking Ryan to enforce my pledge as a mutual agreement between the two of us. [25] On that note, IMO the Arbcom decision could have been far more helpful. I think a much more sweeping decsion would have been order, such as a ban on editing that editor binding on just anyone who has ever edited it, including myself. 172 10:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, Ryan Delaney selectively decided to not block 172 when he reverted the article from the earlier stable version. However, Ryan Delaney has now stated on the discussion page that he will without warning block any editor that attempts to change 172's version, regardless if they were mentioned in the arbcom case or not. He and 172 has now effectively locked the article into their preferred version indefinitely. So its is not surprising that 172 supports "Ryan's efforts" regarding selective blocking and thus sees no need to engage in any meaningful discussions on the talk pages or such things as source citations in order to reach a consensus.Ultramarine 12:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, if 172 reverts, I'm blocking him too, since he basically gave me permission to do so. However, this Arbcom decision dosen't really give me the authority to do that, which is the problem I am trying to address here. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

While I am recused from this matter I suggest that Ultramarine and others adopt the framework of 172's version and then negotiate how much detail, as opposed to links to specific articles, ought to be included from the other version which I find quite crowded with excessively detailed, sometimes controversial information. I too am disappointed with the ArbCom decision. After I recused because 172 was involved, they went ahead and crafted a solution which did not include 172. Fred Bauder 15:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that Ultramarine and others adopt the framework of 172's version and then negotiate how much detail, as opposed to links to specific articles, ought to be included from the other version... This is a good proposal. Criticisms of communism is one of the most important subjects on discourse in 20th century world history found in any encyclopedia. An excellent final product will have the structure of the 'Pmanderson, and Robert A., and Mihnea Tudoreanu version' and much of the content of the Ultramarine version.' Just a minor correction... There is no '172 version' of the article. The version that I restored was the work mostly of Pmanderson, and Robert A., and Mihnea Tudoreanu. My involvement in the article was very minimal between around September, except for the first few days following the creation of the article, and yesterday. 172 21:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I would be glad to discuss any changes, hopefully you could include some views since you are recused. However, I do not see how the current stalemate can be broken as long as there is blank denial of such basic concepts such as Verifiablity. Please see this section which is the most recent attempt to factually discuss 172's version (Note that this is weeks before the current attempts to simply blankly revert) [26].Ultramarine 16:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I just don't have time. The arbitration committee has the usual backlog and even cases out of the backlog could still use work. I would not strongly insist on verifiability for all elements of the article. Sometimes insights regarding the structure of an article are not easily verified such as treatment of the controversy on the left regarding appropriate treatment of the shortcomings of Communist practices. However, it is not impossible. For example, see page xiv in the Author's Notes of The Rosenberg File, ISBN 0030490367 Fred Bauder 16:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I can agree that verifiability can and should not always be included, for example for obvious logical arguments. However, I think you have previously supported such issues as including the more prominent critics of communism. As noted, they only name left-wing critics of communism and they refuse to name or include the views of other critics. Another example, they refuse to mention any arguments that the Communist states were related to Marxist ideology and only mentions arguments against this. Unfortunately, I do not see how consensus can be achieved as long they blankly refuse to include such basic issues. Ultramarine 17:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they should give some too. Khruschev honestly believed he was building communism following the principles of Lenin and Marx, as did Breshnev. God knows what Stalin believed, but probably he felt himself to be a practical man with common sense. So it is rather obvious that Marxism is intimately related to Communist practice. How, is the question. Fred Bauder 17:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see some of this go to the talk page of Criticisms of communism. In the mean time, I need to stress that suggestions -- like the one that you well-meaningly posted above, or that Arbcom posted in their ruling -- are not going to resolve this dispute, as is evident by the revert war having started again, and my being unable to really do anything about it. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [27] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

With regard to Template:stars this user appears to have driven though a set of changes via bot that is out of keeping with the removal of the template which has not yet happened as far as I can see, still a confused situation. Anywaty his BOT remoaved references to the template:stars and replace with just e.g. (3/5) rather that the e.g. File:3 out of 5.png that was there before tamplate:stars was in use. Is this the right way to make mass changes. Kevinalewis 11:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Bots are the right way to make mass changes, but they should be used only once consensus has been reached. In this case, the TFD for Template:Stars was closed prematurely by Snowspinner. —Locke Cole 11:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It was? If it was, that's wholly my error - I must have read the date wrong. Phil Sandifer 02:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

• SlimVirgin lies
• The benefits of adminship is never having to admit you're wrong and never having to say you're sorry
• Despite this laundry list of problems, SlimVirgin has NOT ONCE conceeded that there is ANY PROBLEM with ANY PART of his ENTIRE EDIT
• (SlimVirgin) also happens to be an administrator, which, apparently has its perks, not the least of which is never having to say your sorry for unrepentant bad edits or unrepentant false accusations
• SlimVirgin seemed to be throwing hand grenades at this point.
• I'm starting to get the distinct impression that one major perk of being an administrator is never having to admit you're wrong, never having to admit you made a bad edit, and NEVER having to apologize for your behaviour.
• And I just gotta wonder how much back-channel communication goes on between admins. Hey, SlimVirgin, did you know I got blocked because you were the one who requested it?
• I'm starting to get the distinct impression that we're dealing with a persecution complex. SlimVirgin accuses everyone of launching personal attacks against SlimVirgin if the editor does not wholeheartedly agree with SlimVirgin's edits.

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)

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)

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)

Clarification of User: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)

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)

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))

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)

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)

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))

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))

Yes, your block was over a technicality. I suggest that before you run a bot doing any of the things you suggest you, and others, hammer out on the policy pages a definite policy which establishes whatever format is under discussion as agreed policy. This matter is really over that, proceeding prior to establishment of a definite policy. It may be no policy can be agreed on. In that case, just wait. Fred Bauder 14:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it already agreed that an article should use one format, and editors should follow that format? That's what I was doing when adding a WP:FN citation to an article in WP:FN format. (SEWilco 15:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC))

On second thought, looking at the above comment I made. That is a kind of Breshnev comment, "stagnation should continue..." I really don't think that is going to get us anywhere. However you have a knack of coming up with formats that I and, probably others, don't like. Fred Bauder 14:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I and the others using WP:FN come up with those formats (used in 3 of most recent 10 WP:FAC). And WP:CITE repeatedly emphasizes that complete citations should exist, yet when I add full citations they sometimes (rarely) get deleted without that deletion being acknowledged as being an improper action. I can easily add citations which are not linked from the appropriate text, but then updating references and citations manually becomes quite difficult (try finding the citation for the 8th note in Global cooling, then imagine the same format for the 44th note in (old:Killian documents)). Manual edits are likely to orphan old citations and reduce Verifiability. (SEWilco 15:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC))

The ruling is quite clear, that you should not change citation styles. While this was obviously referring to your insistence on removing inline citations, if you are in any doubt at all, then you should avoid making any changes. This is not the page to try to argue that your preferred style is the better one. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The phrasing of the ruling is simple, but the ruling not clear. The meanings of "convert", "citation", and "style" are ambiguous. "Citation" can mean the phrasing or WikSyntax description of source material in text, the "complete citation" (WP:CITE phrasing about what often goes in a "References" section) which provides details about a source, or the conceptual connection between text and "complete citation". "Convert" can mean rearranging, adding, moving, or deleting all or part of entries. So far only 3 Arbs have agreed that in an article using WP:FN for all other citations that the move of a single URL to a full citation with a WP:FN link is to "convert" the information (I saw it as addition or maintenance, not conversion). Is adding a full citation without linking to it a "conversion" or addition? "Style" can mean the WikiSyntax used, the exact or similar visual appearance on the page, the general patterns (numbered or bulleted lists, sorted order, journal vs news phrasing, consistent or chaotic lists), specific patterns used (author name format, standard publication names, phrasing (chapter/ch.,pages/p./pp.)). The ambiguities are also apparent in the ongoing consolidation of WP:CITET: is changing template parameters from uppercase ("Author=") to lowercase ("author=") a violation? Such a change can be a violation on several levels: Discussion of a conversion can cause change, changing a template can cause changes in citations in several ways, and replacing "Author=" with "author=" in article citations is a citation change. Is a (rhetorical) merge of {{news reference}} and {{journal reference}} which requires translation to [[Template:published reference]] a violation? (Actually, all WP:CITET is being consolidated toward a single template) (SEWilco 16:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC))

Please assume the broadest possible interpretation. We will back up any administrator that blocks you under a broad interpretation. Meanwhile help work out policy. Fred Bauder 18:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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)
2. James F. (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 23:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

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)
2. James F. (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 23:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Archives

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