Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) at 12:02, 12 February 2006 (→‎[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]: Move comment out of Kim Bruning's statement. Take discussion elsewhere.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland Motion (orig. case) 21 June 2024
Motion name Date posted
Historical elections 21 July 2024

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

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

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

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



How to list cases

Under the below Current requests section:

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

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

Tony Sidaway

Involved parties

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

Tony stated on User:Aaron_Brenneman/RfC draft that he would "Lay off DRV for a bit", and "Stop deleting templates". He has not done so.

Statement by party 1

User:Tony Sidaway repeatedly shows his contempt for Wikipedia policy, especially deletion and undeletion policy. He has a strong belief that userboxes are harmful to the project, but rather than seek consensus for this, he has repeatedly engaged in unilateral deletions of userboxes. Ever since a new CSD criteria, CSD T1, was added, he has deleted many userboxes that are not "divisive and inflammatory" by most reasonable definitions. In some cases, these boxes were listed on WP:TFD and the consensus was to keep. Although Jimbo indirectly endorsed CSD T1 (though he did not create it), he also cautioned [2]: "don't go on any sprees deleting ones that already exist." Tony has disregarded that caveat. Tony has also breached a previous promise to change his problematic behavior [3]. A post that he made to the mailing list [4] seems to indicate that this promise was made in bad faith, simply to stave off dispute resolution.

The response to this RFAr will, in large part, determine whether I choose to remain a part of the Wikipedia community. Are rules to be applied fairly to all, or are certain individuals to be allowed to do whatever they please with no fear of repercussion?

  • It clearly has not accomplished Jimbo's original intent. The CSD criterion itself is far more divisive and inflammatory than anything it has been used to delete. Furthermore, Jimbo's caveat (not to go on deletion sprees) has been blatantly ignored. This edit was made more out of frustration than anything else. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 11:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'm being a "wikidetective" again?

[5] User:Crotalus horridus here removes a Jimbo endorsed guideline. Kim Bruning 11:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Crotalus and (in one single instance) another editor both recreated templates that had been speedy deleted by various administrators, including myself. They did so in user space, with the avowed intention that they should be used in the same manner as before. The reason for deletion of these specific templates was that they were unsuitable for dissemination throughout Wikipedia by transclusion, comprising as they did contentious, divisive and inflammatory statements. Crotalus created a user account, User:Userboxes, and under the userpage he created some half dozen of these cloned templates.

I have deleted the reproduced templates as well as some clones of existing templates from both userspaces. I also clarified the T1 speedy criterion for divisive and inflammatory templates, to say "pages created in any namespace for the purpose of transclusion," This was disputed by Crotalus and the other editor, and supported by two others. Crotalus eventually removed the T1 criterion for deletion in its entirety, claiming that it "causes far more strife than it could ever solve". --Tony Sidaway 11:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jason Gastrich

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Jason Gastrich has been informed on his talk page [6]. JzG initiated the RfAR. Cyde and Jim62sch have already made statements. Notice of the RfAR has also been given on the RfC [7].
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by JzG

Jason Gastrich is an evangelical minister who runs "Jesus Christ Saves Ministries". From the outset, his creation of an autobiography - see AfD debate - he has exhibited a consistent pattern of use of sockpuppets (e.g. BigDaddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and meatpuppets ("Uncle Davey" in the AfD). He was initially open about this and appeared eventually to accept it was wrong. More recently he made a series of articles and edits involving Louisiana Baptist University (LBU), an unaccredited university with which he is associated, and its alumni. A number of editors have contributed to providing neutrality and balance in these articles often against opposition from Gastrich. Importantly, this group includes Christians, agnostics and atheists.

A number of articles were nominated for deletion, and this appears to have acted as a catalyst for considerable astroturfing. This included emailing of known inclusionists and self-identified Christian Wikipedians about AfD debates, emailing users, contacting the pastor and the father of one editor, and the setting up by Gastrich of an organisation - wiki4christ.com - purportedly to encourage the expansion of Christian articles on Wikipedia. Many newly registered accounts made their first edits in unexpected places such as deletion review, these exhibited consistent use of language and many were rapidly identified as puppets. Gastrich appears to have violated WP:CIVIL, WP:HAR, WP:NPA, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:SOCK, WP:AGF, WP:AUTO, WP:CON, WP:POINT.

To be fair, some others (me included) also undoubtedly strayed over the WP:CIVIL line.

An RfC was raised, certified by over 50 and opposed by only one despite the RfC being notified widely to solicit input from both sides of the debate. Efforts were made to bring both sides to this RfC. After a while I brought a motion to close with a strongly worded notice to Gastrich that he should abide by policy; this may exceed the "powers" of RfC although it was within my reading of action based on community consensus. I take full responsibility for this although this was also supported by strong consensus.

It is impossible to say with certainty absent the requested checkuser reports (fact, not criticism) precisely whether these are sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but only one recently identified sock has denied it, and that from an email address at wiki4christ.com, which is owned by Jason Gastrich, is otherwise currently inactive, and is not known to have been publicly offered as an email address facility.

I have come to the view from recent evidence re hooba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that Gastrich is unlikely to abide by consensus, and am therefore escalating to arbcom. I have come to suspect that an initial comment that Gastrich be given the bum's rush from the project may have been smarter than trying to get him to "play nice." Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jim62sch

Jason Gastrich has been nothing but a sower of discord since he first joined Wikipedia. He is a man on a mission – a mission to create Wikipedia in his own likeness, that of a very POV evangelical Christianity. In the process, he once commented that Wikipedia’s editors are trying to “silence someone who is preaching a gospel that condemns them to Hell if they don't repent and trust Christ for salvation” . Wikipedia is here to neither praise nor disparage Christian theology – it is here to present a neutral viewpoint on all subjects. That is the interest that those Wikipedia editors maligned by Gastrich have at heart. Additionally, the condemnation to Hell is a very clear indication of his uncontrollable bias. [8]

In addition, Gastrich made the comment that he “could also notify numerous Wikipedia users about this RfC and have them post their thoughts and feelings”. This statement was quite troubling and at odds with his claims that “some of the hoopla about my "vote stacking" and "meatpuppetry" is false” (this, I assume means that more than some of it is true); and that he has not told them how to vote, but”… “simply notified them that there is a vote in progress”. In fact, his statement does appear to be a veiled threat to unleash a flood of like-minded people upon this page. [9]

His comments regarding sockpuppetry may strike some as a “mea culpa” of contrition, but the more troubling implication is that a man who in essence states that he represents Jesus is dishonest in his methods, and sees no problem with this dishonesty. [10]

His comments regarding Warrior scribe who he accuses of having come “to Wikipedia with the admitted, expressed intent to follow me around and revert my contributions” and his statement that “many of the names on these lists are people who have a history of hating me (and/or following Horn) before and/or after coming to Wikipedia and trolling me” are unsourced, and therefore of little real value in determining a cause for Mr. Gastrich’s behaviour (other than, perhaps, paranoia). [11]

Mr. Gastrich then states that he is “an honest and valuable contributor to Wikipedia”. Value is not an issue here, but honesty most certainly is. The admission and justification of sockpuppetry casts a dim light on his claim of honesty. [12]

The bottom line is that Gastrich does not even seem to realize that he is in violation of more policies than we could probably enumerate. He portrays himself as an innocent victim of the evil designs of other. He brings nothing of value to Wikipedia, but rather he causes dissention at every article he touches, and causes Wikipedia’s editors to waste time that could be better spent on improving the overall project. Simply put, Gastrich needs to be shown the door. Jim62sch 01:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cyde Weys

I became involved in this matter when I stumbled across some of the AfDs of Jason Gastrich's biographies. I voted keep on some and delete on others, depending on whether or not I thought they met WP:BIO. I proposed a resolution to the AfD on List of LBU people such that the notable ones be merged into the main LBU article, as is standard for these situations. Gastrich refused to accept it, saying Harvard had a "List of Harvard people", so why not LBU? (The analogy in this case is absurd, by the way, comparing an unacreditted school to Harvard?! C'mon!) Then I became aware that Gastrich was attempting to astroturf the various AfDs by sending users messages on their talk pages. This really did not sit well with me and I told Gastrich that he should stop this at it clearly goes against Wikipedia policy. My opinion of Gastrich's intentions only turned more negative once I saw that he had a sockpuppet sending out the notices as well as setting up a website with the sole intention of disrupting Wikipedia. The low point was when I received a Wikipedia email from Gastrich because apparently I had a link to the Christian infobox on my userpage. It had links to all of his articles up for deletion and encouraged voting to keep. I reproduced this email on one of the AfD pages and someone else copied it to the rest of them to be used as evidence. This whole experience has really soured me with Jason Gastrich to the point that I no longer believe keeping him around would be in the best interests of Wikipedia. He has demonstrated that he is willing to ignore all rules and all due process in order to further his agenda. He repeatedly violates WP:CIVIL and seems to be trying to frame any Christian-personality-related AfDs as a war between Christians and non-Christians, which is extremely damaging and unproductive to Wikipedia as a whole. --Cyde Weys 23:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:RJII, improper display of an award.

Involved parties

Brought by User:Herostratus against User:RJII. Everything necessary to understand the case can be seen by the case name and this short exchange: User talk:RJII# embarassing to have to bring this up, but... . (In case this is altered, correct version is here.)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

User:Herostratus initiated. User:RJII informed here. No other parties are involved.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Direct conversation between User:Herostratus and User:RJII resulted in no agreement.
  • Request by User:Herostratus for third opinion or neutral arbitration: refused by User:RJII.
  • Statements during conversation by User:RJII: “I really don't care what you or anyone else thinks” and reply to request for arbitration: “Of course not. Why should I unnecessarily give someone else authority over me?” indicate that further attempts at non-binding forms of persuasion are unlikely to be effective.
  • Confirmation of the above is in the short exchange reference in “Involved parties” section.

Statement by party 1

User:RJII is displaying a barnstar to which he is clearly not entitled. This is not a case where the recipient was aguably undeserving, this is a case of blatent perversion of the Wikipedia award system

It is my opinion that barnstars matter. The barnstar system is a key component of the Wikipedia system which is based primarily on informal community sanctions and rewards in an atmosphere of good faith.

To display a barnstar in such manner as User:RJII has is to devalue the entire barnstar system. This is a direct attack on the Wikipedia system. Allowing this to stand without sanctions of the severest type would cause direct and immediate damage to Wikipedia, if not in this actual case than certainly as a precedent.

Futher, this is a slap in the face to all who have earned barnstars, sometimes through long and difficult work. As such it may be seen as a direct insult to all who have properly earned barnstars.

Further, to display an ill-gotten barnstar shows a lack of character of such magnitude that the ability of the editor to abide by any other rules, formal or informal, can no longer be assumed. And, it shows such a disregard of Wikipedia core values that the ability of the editor to participate in a community of good faith with other editors can no longer be assumed. And, it renders it impossible for honorable editors to interact with the offending editor at all.

I therefore request censure and permanent ban against User:RJII.

(Note: a quick scan of User talk:RJII shows that he has been involved in other disputes with other editors. I am not a party to any of these disputes and neither know nor care anything about them.)

Herostratus 15:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

I didn't put the "barnstar" there. I don't know who did, and I don't care. I don't know what the hell a barnstar is, really. And, herostratus needs to stop harrassing me and get a life. I've never had any contact with herostratus before this. I've never heard of him before, and I don't care to know him. And, the fact that he's demanding me to delete the "barnstar" is precisely the reason that I never will. I may even move it on to my user page for the sake of principle. RJII 20:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may award you a "WTF?!" Barnstar for Best Arbitration Case of 2006. If the planned Barnstar Committee (see below) considers it appropriate, of course - David Gerard 02:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved third party Jpgordon

This is one of the more frivolous RfArbs I've seen (and that's saying a lot). Just as anyone can edit, anyone can award barnstars. As WP:BS says, To give the award to someone, just place the image on their talk page, and say why you've given it. Don't hesitate: be bold! It's up to the recipient to decide if they want to keep it, ignore it, toss it, brag about it, or giggle about it. Further, this RfArb is way premature; this is the last resort in the case of disputes between users, not the first. It might be worthwhile to have an RfC discussion about it. But arbitration? Not yet, if ever. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This statement says entirely what I would have said. RFAr is not what you go to straight off the bat, and this is kind of a childish dispute. — Ilyanep (Talk) 15:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved third party User:Snowspinner

I would like to take this opportunity to ask the arbcom to consider this seriously. For far too long have barnstars been frivolously created and handed out without an overseeing body of policy. I think this is the perfect opportunity for the arbcom to impose some proper rules on the creation and proliferation of barnstars. I think, in particular, these need to be forced to adhere to the democratic process of the wiki, whereby barnstars will be voted on. It might also be sensible to formulate some committees to oversee them. I hope the arbcom will consider taking this case to formulate common sense processes for these crucial issues. I can see no more important case on the arbcom's docket. Phil Sandifer 18:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEANS. Friday (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Why we don't have a WP:RFBarnstar or a Barnstar Mediation Committee or a Wikipedia:Barnstar review, I will never know. The issue of allegedly undeserved barnstars is clearly of grave importance to the future of Wikipedia process. Process uber alles! FCYTravis 05:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Process macht frei? Phil Sandifer 05:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Splash

Raul654 has confused his Death Eaters with his MediaWiki. -Splashtalk 19:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by a -um- "wikidetective"

(Nope, there ain't no such a thing as a wikidetective, just like... oh hmm, go with the flow... or something. Alright, so I was just too curious :-P)

The barnstar was placed by User:Ghgfhfhfdh, in this edit: [13]

Note that Ghgfhfhfdh, besides his unusual username, also has but a very short history, and in that history, he/she has been handing out quite a number of barnstars, and has been categorising people as "Real Americans" Kim Bruning 02:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Alleged Armenian Genocide

A dispute involving whether the topic of Armenian Genocide is inherently POV, and the behavior of editors relating to that dispute.

Involved parties

User:ramil User:John Smith's User:Snowspinner

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

(Other initiatives were considered to be unproductive. This is because armenian editors and their supporters silence and manipulate Wikipedia to delay the time for resolution, to direct it to other direction) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ramil (talk • contribs)

This is a messy knot of disposable accounts, IPs, and POV pushing - it's the sort of thing we do need the arbcom for. Phil Sandifer 16:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ramil

(The armenian genocide is one the less known events of the last century. Some 1 million armenians and 500,000 Turks, Kurds and Azerbaijanis killed each other. Now armenians try to claim this to be genocide without paying attention to the killing of 500,000 Turks. Now the web page on alleged armenian web page is manipulated by Armenians and couple of days ago they removed the tag indicating that the armenian genocide is disputed issue. The disputed nature of the web page can be easily seen from the discussion web page.

I informed other parts about the incorrectness of this and if the issue is not redressed my desire to take it to the arbitration. Below is my statement to them.

This is unfair and can not be the solution to the disputed and questionable genocide allegations. I am taking this issue to the arbitration. There is voting, nobody is informed, couple of armenians and you remove the tag giving the illusion to people that the issue is not disputed. The tag should stay there and should remain there. Otherwise, I am taking this to the arbitration. Let me know your response in couple of days. --ramil 21:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC))

There are other users who cry from the domination and unethical behaviour or armenian oriented editors. The removal of the tag is decried below by another user.

It appears to me this page is completely dominated by those who have a stake in this matter, and naturally this sort of vote will garner such a result. In order to have dissenting voices, dissenting parties would need to dedicate themselves as eagerly as those for whom this matter means so much. The fact that this page is stable points not to the truthfulness of many of the claims, but to the commitment of those who have made this page their calling; this article is not, in any shape or form, "objective," and does not at all "present both sides of the story." Blissmiss 07:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

And here is John Smith laughing at my effort to take the issue to the arbitration as he is sure it will be fruitless and they are enough strong to dominate the web page.

" A disputed article does not need a tag. Otherwise 100% of political wiki articles would have tags. 

   HAHAHAHA, yeah go to admins and ask for a 3 month vote. I'm sure they'll back you up ^____^ John Smith's 21:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)"

And questionable what does this mean ^____^. Most probably a curse. Showing the level of editors who dominate the alleged and so called armenian genocide web page. Ramil --71.195.182.195 09:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Smith's

We have all been trying to work hard on resolving the Armenian Genocide page, Fadix more than anyone. We had the POV tag on for a long time. Eventually people that had contributed to the page finally decided it was perhaps more NPOV than was actually necessary, so I started a vote to remove the tag. There is no way to notify wikipedians of a vote. Plenty of time was allowed for voting, but I decided to cut-to-the chase when it was clear there was little or no support against the tag being removed.

I take offence at the idea that I am unfairly biased in favour of the Armenians. The page gives much more authority to the arguments of deniers of this event than those of the Holocaust. This guy is only trying to sabotage the page by pretending it is disputed by reasonable commentators, when in reality it is only disputed by people that have an agenda to silence discussion of it. John Smith's 17:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John, please avoid presenting two different issues as the same. Holocaust and the alleged 'armenian genocide issues' are completely different matters. There are not any comparison between these different events in whatsoever way. In the Holocaust Jewsih were killed by Germans jkust becuase they were Jewish, the in the second case Armenins killed 500,000 Kurds and Turks and the latters then killed armenians. This is massacre and there is no question, but not genocide.

You are not a judge to decide on an issue. You are not a judge and nobody gave you the right to be judge to impose me that the armenian issue can not be disputed. The extent you are intolerant to the opposing view shows how much you have been and are receptive to the opposing view. Ramil--71.195.182.195 07:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snowspinner

On a glance, here's what it looks like is happening - there's an edit war on Armenian Genocide on whether to include a dispute tag, or whether the entire topic is POV. Ramil is looking for content arbitration to fix it to his preferred version. Notably, he has never edited the page, and has made only one comment on the talk page. Ramil's userpage admits to using two other accounts.

There's also several redname accounts edit warring at Armenian Genocide, and all of Ramil's accounts edit a lot on Nagorno-Karabakh, where they've gotten blocked a few times.

To me, it looks like POV-pushing sockpuppetry, and I'd like to request that the arbcom look into a case against Ramil on those grounds, along with harassment, spurious RFAr filing, and general disruptiveness.

A bit more looking suggests that there's more than met the eye here - there's a lot of POV pushing on this page at the moment, all from one side, and it kind of smells of a coordinated effort. I think looking into this would be beneficial. Phil Sandifer 16:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion by TenOfAllTrades

Regarding Sam's rejection vote below—Phil has requested a CheckUser on 71.195.182.195, Ramil, Erdalfirinci, and User:Blissmiss. It might be helpful for the ArbCom to have that information in hand before deciding whether or not to accept this case. (It would also be useful to do the CheckUser now, while the logs are still available.) If it turns out that the editor is operating multiple socks to engage in edit wars across multiple pages, it's probably something the ArbCom should handle.

Aside from this comment, I haven't been involved in or observed any aspect of the dispute; if the case goes forward, the ArbCom can include me or not as they see fit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the users Enver_pasha and Eagle of the Caucasus using my IP brings bad points for this particular point that I am raising here. The question is whether the wikipedia wants to be the source of the neutral and objective information or not. if yes, then the disputed issues should be indicated as disputed and not manipulated to give the impression of the trutha and the only truth. As I said before, I was active in Nagorno Karabakh page, and I am involving in this issue only to bring the truth to the light. Ramil --71.195.182.195 04:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider involving in this issue to bring a NPOV perspective to the issue. Bringing "truth to the light" is a worthy project, but not what we do on Wikipedia. Bring the truth to light elsewhere, and once it is widely regarded as truth, we will reflect it here. Phil Sandifer 04:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, you have misunderstood me. I am not trieng to impose a solution or a good answer on the so called 'armenian genocide' on anybody. I not saying what is truth or what is not truth. Apprarently, there is an issue and its disuputed. There is no consensus on it. If there no consensus and the factual accuracy of the argument is disputed, what is the meaning of removing the "innocent tag" which merely states the fact that this issue is disputed letting readers know that there might be other perspectives to the issue presented in this web page. I am not saying that we should change the entire page. It is anyway heavily pro-armenian and dominated by armenians. My question and request about the tag which has been removed. The tag that warns readers about the disputed matter of the issue on the given web page. Please, let me know if you still haven't got what I am presenting here? Ramil --71.195.182.195 07:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser evidence

As requested by Snowspinner (above, and at WP:RFCU):

User:71.195.182.195 is User:Ramil and also appears to be User:Eagle of the Caucasus, User:Enver Pasha, User:Enver--Pasha and User:Enver----Pasha.

He does not appear to be User:Blissmiss (New York IPs, Ramil traces to Boston) nor User:Erdalfirinci (AOL user). —Matthew Brown (T:C) 02:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dispute surrounding Shiloh Shepherd Dog article

Involved parties

Due to the above editors involvement in a dispute outside Wikipedia, they have shown a disregard for WP:NPOV, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. In order to gain an upper hand said dispute, they wish to control the content of the article and have attempted to hold the article hostage since the first week of December.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

All parties have been notified [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] [20]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Request for mediation: [21]

RfC on article dispute: [22], [23], [24]

Straw poll on versions of article: [25]

RfC on editor's behavior: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tina_M._Barber

All of these steps met with no success; my own 2 months of attempted mediation with the parties has done little to alleviate the problem since they continue to ignore policy.

Statement by User:Jareth

I became involved in the article in the first week of December when a WP:3RR violation was reported. I offered to help solve the differences between the two sides who each have multiple representatives with accounts (and also call up meatpuppets when they feel the need). Since then, its become rather clear that there isn't really any interest in resolution, unless resolution means one side or the other has the article written to its standards; there's clear POV pushing despite all requests to review WP:NPOV and try to understand its purpose. Several of the editors involved have taken the time do familiarize themselves with Wikipedia policy and have greatly improved their conduct; those involved in theis RfAR have refused to do so. In addition to the NPOV issues, the editors involved have continually violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. They argue and dispute every addition to the article in an effort to stifle change to the article and are esentially holding the article hostage at this time. I sincerely appreciate their efforts to improve the article, but due to their inability to remove themselves from their outside dispute and edit neutrally, I believe they should find somewhere else on Wikipedia to contribute, or use a forum better suited to their needs. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Robert's posts on behalf of MilesD.: I have no side in this dispute; I was asked by MilesD and others to bring this case to RfAR since the other steps have not produced any results. I attempted to include all editors currently active in the dispute and didn't intend to make anyone feel that this was an attempt to disparage them. I'm sorry I didn't clarify which editor the RfC was in reference to; I thought the link being exposed would clearly show that. As to your second claim, I don't believe I stated that anyone was edit warring, simply that my first involvement came from a 3RR report -- the report was against editor Tina M. Barber, I don't recall who made the report, but will look it up upon request. My "mediation" did not ever involve private mailing lists - please see the 10 talk page archives, however, I have been *bombarded* with over 400 private email messages from various parties involved in the dispute which I would be *happy* to email to any arbitrator who'd like to sort through it and see my responses. Please provide *any* evidence that I have disparaged any side in this dispute, or withdraw that comment.

I believe MilesD, Robert and the other editors who responded with acrimony have done a wonderful job of making some serious assumptions in bad faith -- *you* asked me to put this here, if you don't like the way its worded, {{sofixit}}. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reponse to the questions about parties included: It was my understanding that all parties in a dispute are supposed to be included in an RfAR; this isn't an accusation or judgement against any particular editor involved but an acknowledgement that the situation is out of hand and a request that the arbitrators wade in and try to sort it out. If I'm incorrect and all editors involved in the dispute are not supposed to be included, please let me know. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:MilesD. by Robert McClenon, advocate

FIRST STATEMENT

I was asked by User:MilesD. to prepare an RfAr against Tina M. Barber. Since this RfAr has been filed, User:MilesD. joins in requesting arbitration against Tina M. Barber.

User:MilesD. is one of the certifiers of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tina M. Barber.

Tina M. Barber did not respond to the RfC. The article concerns a breed of dog of which she is the original breeder. She is seeking ownership of the article, and has a pattern of personal attacks on other editors, and incivility. On behalf of User:MilesD., I request that the parties to this case be clearly distinguished between the complaining parties, Jareth and MilesD., on the one hand, and the responding parties, Tina M. Barber and meatpuppets. Robert McClenon 22:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SECOND STATEMENT

The statement by Jareth does not state the history of this dispute accurately. Jareth states that there has been an RfC on editors behavior. There has been an RfC on the behavior of only one editor, Tina M. Barber, except to any extent that Jareth is claiming that some of the other editors are sockpuppets or meatpuppets. In fact, two of the other editors, User:MilesD. and Shiloh Supporter, were certifiers of the RfC, not subjects of the RfC. If Jareth is claiming now that they were edit-warring, she has made no prior effort to resolve that dispute. She now also states that her two months of mediation have done little to alleviate the problem. In the RfC, she did not refer to herself as a mediator, but rather stated that an attempt to involve Tina M. Barber in mediation had gone nowhere. Much of her "mediation" appears to have been done behind the scenes on private mailing lists, and involved disparaging the other parties to the dispute. Whether or not it was a good-faith effort to resolve a dispute, it was not a Wikipedia effort to resolve a Wikipedia dispute.

On behalf of User:MilesD., I ask the ArbCom to accept this case, but to read Jareth's statement skeptically. Her behavior has been inconsistent, and she has not identified a dispute with anyone but Tina M. Barber. Robert McClenon 17:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did respond ... not sure how to put it in here, so you can do what you like with it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tina_M._Barber

Statement by Shiloh Supporter

To my surprise, I was awarded the Barnstorm award by our mediator, Jareth, on January 30th ’06. I am “Shiloh Supporter”, and my comments regarding the Shiloh Shepherd article on Wikipedia have been fairly restricted to keeping the article brief so that all parties might find some common ground upon which to agree. I have had extensive personal dealings with most all of the editors on both sides of the debate, and I believe there will never be an article of consensus on this breed, in one place, at one time. I can qualify my statements by the fact that I attempted to film a documentary on the “Birth of a Breed” which began production in 2001. My filmed hours with the founder were into the hundreds, in addition to the Padgett health survey presentation including an entire long weekend filming the late Dr. Padgett (at my home) in discussion with the founder, plus at least 20 hour-long interviews with all the top breeders. I also have (Mr. GSD) “Fred Lanting” presenting his structure seminar and my interview specifically on the Shiloh Shepherd, on film. Ultimately, it was due to what I’d learned during my one-on-one time with the founder over an intense 2 year period that I chose to pull the plug on my entire project. There IS a history to the breed, yet the challenge lies in actually presenting it so all can agree on it. No amount of ‘trench digging’ (as has been recently done by Jareth on the breed founder’s private list) would proffer a clear picture of what has really gone on in the breed this past 15 years. There are too many hurt feelings, legal battles, unfulfilled contracts, name callings, and slanderous accusations made in the past, toward those who have ‘splintered’ away from the founder. There are too many newbie’s and devout “founder-ites” fighting for the sake of fighting because they’ve either been caught up in the propaganda, or they just opt to support the founder for their own personal reasons. My general advice is to leave the article as it stands or revert to the one-liner article that Will Beback suggested. Then…lock it. This war of the wills has existed for well over a decade, and it’s to Wiki’s misfortune that it wound up here. Shiloh Supporter

Statement by User:NobleAcres

This is the first time I've posted in two weeks, preferring to leave the posting to one or two editors to help eliminate confusion. I responded to Jareth's post asking if anyone had any input and I did. But since jareth has been on other editor's private forums caling us idiots and splinters, plotting with them how she'll make us look stupid, she's decided that no one should disagree with her at all. Jareth has continuously allowed the other editors to threaten, call names, and lie about opposing editors. Jareth has then flamed the fires by repeatedly bringing parts of the article back up for changes and additions after all editors had agreed on the way it was. Then when someone disagrees with the way she's changed it she resorts to name calling and declaring that no one will agree with all of her hard work. Is this the way wiki works? Jareth has crowned herself queen and reigns over the filth and mudslinging. This whole thing is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourselves for promoting it when some people are trying to seriously have a consensus on this article. NobleAcres

Statement by David Gerard

Dmcdevit asked me to checkuser this mess. Lots of the involved parties use AOL, which of course is impossible to match except by edit style/pattern. The closest I can see to any sort of match is that NobleAcres and WindsongKennels use dialup connections to the same (very large) ISP in the same geographical area; that may indicate the same or linked persons, if the edit style/pattern matches (I'm not familiar with the edit styles in the case) - David Gerard 08:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ShenandoahShilohs

1st Statement

In response to Jareth's recent statement: If I am understanding this correctly, Jareth is now saying that this RfArb was not about anyone but the original RfC, but an attempt to include all editors involved. Jareths opening statement after listing the parties involved reads :

"Due to the above editors involvement in a dispute outside Wikipedia, they have shown a disregard for WP:NPOV, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. In order to gain an upper hand said dispute, they wish to control the content of the article and have attempted to hold the article hostage since the first week of December"

Maybe someone can clarify if this RfArb is about the parties listed as involved, or the second step to the RfC on Tina M. Barber? ShenandoahShilohs 19:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Tina M. Barber

I have NO clue as to how I should reply here! I am not good with computers, and never claimed to be! I came to the talk page by invitation because I started Shiloh Shepherds and there is plenty of proof out there regarding my kennel, the "breeds" history, etc. When I started to help out with this dispute, I provided tons of documentation .. but I was accused of just stating *my* POV ... well, these are MY dogs, I am the person that bred most of them, so who else would know more about them?? The "Shiloh Shepherd" is not even finished yet! It's still a breed in development but a small group of people have chosen to use my name because they want to sell their GSD mixes for more money! That's what this dispute is all about! I only requested that TRUE statements be published .. they want equal billing with me (even though they have only been involved a vey short time!) For more information, please visit our Learning Center via http://shilohshepherd.com/ MaShiloh 16:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:WindsongKennels

I am sorry for the delay in my response to being named in this RfArb. I have not been overly active in this article in recent months, as can be seen from my limited contributions, but have been watching closely and having some participation from time to time.

My involvement with the breed is quite lengthy and I had originally thought that I could make some positive contribution to the article, while maintaining the Wikipedia foundations. My initial involvement in the article came after learning of editor User:Tina M. Barber attacking editor User:Shiloh Lover by revealing personal information and contacting the editors employer (can be referenced on the RfC on Tina M. Barber [[26]], and on the Administrator Noticeboard [[27]]). Although more experienced editors such as User:Trysha appeared aware of the attack, nothing was done until almost a month later.

My involvement in the article came to an abrupt halt after I was personally attacked (again) on December 28th with an absurd claim of having an affair with an editors son! Reference [[28]]. For me, this was a clear indication that there was little control being exercised by administrators present and that some parties involved were to use this venue as a personal battlefield.

It was at this point that I realized that some editors involved in the development of this article would take outrageous steps to remove editors from the discussion that had differing positions from that of their own, and that unfortunately my contributions would be made in vain.

By the end of January I was prepared to help try and bring closure to the article as it appeared some limited forward progress was being made, but was quickly labeled by User:Jareth as performing a "personal attack" when responding to a post of direct questions to me by editor Tina M. Barber.

Like many here, I feel the only RfArb should be against User:Tina M. Barber and consideration should be given to the editor ignoring all previous communication attempts via the Administrator Noticeboard, the User Talk Page, and of course the RfC against editor Tina M. Barber (to which the user never responded once and now pleads ignorance of computer usage, although has made almost two hundred contributions as an editor, and made too many links to her own created website to be considered a "computer novice"). A second RfArb should be considered on the article itself and an attempt to find closure to this ongoing discussion.

I will note that the ISP of NobleAcres and WindsongKennel are similar because we live about an hour from each other. We are two seperate editors.

Thank you. WindsongKennels 17:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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



SimonP and the entire source text of the King James Bible

Involved parties

vs.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

SimonP has been informed

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The issue has been discussed-

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

Behaviour on the other articles involved is very similar

Statement by party 1

The policies and guidelines involved here are

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

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

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

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

Despite this clear consensus for the removal of this text, Simon repeatedly ignores the consensus, deliberately misconstruing parts of the outcome, reverting its removal, i.e. restoring its presence, even on some occasions violating WP:3RR - [29] [30] [31] [32] (as pointed out by Theresa Knott - [33] )

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

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

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

Statement by SimonP

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

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

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

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

Marginally outside statement by Doc glasgow

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

  1. This is a content dispute (and a stylistic one at that) and should be handled by editors working on such articles on the articles themselves. That holds as good for biblical as for any other subject.
  2. A decision on this issue must be solely governed by the principle 'what makes better, verifiable, NPOV, articles on the subject?’ It must not be governed by rules, polls, bans, or worse editors pushing a pro- or anti Bible POV.
  3. I am of the opinion that -Ril- is trolling and certainly pov-pushing. He does not have any interest in editing Bible articles. He states himself I am indeed not a substantial contributor of material to Bible articles. I have little interest in the subject in general …. I am here because I hate sophistry, fancruft, and spam, of which this is a pure and obvious example. [34] (see also [35]). Until recently, his signature tailed with 'help remove biblecruft’ – hardly a declaration that he strives here for NPOV. Yet this non-contributor has edit warred, mass nominated Bible articles for deletion ([36], [37] etc), opened two polls ([38], and [39]), three simultaneous centralised discussions ([40], [41] [42]) and finally attempted to get a policy pre-emptively 'banning’ certain Bible articles from creation - effectively adding them as a special case to the 'criteria for speedy deletion’ [43]. When one scheme has failed, he has tried another to push his obvious POV.

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

Statement by Thryduulf

I've renamed this section as I don't think I can truthfully represent my views as external to the dispute following my edits to this arbitration request. Thryduulf 14:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have diffs for "SimonP's edit warring and refusal to accept consensus"? Dmcdevit·t 01:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refusal to accept consensus here, where Inshaneee writes a summary of the repetitive debate backed by Thryduulf and myself, and countered by a wide variety of unsourced objections by SimonP. Simon's claims have included the vacuous truth that "there is no official policy on bible verses", and seem to rely on the fallacy that a "keep" vote on AFD precludes merging. Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources is one of our older guidelines and seems relevant.
  • Some evidence of edit warring here and here. There's probably more. I'm hardly involved in bible-related articles myself but was asked to comment at some point by -Ril- and Inshaneee.
  • For more edit warring, a cursory glance over SimonP's contribs for last month leads us to Matthew 1, Matthew 5, John 15 and John 20. Most aren't full-scale revert wars because generally the other editor gives up quickly after being reverted by SimonP, but it does appear to be an attempt to assert WP:OWNership.
  • >Radiant< 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Rich Farmbrough.

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

Outside view by Ilyanep

Wow...my first outside view in an ArbCom case. I'll make it quick.

I agree with Thryduulf's points. Only verses notable by themselves should be included, everything else belongs in Wikisource. Also, I noted as I was reading this case that there hasn't even been an RfC, so I would suggest sending it that way. Hope I added something useful. — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see what benefit an RfC would bring. There is already consensus regarding the content, consensus that there is a consensus and consensus that SimonP's actions are against consensus. Do we need to get a consensus that acting against consensus isn't good? Thryduulf 14:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A user conduct RfC then? It looks like the user conduct issue in and of itself jumped straight to ArbCom and people are trying to couple it with the bible issue. I'm not supporting anyone, just saying. (BTW, if there is a problem w/ the conversation here, feel free to move my comment to the talk page). — Ilyanep (Talk) 00:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: IMO, a user conduct RfC could tell us how to deal with this instead of just finding facts before an RfAr is made. — Ilyanep (Talk) 04:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly outside view by JzG

This is not really a content dispute, it's about refusal to accept consensus. The summary by -Ril- is correct: even if consensus existed for inclusion of whole chapter text (which it clearly does not), the use of KJV specifically violates WP:NPOV. It is far better in my view to link to multiple versions on Wikisource and let readers make up their own minds (or at least let them choose their favourite version - mine is the NIV). Whether resolution requires Arbcom I wouldn't like to say, but the problem is clearly to my mind the behaviour of SimonP in relation to this one area (he is a valued editor in many areas). If a better way of resolving this without Arbcom can be suggested, then I'm all for it. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 14:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent Injunction required

Ryan delaney keeps deleting parts of Thryduulf's statement, and parts of mine, in this request. This results in a severe distortion of what kind of case is being presented here. Consequently, I urgently request that the Arbitration committee ban him from editing this page until the issue is settled. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 18:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the current evidence regarding the content dispute comments with that presented in this version. Thryduulf 14:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs relating to this request:
Ryan has also removed other people's comments on another arbitration request [48]. Thryduulf 14:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requests for Clarification

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

Pedophilia userbox wheel war

In the Pedophilia userbox wheel war decision, the remedy applying to me ("Carnildo is to be desysopped. Two weeks after this case is closed, he may reapply for administrative privileges") is written as if it were possible for me to regain admin rights sometime in the future. However, there is a factor that the Arbitration Committee does not appear to have taken into account when deciding on this:

I run OrphanBot. It's a bot that does the very useful tasks of removing no-source and no-license images from articles, and of notifying uploaders in the hopes that they will correct the problems with images they've uploaded. However, it also generates enemies: those who disagree with the deletion of no-source and no-license images, those who believe that images should only be removed by a human, those who believe that images should only be removed from articles after they've been deleted, those who simply don't understand copyright law, and those who resent having been notified. Further, I usually get the blame when images are deleted, as my signature is the one on the uploader's talk page.

Due to this continued generation of ill-will, I find it extremely unlikely that I'll be able to regain admin rights at any time in the future. I'd like confirmation from the Arbitration Committee that this is what they intended when they passed the remedy. --Carnildo 02:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak for the arbitration commitee in any capacity whatsoever. Having said that, I would expect that if the arbitration committee had intended that you should be left desysopped, they would have said that you could not re-apply. If the community decides that you should not be an admin, that would be the decision of the community, which is what the arbitration committee is invoking. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that the closing bureaucrat has leeway in interpreting RFA results, which could include placing a lesser weight on opinions connected with correct but unpopular behavior, such as image warnings. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That never actually happens. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 14:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will confirm that this was not my intent. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lir

Lir's never going to stop violating his ban, can't it just be extended to indef? --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24.147.103.146

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

That was the intent, yes.
James F. (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the ban is likely to continue for a very long time due to resetting. As long as the abuse continues, continuing the ban is an appropriate remedy. Thank you. A good ArbCom remedy. Robert McClenon 15:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copperchair

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

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

After any five blocks under his probation or banning rules, it doesn't matter which articles. Dmcdevit·t 19:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Length does not matter either Fred Bauder 02:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic

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

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

Don't wikilawyer so. I removed the query because nothing had happened in over a week, which suggested that you didn't care any more. The primary rule of Wikimedia projects (and yes, this even trumps NPOV, but only in extremely rare and limited circumstances) is to use common sense. If Netoholic's actions aren't disruptive, but are in fact aiding the project, then I see no particular reason to go ahead and prevent him from contributing so; OTOH, were Netoholic's actions to become disruptive, then the ruling would be appropriate to be used to block him from such actions. The Arbitration Committee is not your mother. It is up to the blocking (or deciding-not-to-block) sysop to come to their own conclusion as to whether their common-sense-o-meter has pinged. If in doubt, don't.
James F. (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA. Nothing had happened in that section because people were waiting for an answer. Both Raul and Ambi have implied that Neto should not be blocked for violating his ban regardless of disruptiveness, hence a request for clarification was made out of respect for them. Radiant_>|< 16:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come, now, Radiant!, how was that in any way a personal attack. If you want a statement from an Arbitrator, here you go: while Netoholic is behaving usefully, he is not to be blocked for a technical violation of the terms of his case. No more needs to be said, and this had been said even before the original request was made. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Radiant!: I'm sorry, whut? How on Earth was that an attack, personal or otherwise? Please enlighten me, so that I can avoid upsetting you in future.
James F. (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Sam. If he's not being disruptive, don't block him. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And if he is being disruptive? — Omegatron 17:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who is being disruptive may be blocked. Netoholic just as much as everyone else. That doesn't mean you shouldn't carefully consider whether he is being disruptive. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what about this? — Omegatron 00:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:AUM is no longer a policy, not even a guideline (as per edit of Brion), Ambi cannot justify unblocking Netoholic with WP:AUM. So Ambi's argument is moot now. --Adrian Buehlmann 08:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I'm trying to say really is that people have been asking for clarity about the Netoholic case for several weeks, and have not received any clear answers from the ArbCom until Sam's statement just now. I don't appreciate being accused of Wikilawyering when asking for a clear answer on an issue that has received numerous unclear answers, or lack of answers, in the recent past. When JDF removed the query because nothing had happened in over a week, there were in fact several people still waiting for an Arb answer; a quick scan of RFAr and ANI history gives requests for enforcement or questions if the ban is still in place by Bratsche, CBDunkerson, Jtdirl, Omegatron, Gareth Hughes, Adrian Buehlmann, Carbonite and myself, and the only ArbCom response had so far been vague statements by David Gerard and Raul654 that were considering lifting the ban, and a statement by ex-arb Ambi that she would instantly undo any block on Netoholic. Now excuse me if I find that confusing. Radiant_>|< 17:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do agree, there is something fishy going on here, the best for the arbcomm is to define the question in black and/or white. →AzaToth 17:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually Netoholic is clearly disruptive. He is unilaterally pushing by revert warring the method described at Wikipedia:hiddenStructure which clearly breaks accessibility for no good reason. Now that Brion has vaporized WP:AUM there is clearly no reason to break screen readers on thousands of pages and against clear consensus. This method is now sprinkled over hundreds of templates. --Adrian Buehlmann 17:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I wish my comments on the issue weren't archived. Can they be resurrected?

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

His actions are disruptive and are in fact not aiding the project. — Omegatron 17:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that this is a most highly disputed claim in itself, and that many of the comments here are from the people who thought that server load was something to be decided by a vote on a talk page - David Gerard 18:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
David, please be civil in your argumentation. →AzaToth 18:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you would refrain from repeating that false claim again and again. We had actually asked for current confirmation of the devs on this (now Brion has and he removed the policy tag, thereby reverting you). Nobody tried to vote away server load. It would be helpful to stick to the matter and not constantly bash people based on errant claims. --Adrian Buehlmann 18:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop repeating that baseless argument. No one was ever trying to vote away server load.
There was never any proof of a server load problem, and server load isn't a valid reason to limit ourselves or create policy, as our lead developer has clearly stated. — Omegatron 20:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comments 1) Netoholic's improvments to the Templates are nothing short of miraculous. Watching him, I have been able to utilize techniques here and elsewhere and all efforts to encourage positive changes should be made. 2) When objections are raised, Netoholic seems to react impatiently and rudely to those that oppose his changes. 3) Attempts to learn from Netoholic, or enlist his help to make improvements to the stylesheet are often ignored or treated as childish questions.
Suggestions 1) Netoholic should make comments on the talk page about the improvements. 2) Netoholic should either educate objectors about the benefits of the change (or inform others such as myself to help him) 3) When the objectors acknowledge the benefits and incorporate the standardizations as best they can, any additional changes should be made using standard wiki processes. 4) If there really is a server load issue, the dispute should be settled by asking the programmers rather than asserting what they mean. This is an edited version of my prior archived comment Trödel&#149;talk 19:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Netoholic's ban from editing in the Template: namespace should be enforced. If he can learn to convince others to make changes that he wants to the templates, instead of making sweeping contentious changes without discussion, the "miraculous" benefits of his knowledge can still be used. — Omegatron 20:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would be a perfect fit. If this doesn't bruise his ego, he will shure love to point out where we are all wrong. And shure he is able to express that as he is very intelligent. What he lacks is just patience and he can't stand other opinions than his own because he lacks the patience to explain. So I would shure hire him as a non-template-editing consultant. But the template-edit-decisions simply does not make he himself. Deal or no deal? --Adrian Buehlmann 21:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I (and many others) have a problem with the 'hiddenStructure' technique Netoholic is using. It seems to me inappropriate to disenfranchise blind users, users with non-CSS browsers, users on non-English Wikipedias, and others... which is what this method has done. It does not work for all users and thus it simply should not be used. This change was advanced under claims that alternate methods cause server load problems and that hiddenStructure would work for almost everybody. Both of those claims have since been shown to be false... making continued efforts to promote this methodology seem wholely without merit to me. Given that there are other methods which work for everyone I do not think edit warring to restore bad code is warranted. Nor running bots (at faster than the allowed rate) to replace Template:Main without even mentioning it on Wikipedia talk:Bots... let alone getting consensus agreement there as required.
Netoholic has done alot of work with templates. Unfortunately, a good deal of that work has ultimately turned out to be detrimental in that it reduces the accessibility of Wikipedia. The longer this continues the worse the site will appear for the minorities Netoholic dismisses as insignificant. --CBD ☎ ✉ 20:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on all points. Yet we are even more powerless to stop him with this quasi-revocation of his ban in place than we would have been if he had never been through ArbCom at all. We're supposed to block bots on sight for controversial edits, but no one feels confident enough to do it with these vague statements telling us we should/shouldn't. — Omegatron 20:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is that detrimental you should be able to find at least one admin who can block him for a day. If not then there must be some reason: are the changes too difficult to understand or evaluate whether they contribute/detract from the project; are the changes not clearly detrimental; or some other reason. My experience has been that some changes have been very helpful and other changes have been reverted, but understanding what should stay and go was not always easy. Additionally, experienced users that I trust suggested that his changes were very helpful, and when I looked into it I agreed, and thus came to see the usefulness hiddenStructure over the use of metatemplates. Trödel&#149;talk 20:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the time since the Arbitration decision, I feel like I've been more open and communicative by orders of magnitude. I feel like there are a few people here that are looking to "shoot the messenger" when it comes to my efforts related to WP:AUM. At the present time, that page's status seems questionable -- we have two very well-informed developers giving different opinions on why we should get rid of meta-templates. Jamesday has said that we should reduce their usage to prevent unnecessary server utilization. Brion has said that the server utilization may not be the problem, but that meta-template schemes are ugly and fragile, and should be handled by built-in functions. It seems like people were tolerant of WP:AUM when server concerns were raised, but aren't being as receptive as to the "ugliness", which can be subjective. Since this ambiguity has been raised, some individuals (especially CBDunkerson), who never liked WP:AUM, are taking the opportunity to go "balls to the walls" and undo weeks of work. At best, all mass efforts, both towards and away from meta-templates, should stop for the time being.
One thing that was mentioned was related to Template:Main. Per the talk page, User:Dbenbenn proposed using separate templates in order to remove the need for any sort of meta-template/hiddenStructure requirement. That is precisely the sort of positive movement we should be making. By using Template:Main articles on a couple dozen pages, it allowed this change. My use of a bot to help with this was entirely appropriate, as it is approved to handle this sort of maintenance. I remain open to anyone who wants to assume good faith and and me for explanations on my talk page, instead of a rant on a more public page, when they don't understand something. -- Netoholic @ 03:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, several of these statements are somewhat less than accurate. First, Brion has not said that all meta-templates should be removed. He has said that they (and any other 'code' method) should be removed if they are 'ugly and fragile'. The 'hiddenStructure' method is rather ugly and so 'fragile' that we don't have to worry about it breaking in the future because it is already broken now. Second, it is inaccurate to say that I "never liked" WP:AUM except in the sense that nobody (I hope) likes code limitations which require alot of work to clean up. The fact is that I did alot of work to implement WP:AUM when it was temporarily made policy based on claims of neccessity for server performance which have since proven unfounded. If meta-templates were a serious server problem then I'd be (actually was) all for replacing them. Since they aren't I'm now still in favor of limiting and improving them, but steadfastly against replacing them with a method which produces bad output for some users. Third, I am not disputing whether we move 'towards or away from meta-templates'... even since WP:AUM was downgraded I have continued to move templates away from meta-templates. The dispute here is over whether we should be 'moving towards or away' from 'hiddenStructure' and other CSS hacks which do not work for all users. The answer to which seems fairly obvious to me... why are we disenfranchising users when there is no need to do so? --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

If this here: <tr class="hiddenStructure"><th>Died</th><td><i>not deceased</i><br /></td></tr> (as seen on George W. Bush) is the kind of ridiculous html that Wikipedia wishes to have in thousands of articles, ok then (non-CSS capable screen readers do read "Died not deceased"). WP:AUM is no longer a policy and Brion has stated that there is no danger to the servers by using things like qif, which delivers decent html and will be replaced by MediaWiki built-ins. We even have a solution that does not violate WP:AUM but is also opposed and reverted by Netoholic on sight which would produce decent html (it's called "Weeble code" and it does not need a centralized conditional meta-template like qif). If it seems worth to abolish the reputation of Wikipedia for the timeframe until we have conditionals in Wikipedia, ok then. It's your decision which way to go. Netoholic is now CEO of templates and if you are satisfied with the outcome then I see no point in arguing against that any longer. But at least you have been warned and you should know what you do. --Adrian Buehlmann 08:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying very hard to figure out how this is actually a response to what I said. Phil Sandifer 23:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is what Netoholic pushes to the articles by edit warring and it is pointless to edit war with him. By supporting him, you actually endorse pushing this kind of "solution". So you are indirectly responsible for this kind of html in articles. --Adrian Buehlmann 23:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Running an unapproved bot and 'yelling' at people for 'not understanding' the mass change which he had not bothered to explain (or even mention) on Wikipedia talk:Bots seems pretty 'disruptive' to me. There are reasons that consensus is supposed to be gathered before bots are run to make such sweeping changes. Splitting 'main' into separate templates to avoid 'meta' vs 'hiddenStructure' issues may well have been a viable solution... I saw what he was doing and wasn't sure it was really neccessary (conditional main could have been done without meta OR CSS) but didn't care much either way. However, there is no cause to be blaming others for 'not understanding' and complaining about temporarily broken pages. Had Netoholic followed the process as required more people would have known about the change in advance and could have helped to minimize page disruption. Instead, he bulled ahead and made a mess of things and then got angry with people for, inevitably, 'not understanding' what he had not bothered to properly explain. Ditto on 'See' vs 'Further' and similar issues. Agreement should, must, be sought in advance... otherwise 'disruption' is inevitable. --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
a few people here that are looking to "shoot the messenger" when it comes to my efforts related to WP:AUM.
That would make some sense if "the message" wasn't something that you wrote, misrepresented as developer-mandated policy, used as justification for sweeping edits that many users find disruptive, and revert warred any attempts to change towards a community viewpoint. You don't get any martyr status for contentiously enforcing your own opinion piece.
Brion has said that the server utilization may not be the problem, but that meta-template schemes are ugly and fragile,
More misinterpretation. Brion said that meta-templates should not be used if they are ugly and fragile. And from there it just becomes subjective; you think all meta-templates are ugly and fragile, I think your hiddenstructure hack and forking of Template:Main are ugly and fragile.
How do we decide where to go from here? Not through consensus, apparently...
It seems like people were tolerant of WP:AUM when server concerns were raised
People were tolerant of WP:AUM when you convinced the ArbCom that it was the mandate of the developers, which it wasn't.
My use of a bot to help with this was entirely appropriate, as it is approved to handle this sort of maintenance.
Um. When was it approved?
I remain open to anyone who wants to assume good faith
"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary."
May I dryly suggest that anybody who thinks Netoholic is highly disruptive now should reread his case, and see the sort of shit he used to pull.
Now there's a great argument. So if Willy on Wheels claims "everyone's ganging up on me; I didn't know I was doing anything wrong!", and cuts back to just posting the occasional autofellatio pic every few days, we should just look past it and give him a pat on the back for improvement?
He's still revert-warring templates, revert-warring WP:AUM, being uncivil, and making sweeping changes (with a bot) without consensus. What more do you want?
might I suggest that an RFC be opened on what coding to use in templates?
Good idea. Note that Brion has expressed an interest in building conditionals into the software, so a large chunk of this would become moot.
Meanwhile, Neto's ban should be enforced and extended. Since he won't listen to consensus, he should be forced to work within it. While banned, he can still make changes to templates, but only by proxy or by convincing others on talk pages that his proposed edits are beneficial. He should not be allowed to use a bot. — Omegatron 00:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Descriptions of edits

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

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

Checkuser vetting

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

Who'd you use it on isn't the issue, the issue is the fact that I don't think it's appropriate for a user who has an unauthrized blocking bot which you apparently get away with on the same account with checkuser access and we have no way of knowing how the bot will play into checkuser or visa versa and either if neither do I still don't feel comfortable with it as long as that block bot is running since your checkuers whether you know it or not will play into decisions you factor into your bot program. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the bot is tacitly accepted by many members of the community including the Arb Com. -- Curps 05:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly it isn't otherwise there'd be a policy exception for such things. The only thing that has prevented me so far from actually enforcing policy and blocking you for using an unauthorized bot is A) you could easily unblock yourself and for all I know you have scripted your bot to unblock itself if it's ever blocked, and B) the fact that I would be vilified for actually enforcing an accepted Wikipedia policy despite the fact that I would be backed up on the issue by general consensus. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 18:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record my issue btw isn't with ignoring policy as policy in certain cases should be sidestepped or ignored. The main issue I have is this is something that was sprung out of nowhere and has been run 24/7 with no oversight or general approval. I also would feel more comfortable knowing whether checkuser is going to be playing into the bot at all and if so how? I have sent an email (using his recently enabled email me link) to curps even requesting it privately since he has quite valid concerns about everyone knowing the inner workings of his bot but as of yet he has not seen fit to reply and as such I must strongly state again how bad of an idea it is to give him and his alter ego blocker bot checkuser privileges until this can all be cleared up. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 18:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You left a message on my talk page and I replied there. I haven't received any e-mail under the name of Jtkiefer. -- Curps 18:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Curps has refused to clarify what his bot does as well as how checkuser would play into the running of his bot and his administrative actions so I must object to him getting checkuser access and if he gets it over my objections I will appeal the issue up to Jimbo and the board. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His bot with blocking powers is accepted because he does very good work with it. I suspect he didn't touch third base in some way, but the good effects are good enough people are happy for him to continue. Personally, I think he should be talking closely with the devs about how to make things more efficient for protecting en: Wikipedia ... - David Gerard 00:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's "accepted" only because nobody wants to go through with the fight they'd have to have to challenge it. The fact remains that he runs this bot with 0 oversight and he shouldn't be able to add checkuser to his arsenel with at least clarifying how it will play into his usage of the bot. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 19:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Undecided. Can we get more information about Curp's "blockbot" and his use of it? Kaldari 03:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd prefer to say as little as possible, since it is very clear that at least one of our vandals reads discussions such as this one daily, creating usernames that are riffs off of very recent discussions. -- Curps 23:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      See for example, User:Riffs off of very recent discussions and User:Tacitly accepted, both created just now. -- Curps 05:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support very active in RC patrolling and user blocking... would make the bot much more effective if it could auto check for socks.  ALKIVAR™ 06:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral Removed administrator reason, posted in error. Netkinetic 06:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongest possible support - if I had to choose just one non-arb/ex-arb to have CheckUser, it'd be Curps. I suspect many people really don't understand just how much complete crap he and his robot friends save Wikipedia from drowning in. (Note that bot access to CheckUser would be monstrously inefficient, so he might have to talk to the devs about some other method if he sees a reasonable [from a dev's point of view] need to do it other than by hand.) I still have to catch him on IRC to sort out a gmail ... anyone else should feel free to do so also - David Gerard 07:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to point out that I don't actually use IRC (there's just not enough time in the day). I hope no one has been impersonating me on IRC. In any case I did finally set up an e-mail. -- Curps 05:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, good! Disregard my notice on your talk page :-) I know what you mean about IRC - I'm on 24 hours/day but don't actually look more than once in the morning and once in the evening ... - David Gerard 00:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, although aren't admins who block already supposed to have an email registered. -- Solipsist 08:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per Jtkiefer, weak oppose. NSLE (T+C) 09:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support anyone who does not see Curps bot at work cannot understand how much good he does. This bot has singlehandedly neutralised WOW and much of the threat of vandal bots. Two requests 1) e-mail availability 2) any auto-boting of the checkuser ability be discussed with devs and cleared with Arbcom. --Doc ask? 11:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose. Someone who does not have the courtesy to respond to talk page messages is clearly not trustworthy enough to deal with the kind of confidential information checkuser gives access to. Not only that, but Curps' block messages are already very cryptic and the mailing list regularly gets emails from someone who has been autoblocked due to one of Curps' blocks. Understandably they have no idea why they can't edit due to the complete lack of information given out by Curps' blocks. Someone who doesn't take responsibility for his actions is not a suitable candidate for privileged information. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My talk page messages to him get a response ... and as the listadmin, I can't say I've seen a flood of autoblock victims to wikien-l. Almost all block complaints to wikien-l IME are due to a block by hand and I can't recall one by Curps (though there may be one or two). Do you have numbers? - David Gerard 14:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Autoblock is a perennial problem, because even if you give an exact reason (eg, "vandalism"), the autoblocked user usually doesn't read it carefully and believes the message is for him/her ("What do you mean vandalism? I've never vandalized"). So a clear message actually does more harm than good if the blocked username is an obvious throwaway sockpuppet and the only person likely to read the message is a confused autoblocked user. In some cases I do leave a more informative message though. -- Curps 00:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If someone is autoblocked with the reason "user...", I believe they are less likely to challenge this (due to the complete lack of information in the block message) than if it says "you have been blocked for an inappropriate username". We already have a template for username blocks, {{UsernameBlocked}}. My opposition still stands. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That would be nice, yes. But I don't think checkuser should wait on this - David Gerard 00:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I, however, do, as Curps will inevitably spend time doing checkuser in addition to what he already does, and since he seems not to have the time to fix it now, he's definitely not going to have the time to fix it later. When his bot is running under an approved account, his block messages are sufficiently explanatory, and he makes more effort to respond to talk page messages, then I will re-evaluate my opposition. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How should I know? Checkuser access should be extended to a few people who really know what they're doing, which in my book means the most important factor is professional experience in DoS attack or intrustion hunting. An IP address isn't an identity, and what exactly it means in the context of an editor or two having edited from one depends on situational context. We seem to already make mistakes in judging this, so I hope the arbitration committee will consider this--experience--in its decision. The second factor is that Curps, or any CheckUser user, must be held--absolutely held--to the privacy policy, and not just in its letter but in spirit as well. Again, this requires the establishment of out-of-Wikipedia bona fides we can't have access to--experience and proven conduct handling confidential information. Curps has had a minor problem with responsiveness (the lack of a mail address is well-known, Curps has ignored it; the desire for informative block summaries is well-known, Curps hasn't addressed it). I'm not thrilled with running a bot with administrative privileges outside the control of the Foundation operations staff; however, Curps' bot provides features missing from MediaWiki that we need, namely page move throttling and username blacklisting. Not recognizing its utility would be wrong. I don't think Curps' general ability or goodwill is questionable, which I suppose is the question being asked in this vetting. But ultimately the arbitration committee should be evaluating Curps as they would a job candidate who was being hired by the Foundation to perform this task. Demi T/C 15:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You raise some good points. However, it's worth pointing out that there's at least one developer who is not an admin on English Wikipedia and whose RfAdmin failed, however paradoxical that may be. I'm not sure anyone is running any background checks on our developers. Also, an IP address is quite limited information (as you point out) and the amount and sensitivity of confidential information is thus greatly reduced compared to other situations with other organizations (eg, medical records, Social Security number, address and telephone, cell phone calling history, etc). Clause 5 of the privacy policy does provide for using IP addresses for purposes of formulating a complaint to an ISP, however I would never contact ISPs myself, rather if this was necessary or desirable I might possibly do "evidence gathering" consisting of diffs (in a format similar to Arb Com evidence gathering) and hand it off to the Arb Com or some designated Wikimedia Foundation employee or officer who would be designated as having the authority to speak in Wikipedia's name when contacting ISPs for "terms of service" complaints. -- Curps 07:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, perhaps my thrust wasn't clear: when I say "How should I know?" I mean that the primary means of vetting people should be done by representatives of the foundation, not members of the community, using information we don't have. And I wouldn't suggest a "background check," just a verifiable history of applicable experience. In any case, your conduct as an editor and administrator reflects to your credit, and your willingness to perform this task even more so, and I hope no one interprets my comments in any other way. Demi T/C 16:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be worth noting here that none of us have any idea who Jayjg is in the 'real world' except that he's this guy called Jayjg who is an admin, an arbitrator and has checkuser and so far has been consistently brilliant with them - David Gerard 00:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose same concerns as Demi. — Omegatron 15:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. No big deal. The second you get on the internet, you are broadcasting your IP address. If you forget to log in to WP, your IP is there for all the world to see. Same with anons. It's not exactly confidential. And personally, I don't see what having/not having an email address listed or even running a bot from his account has anything to do with the ability to do a sock check. --Kbdank71 15:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Curps does some good work, but his lack of response to any inquiries from others really bothers me. And I don't think that making "email this user" work is going to fix that. Splash and I have been having problems with him for awhile with such basic stuff as putting reasons in his protection summaries. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Oppose. I'd like to find out more about how he blocks accounts so quickly. --TML1988 20:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - again, nothing personal against Curps, but I still feel hesitant at handing out priviledges to a non-ArbCom member. I understand that there's a backlog at WP:RFCU, but I don't think that adding another non-Arbitrator with access is the right thing to do at the moment. In my opinion, we're already getting lenient about granting requests for checkusers to be performed; they used to be strictly for Arbitration matters only. Let me also take this opportunity to commend Curps for his amazing vandal-fighting and his bot as well. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - This opinion is specific towards the CheckUser aspect of the proposal. Let me start by saying that I think Curps has contributed a lot to Wikipedia, but I think CheckUser capabilities for users should be kept as conservatively used and given as is practically possible. For one thing, I would prefer to see that these users are personally known to the Wikimedia Foundation. However, this is also an opinion that is not a well-informed one, so if there is a pressing need to extend the current group of users with CheckUser access, my opinion may not be so inclined as it is. --HappyCamper 03:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Curps is doing a tremendous job in stopping vandal-bots and other blatant abuses of wikipedia. I wish there were a way to restrict some lookup accesses to only newly made and blocked accounts and that such privileges were given out a tad more freely to trusted admins. But here I'm more than confident that Curps will not abuse this tool and that it will be of great help to him and us. Shanes 04:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support iff those users who currently have access genuinely believe there is a need for more users to have it, AND the arbitrators, foundation officers, etc. and Curps himself are confident that he has the necessary technical knowhow and skills. Thryduulf 12:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: I am opposed to anyone being given or even using checkuser rights until such time as a publicly available log of these actions is put into place. I am not saying the results of the use should be posted. It would be enough to see "* 01:23 February 9, 2006 (UTC) User:BobtheCheckUserGuy ran checkuser against User:InevitableTroll". I am aware of abuses of checkuser, and refuse to agree to support its use until there is some form of checks and balances against its misuses. Virtually everything else is logged, why not this? --Durin 14:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you ever see the many times I explained why this is not going to happen as it would be a massive violation of the Wikimedia privacy policy? - David Gerard 00:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All uses of checkuser are logged. The log is not made public for the obvious reason that if I run checkuser against user:Foo, and then immediately run it again on IP 1.2.3.4, it's quite obvious to anyone viewing the log what Foo's IP address was (which is a violation of our privacy policy). Your complaint is without merit. Raul654 17:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh this is getting ridiculously political. The Committee whould endorse candidate checkuser users who in its opinion, that of the developers, and the foundation, are trustworthy and competent. I don't know quite what this silly poll was supposed to tell us except that Wikipedians will argue about anything. --Tony Sidaway 17:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It shows that there are many valid (and invalid in the case of the above) concerns about Curps getting checkuser access and it allows the community's input so we don't have (another) unilateral decision from the arbcom. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 18:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Raul654; then modify the public log to make checks against IPs not appear. My argument is not without merit (nor is it invalid, thank you Jtkiefer). Tony; trustworthy? Sorry, but I know of one person who has abused checkuser privileges. Call it political if you like. I don't view concerns about privacy as being political. I take privacy seriously. It's fine if you don't, but there are people here who do. Abuses of checkuser have happened, with apparently no oversight to correct the abuse. Without a back check against such abuses they will happen again. Sample log:
        • View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).
        • 03:57, 8 February 2006 Fred Bauder checkuser on "User:Superm401"
        • 05:05, 7 February 2006 Jimbo Wales checkuser on "User:Ish ishwar"
        • 18:17, 29 January 2006 David Gerard checkuser on "User:Peruvianllama"
        • 00:03, 29 January 2006 Raul654 checkuser on "User:Vegaswikian"
      • I am at a loss as to why we should not have such a log when virtually every other sort of action in similar vein is logged. --Durin 21:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Abusing the CheckUser extension would be a violation of the Foundation privacy policies, and is a serious matter. Please substantiate the claim made above. Incidentally, logging has played on the minds of a lot of us, but we're at a loss for a really good way of doing it which doesn't defeat the object of the tool being restricted. Rob Church (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm curious: how does the above suggested log defeat anything? The tool should be restricted, I grant. The logging of it's use being restricted? What stands in the way if the format is as above and as suggested, does not list the use of it against IPs? I cite a case where it appears a checkuser was done against User:Dissident. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Talrias#Inside_view_by_Dissident, [49], and [50]. Additionally, I have been told that a checkuser was run against me at some point in the past by David Gerard. I have never had a sockpuppet account, nor has there ever been reason to believe that I have. I can't prove either of these cases; I don't have access to the logs. I fully recognize that with the current climate of Wikipedia, I might as well be accusing Jimbo Wales of violating foundation policies for as much standing as David has. And that's part of the problem; people view David as being above reproach. But, he's just as human as every last one of us. This is where logs come into play; accountability loops. Right now, there is none for checkuser. Abuses of other functions on wikipedia that are logged pale in comparison to checkuser abuses. All the more reason why it should be publicly logged. --Durin 21:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is the case I made for not making the logs public: It's often necessary to request IPs for people who are almost certainly innocent, in the course of an investigation. This is because people often ask "what is the established account behind the obvious sockpuppet <name>?" When the offender comes from a dynamic IP address pool, there are often no exact IP matches. The best way to determine what the corresponding established account is, is to run a checkuser request on every possible suspect. What I object to is displaying these innocent names on a list along with known vandals and trolls -- those innocent people might find it offensive, and it might even damage their reputation. I have no problem with releasing such data with permission from the user involved. I'll happily do so in this case: 15:37, 27 October 2005 David Gerard got IPs for Durin . -- Tim Starling 23:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • After doing some digging using this time stamp, I found this diff. This would appear to be David's reason for running checkuser on me. m:Checkuser policy allows this. Any implications from my words above regarding David's conduct on this issue with respect to his checkuser on me should be ignored; it appears David acted appropriately in my case. I'm still curious regarding his actions on the Dissident checkuser and his rationale. --Durin 23:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • You're assuming I even remember, which I don't ... but yeah, running a check you'll end up checking a lot of innocents along the way. And you just know that even if people are innocent, others will nevertheless having had their IP checked as a black mark against them. That's why I frequently have to imitate the serene wisdom of the Magic 8-Ball - David Gerard 00:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support without any reservations whatsoever, for reasons originally expressed in my appeal last month at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Curps. One of the more positive things which came out of the failed nomination was the creation of a centralised RFCU helpdesk; 36 RFCU cases were closed in January 2006, and as of right now, there are an additional 48 pending at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser. Curps is one of our most, if not the most valuable asset we have at Wikipedia in terms of vandalism removal, and the manner in which he has conducted himself since he's arrived has given me no reason to believe he would abuse these additional privileges. While I do appreciate and understand Durin's objection, I must respectfully disagree, as the publication of CheckUser inquiries in a public fashion could potentially jeapordise the terms of our privacy policy if the results turned out to be false. Hall Monitor 18:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems logical; my only quibble would've been the lack of an email address, which he's said above that he's rectified. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 19:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's a trust thing - I trust Curps. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't see any reason that user:Curps will be untrustworthy in this matter.--MONGO 21:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If the ArbCom feels like it would be helpful to appoint some dedicated vandal-fighters to assist with CheckUser requests, picking User:Curps makes sense to me. Jkelly 03:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose If CheckUser status gets granted to non-arbitrators, I don't trust Curps as the first one to have it. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If anyone should have it, it's Curps. This would be a genuine help in fighting vandalism. Antandrus (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with e-mail address set, and a committment to reply to emails. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Has anyone seen a really, really big Willy on Wheels attack lately? No? Well, this is due to Curps. Give him the rights. Bratschetalk 05:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Support. It doesn't seem very clear exactly what he needs it for. What does it matter who the vandals his bot is blocking really are? Is it so he can apply longer blocks? Is he planning to check every new account to see whether it's a bad boy? So long as he allows the usual route to appeal, fair enough. Grace Note 05:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It doesn't seem very clear exactly what he needs it for" - let me kill two birds with one stone - 'Q: why Curps and why now?'. Answer: Because of the recent spate of clever vandalism we've been experiencing, whereby people use throw-away accounts to vandalize *exactly* once, and then log out and log back in with a new throw-away account. Thus, since they never click "edit" while blocked, they never trip the autoblocker, and can continue to vandalize forever. Only someone with checkuser access can effectively deal with these attacks (and it probably goes without saying that 9 people with checkuser access isn't enough to do 24/7 vandal patrol). I was involved in most of them, and Curps was the only person more involved than me. He did amazing work thwacking the vandals. He definitely needs a bigger mop and broom. Raul654 05:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Let's give Curps a chance. If it doesn't work out, Arbcomm, Jimbo, or the Foundation can take it away! --FloNight 06:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nothing else to add that's not already been said, so I'll just say I think he'd put it to extremely effective use. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 20:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I trust Curps and I trust Raul's judgment. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Give trusted editors, such as Curps, more power to do their job.--Nectar 22:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As per SV, I trust Curps and Raul. Complaints about his bot and such (which is excellent, by the way), don't really seem relevant. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per SlimVirgin and Knowledge Seeker.--Sean Black (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=39333200"