Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

A 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 (ArbCom).

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	8 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. If your case is accepted for arbitration, the arbitrator or clerk will create an evidence page that you can use to provide more detail. 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. Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes. When a case is opened, a notice that includes a link to a newly created evidence page will be posted to each participant's talk page. See the Requests section of the arbitration policy page for details. "Recuse" means that an Arbitrator has excused themselves from a case because of a possible, or perceived, conflict of interest. Cases which have not met the acceptance criteria after 10 days will be removed from this page.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or Clerk may do so.

See also

• Arbitration policy
• Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How to present a case - Recommended reading: An (unofficial) guide to presenting effective Arbitration cases.
• Arbitration enforcement - Any user can request help here if it involves the violation of an ArbCom decision
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template

Purge the server cache

How to list cases

Under the Current requests section below:

• Click the "[edit]" tab on the right of the screen appearing above the section break line;
• 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

Community Ban for User:Brya

Initiated by --Berton 00:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Berton (talk · contribs)
• Brya (talk · contribs)
• Pschemp (talk · contribs)
• InShaneee (talk · contribs)
• Moe Epsilon (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Request for comments. Attempt at mediation refused. The facts occurred in this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Is_a_community_ban_appropriate_in_this_case.3F here] and in this page here compare with this here

Statement by Berton

I request an arbitration against Users Pschemp, InShaneee and Moe Epsilon, based on the fact that these users abused of the sysops power and they had a behavior frankly hostile, threatening me several times of block and blocking User:Brya without previous consultation to the community to see if would be consensus for an indefinite community ban, what clearly demonstrates a violation of WP:Blocking policy. User: InShaneee tried to be frightened threatening of blockade, well that is a total outrage, besides being an insane attitude, because I think we are civilized people and that are not in a jungle, where a wild animal bites the other unaware! We have to solve the differences in a civilized way and not this stupid way. I believe that a punishment for this type of hostile and abusive behavior on the part of sysops should be exemplary. Besides User:Moe Epsilon removed my comments of the page and deleted them.

Statement by Pschemp

Not sure what Berton is playing at here, or why he's started arbitration after statements like "The fact is this Wikipedia is no doubt an example of DIGITAL MAOISM and I will not contribute anymore. Berton 22:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)." There is a perfectly rational discussion about User:Brya going on at the moment on ANI and the project page with the rest of the community, but since Berton disagrees with the rest of the community (and he is the only one) he seems to think that arbitration is needed. It isn't, there is nothing to arbitrate here. Its been made clear that Brya's block is preventative while his subtle vandalism and POV pushing is sorted out. This filing is nothing more than more disruption by a user who isn't getting his way. Certainly that's obvious if you read the ANI and especially the AN thread. pschemp | talk 00:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Moe Epsilon

1. If I wasn't rolling on the floor laughing at the this poorly misguided user and this sorry excuse of an RFAr, I would try to be more serious
2. I am not a sysop, so you cannot desysop me, which sort of proves you don't have your facts straight.
3. Your statement saying that I deleted comments is technically incorrect. I cannot delete something, again, I'm not an admin. I redirected the conversation to one point so it could stay in one place.
4. pschemp and InShaneee were in the right to block a disruptive user how has committed vandalism, engaged in non-NPOV discussions, and inserted original research into Wikipedia. Sysops don't need approval for some things and this is one of them. They are now conducting a Straw Poll to determine what the length of the block should be.
5. The only purpose of this RFAr is cause more attention to Berton and the banned user and goes against WP:POINT.
6. The only thing this RFAr could serve as is evidence of how disruptive Berton has been on WP:AN/I, WP:AN and now WP:RFAr. He has completely blown a tiny issue out of proportion and is causing unneeded stress to the community.

Statement by Petaholmes

I started the discussion about a community ban for Brya since he has, and continues to violate several key wikipedia policies like OWN, NOR, CIVIL; I thought it was an obvious case that did not need ArbCom intervention and previous attempts at mediation have been refused. Everyone who commented on AN/I, with the exception of the party asking for arbitration, supported a ban. I think this is clear case of the community enforcing accepted standards of behaviour; nothing has occured out of process; I urge the ArbCom to refuse this case.--Peta 02:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

---

Bowling for Columbine

Initiated by PPGMD at 21:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• PPGMD (talk · contribs)
• Mangoe (talk · contribs)
• Schrodinger82 (talk · contribs)
• Ken Arromdee (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

A RFC and a mediation cabal case have been tried, I skipped the Med Committee because I simply think it would be a repeat of the mediation cabal. All users listed above were notified on their talk page.

This case is pirmarily about the application and meaning of Wikipedia policies as applied to political critics on the Bowling for Columbine page.

Statement by {PPGMD}

This started recently when Schrodinger82 used WP:RS as a reason for removing much of the criticism of the film Bowling for Columbine. When attempting to argue in favor of the inclusion including citing policies that are much more relavent, he engages in Wikilawyering finding little technicallities that support his position rather then following the spirit.

He argues with WP:RS that they are self published/personal websites, we offer to switch them to their books or articles they wrote in National Magizine; he argues that they aren't notable, we argue that they are showing google searches, New York Times Best Seller list, et al; he argues that they aren't experts in film editing, we argue that such expertise is not needed as it's a political movie. It goes back and forth like that.

Here are some of the policies based on who he uses them: WP:RS - A guideline written mostly for citing factual information, no nessarily written for citing political opinions, but the spirit is that you should cite sources that have a reputation of being good. He argues that via the expert clause the critics must be experts in films of some sort.

WP:V - He interpets this as to mean that we must be able to verify that what they are saying is true, not that they said it like the policy says.

WP:NPOV - The user claims on a technicality that since the critics are not experts in film editing, or in any other film making aspect that their viewpoint is not one that matters for this article. We feel that this neglects that fact that the movie makes a political point and this viewpoint is held by a significant minority, thus criticism transcends film making as they aren't trying to argue that Moore used the wrong angle, film stock, or any other particulars to a film maker.

Those are the relavent policies, the user also cities other policies which are out of place in this dispute. Attempts in outside opinions simply end up with Schrodinger saying that they are wrong and citing policies.

I have attempted to propose a compromise as I agree with some of his points, for example I felt that the criticism section was too long and was giving Undue weight to the Pro-gun critics, and I suggested a much shorter version of the section that simply cites Hardy and Kopel as critics and follows all the Wikipedia policies. Schrodinger82 rejected this compromise.

Ultimately I would like to get a ruling on the policies and how they apply in particular to the criticism of Hardy and Kopel. Links:

• Pre Dispute Version
• Current Version
• Compromise Version Proposed
• Mediation Cabal Case

Response to JzG: Yes it is for the most part a content issue, but it's one that is unlikely to get resolved via any method available to us. The discussion with the user goes round and round. If Wikilawyer is an offense then I support it's actionable, but I don't see anything that shows it's an actionable offense, just seen as a bad idea. Evidence that we have attempted to solve the content issue can be seen above in the Mediation Cabal case, and in the talk page, there are extensive discussions, none going anywhere.

Statement by User:JzG

I'm unclear what's supposed to happen here. The original version was grossly unbalanced in favour of criticism, the vast majority of which completely missed the point (hello, this is satire! it's not supposed to be a balanced and scholarly treatment, or 100% factually accurate in every tiny detail). The current version is better. I don't see the problem. Oh, and it's a content dispute. Where's the evidence of user conduct issues to arbitrate? Guy 21:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Mangoe

I came into this as an observer from the Wikipedia:Expert retention effort and its child guideline, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Except for a minor formatting fix and the removal of a dubious categorization, I have not edited the article. I am largely interested in this out of a concern over the principles that Schrodinger82 is trying to establish.

He is pushing four points:

• That only film makers and critics may cited as critics of a documentary. I do not accept this theory, and I do not believe that the public in general accepts it. In general the factual content is fair game for anyone who cares to do the necessary fact-checking, but it is especially appropriate for those familiar with the field to do so. And in the case of political and social commentary in a documentary, it is reasonable for writers from the major political and social commentary media (in this case, National Review') to respond.

• That David T. Hardy and Dave Kopel are not sufficiently notable to merit mention as critics. Those who follow the wikilinks will find articles on both men in Wikipedia, and both are there cited as Moore antagonists. In any case citations in the general media can be found where they are taken as noted opponents to Moore, and these citations have been supplied.

• That majority acclaim for the documentary negates adverse reviews, no matter how prominent the reviewer. I found it trivial to find negative reviews, includng that in the New York Times. It seems to me that the picture of near universal acclaim is exaggerated.

• That the statements of Hardy in particular are defamatory and that therefore we cannot recount them. It is clear to me that we can repeat them as long as we make it clear that it is Hardy speaking, and not Wikipedia. (It also seems to me that the claim is exaggerated.)

All of this is part of a strategy to essentially deny that there was any substantial criticism of the film. It is a profound misrepresentation of the reality that Moore is a figure of deepest political controversy. There have been some attempts to rectify prior issues with the article (particularly its structural flaws) but Schrodinger82 is burying the talk page in wikilawyering to prevent efforts from advancing. I am particularly concerned to see that the principles by which he opposes edits do not get taken as precedents for policies or guidelines. I confess that I have already edited Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines to reflect some of the points I have made here; there have been no subsequent changes to the guideline, however, and I think that most people would accept the additions I have made. Mangoe 03:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that I concur with the fifth point raised by Ken Arromdee. Mangoe 12:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Ken Arromdee

I think that most if not all of Schrodinger82's removals were inappropriate.

It's hard to fully analyze his reasons for removing everything he removed, because of the huge quantity of text he's written and quoted. But his main reasons--as far as I can tell--seem unjustified. I think Mangoe has summarized them pretty well, though inevitably a few points weren't covered. It seems to me that Schrodinger82 doesn't want to see Moore criticized and is grasping at straws trying to find rules to justify removing the criticism.

However, I'd add a fifth point to Mangoe's four. Schroedinger82 is also pushing the idea:

• That since he can argue against the criticism, it is less worthy of inclusion. Much of what he has written on the talk page consists of attempts to state where, in his opinion, the criticisms are flawed. Apparently, he thinks that if he can successfully argue that a source's criticism is flawed, the source itself must be a dubious source, and therefore is prohibited under Wikipedia:Verifiability. I feel this is inappropriate; you can't call a source dubious because it gives the wrong answer to a question that is the very reason you're consulting the source. Moreover, we're actually using Hardy and Kopel as a source for "prominent commentators make this criticism", not "these criticisms are correct", so giving bad criticism doesn't make them into bad sources anyway.

As for compromises, I feel that the suggested compromise by PPGMD at Compromise Version Proposed is terrible. It's nearly identical to the version with all the content deleted, with just a brief mention of Hardy and Kopel added. It leaves out many of the controversies and gives the reader few details about what people criticize the movie for. It isn't really a compromise at all.

And I don't believe that the original version violates Undue Weight. The original article had lots of criticism and not much support because much of the criticism is so on-point that it's very hard to dispute. In other words, the article is mostly criticism because the substantive source material is mostly criticism. While there are certainly lots of sources that praise the movie, most of them praise the movie in a general way and don't try to say, for instance, that Moore's association of the NRA with the KKK was factually accurate--because any source who tried claiming that would look very foolish.

I would accept a compromise that removed the Bushnell material (at least until Bushnell is professionally published or quoted in professional publications), though most of it is also said by Hardy or Kopel and should be sourced to them if possible instead. I also wouldn't mind if a "support" section was added to oppose the "criticism"--at least, if anyone *could* find sources supporting Moore on some of the points for which he has been criticized. For instance, JzG has said that the movie doesn't need to be accurate because it's satire. If a commentator could be found who defended the movie on the grounds that it's satire and doesn't need to be accurate, this could go in a "support" section.

Ken Arromdee 04:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Accept. There seem to be sufficient allegations of user misconduct here to see. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Black People Article

Initiated by --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

administrator/moderator Jossi [1], user Zaphnathpaaneah et al.

dispute resolution have been tried with this article already!

There are black people outside of Africa and the Western Hemisphere who are historically black. Despite evidence given, it has been ignored.

Statement by {Zaphnathpaaneah}

I have taken great effort to resolve this endless and mindless dispute regarding the Black People article. However time and time again, reasonable action is met with predictable yet unreasonable results.

• I created a page called What is a Black person (mirroring the successful What is a Jew page which had helped clear up confusion in the Jewish page. Someone decided to retitle the page "Definition" of a Black person, thereby again, altering the language in such a way to distort the direction of the article.

• I agreed with the silly use of "Irish" in the article as there are people known as "Black Irish", however again, there were editors that wished to disrupt and would put "Black Irish" more prominently in the page than any group of black people.

• I stayed out of the discussion for days at a time, and others stepped in, and as before, efforts to honestly resolve the dispute were met with ignorant assumptions that there are simply no native black people outside of Africa and slavery-imported descendants in the Americas.

• Moderator Jossi therefore asked that I present reputable references.

I presented http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2004/11/27/2003212815 [2]. http://academic.reed.edu/formosa/texts/Reclus1884.html [3] These articles discuss the historical indigenous inhabitants of Taiwan. Widely known to be the ancestors of all the other black Asians of the pacific rim. Clearly in the article multiple times the writers describe the people as "black people". Jossi's response to this evidence? "According to one of the articles the "Formosan Negritos, survivors of an old race now almost entirely extinct". It does not say anything about these being "black people". What we need is a reliable source that describes what is considered to be "black people". If there are no such sources, then this article needs to go to AfD. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC) " What Jossi does is ignore what's in the article "According to the native reports, some dwarfish black tribes also dwell in a highland region towards the south. " [4] 2nd to last paragraph. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My request is that the arbitrators agree to retain the inclusion of asian groups long historically considered to be black, with no prejudice. --Zaphnathpaaneah 06:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Jossi

I am not a "moderator", but someone that got involved by the request of an active editor of that article, to look into disruptive editing patterns of some users. My view is that this is a content dispute that is and can be further resolved by involved editors by applying the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. RfArb are the last resort for disputes and the ArbCom does not deal with content disputes. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Whatdoyou

Zaph asks editors to considers Asians Black with no prejudice but he shows prejudice against the Black irish who were also historically described as Black. They too were discriminated against and described by terms like "White Negroes" and "niggers turned inside out".[[5]]. I think the entire Black people article is POV and should be redirected to the much better cited Definitions of black people article. Zaph acts like he's on a mission from God to tell the world who is truly Black, but unless your skin is the color of charcoal, none of us are truly black. Black is just a social/racial category that's been applied and defined in different ways, hence the Definitions of black people article is more encyclopedic and less POV.__Whatdoyou 15:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Kobrakid

Zaph may consider South Asians/Pacific Islanders black but here are a bunch of actual cited definitions of black people that clearly contradict the idea that South Asians are black:

• The U.S. census say a Black is “a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro,"or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.[[6]]"

• Dictionary.com and thefreedictionary.com defines "Black person" as "a person with dark skin who comes from Africa (or whose ancestors came from Africa) [syn: Black, Black person, blackamoor, Negro, Negroid][[7]][[8]]

• Sally Satel of the Policy Review stated “The entities we call ‘racial groups’ essentially represent individuals united by a common descent — a huge extended family, as evolutionary biologists like to say. Blacks, for example, are a racial group defined by their possessing some degree of recent African ancestry (recent because, after all, everyone of us is out of Africa, the origin of Homo sapiens)."[[9]].

• Page 42 of the abridged version of "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" states: "In both everyday life and evolutionary biology, a 'Black' is anyone most of whose ancestors were born in sub-Saharan Africa[[10]].

Just because zaph can find a source describing South Asians as black does not make it an undisputed fact that deserves undue weight in wikipedia. Here's a very reliable source (nobel prize winner) saying bill clinton is black[[11]] but that doesn't make it an undisputed fact. Kobrakid 23:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

---

JJay

Initiated by Arbusto at 17:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

JJay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [12]

I can't even engage this user who removes my messages from his talk. I wanted to do an rfc, but as an admin pointed out there needs to be others in the dispute, and this user only makes a few edits (as explained below) and no one else is involved.

Statement by Arbusto

JJay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) does not contribute to actual articles (since I opened this at the AN/I JJay has editted a sex toy article), but merely votes in afds. Recently, he has almost exclusively limited his activites to stalking my afds. This includes the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Geneva Theological Seminary. There is only two articles he has been concerned with in the last 7 days: One is a sex toy afd and the other is my afd.

This user has been doing this to my edits since April and most recently confronted him on his talk and he gave this reply: "If you nominate articles for deletion you should expect to encounter differing points of view." Independently another admin addressed his behavior, but that admin had to step away from wikipedia.

Examples of the disruptive behavior in my afds in the past few weeks:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International School of Management (ISM)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ...for Dummies books (2 nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald M. Kendrick
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Norwegian ski jumpers (Not mine, but voted right after me, see comments on this one-- he didn't even bother looking at the article.)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Clements University See his comments about me (the nom[13])

Clearly this user is stalking me.[14]

Trying to address these issues with this user is not possible as he removes comments from his talk page and does so repeatedly.

Currently, the user claimed to have links to prove WP:V of an article I put up for deletion. User won't supply them, and having a 6+ month history with him I believe he is lying. He has exhausted WP:AGF and is being disruptive. Arbusto 17:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved party W.marsh

To simplify things and so I can understand the issue better, I've broken it down by complaints raised.

1. JJay removes comments from his talk page. This is not very civil, but it's not vandalism or anything blockable either. Arbusto didn't mention it, but JJay calls him a troll repeatedly, which could be taken as a personal attack.
2. JJay does not contribute to articles, based on the claim that he's just editted one article in the past week. This fails to mention his past year of making productive edits to a wide range of article. JJay clearly makes a considerable contribution to articles.
3. JJay votes in a lot of AfDs. That's simply not an inherently bad behavior by any definition.
4. JJay is stalking Arbusto, primarilly by voting often in AfD's nominated by Arbusto. This is a trickier one, but at a glance it seems just as plausible that JJay votes in a lot of AfDs and Arbusto unavoidably runs into him a lot. Even if JJay is just voting in "Arbusto's AfDs" (unlikely), "following someone around" in itself is not blockable, it has to be combined with other problematic behavior. It seems his comments in the cited AfDs are arguments for keeping the articles, not harassment of Arbusto. JJay often expresses unpopular views, he often argues with Arbusto... this is not harassment, it's a difference of opinions.

JJay has been somewhat incivil, okay. Maybe that, in combination with possibly Wikistalking Arbusto, is enough for ArbCom to look into this. But it's a pretty big maybe, I personally don't think JJay is trying to be disruptive, or has done anything warranting arbitration. On WP:PAIN it was mentioned that Arbusto should be the one being looked at, no opinion on that yet. --W.marsh 21:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by (somewhat) uninvolved party Brianyoumans

I looked at the examples given above by Arbustoo; I think they are good examples of how Arbustoo manages to get into arguments with people by agressively pushing his opinions in AFD discussions and elsewhere. I think that JJay has been provoked into saying some things he shouldn't have.

I think Arbustoo has a bad habit of refusing to accept other people's opinions in discussions, demanding more and more verifiability until the person just gives up because they don't care that much about the subject. If you look at almost any AFD he initiated, you will find him agressively challenging many of the "keeps". (For instance: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Geneva Theological Seminary, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Baptist College, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longview Baptist Temple) His responses are usually not unreasonable, but he seems to insist that everyone who makes a vote opposing him document their views. On the other hand, he sometimes AFDs things without doing proper research himself in advance as to notability. (See, for instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darrell Bock)

Someone should admonish JJay that he really should leave things on his talk page. Brianyoumans 22:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Statement by uninvolved party Dr Zak (talk · contribs)

My involvement with User:JJay is small - I ran into him several months ago at Nude beach, trying to cull the overabundance of external links the page then had. [15], also see Talk:Nude_beach#External links. JJay has a penchant of including trivia beyond the point of absurdity, and this is also borne out in his edits to the external links guideline, see Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_3#Edits_from_User:Aaron_Brenneman and especially Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_3#Protected where he doesn't contribute to help the discussion advance.

One must grudgingly admire the subtlety of the trollery. It has been an ongoing problem for a while, and it needs to stop. Dr Zak 04:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Comment - there appears to be some incivility here on both sides, but I don't feel convinced that this is enough to make an arbcom case. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Cold Fusion Censorship

Initiated by -- Ron Marshall 18:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Ron Marshall (talk · contribs)
• M (talk · contribs)
• Pjacobi (talk · contribs)
• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs)
• Joke137 (talk · contribs)
• Count Iblis (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Request for comments. Attempt at mediation refused.

An attempt is being made by several parties to suppress the presentation of experimental evidence that shows cold fusion is a nuclear reaction in the cold fusion article.

Statement by Ron Marshall

Cold fusion is the term applied to an experiment presented by Martin Fleishman and Stanley Pons in March of 1989. They claimed the experiment produced to much excess heat to be a chemical reaction and therefore had to be a nuclear reaction. They were rushed into an announcement of this claim by the desire of the University Of Utah to protect patent rights. Also important details were left out of the announcement for the protection of patent rights. There was a rush to duplicate the results and most, but not all efforts seemed to fail. Some editors in power in the scientific establishment concluded that cold fusion could not possibly be true, that cold fusion was an embarrassment to science, that it should be immediately squelched, and that the end justified the means. At this point these members of the scientific establishment ignored the scientific method and entered on the course of insult and censorship. They made sure cold fusion received a very bad press which only reinforced the insult and censorship approach. The problem with this approach is a bad press does not change the laws of physics and experiment is the reality check of science. But some how experiments done since early 1989 like the finding of nuclear transmutations which proves nuclear reactions are going on do not count. This is because it is believed by many the issue was already decided by a bad press. Experimental evidence like nuclear transmutations exists today. If it was know in early 1989 that such evidence, existed history would have taken a different turn. It seems that once the establishment has made a mistake ordinary rules of evidence no longer apply. Two Noble prize winners in physics, Julian Schwinger and Brian Josephson, thought that nuclear reactions could be going on in cold fusion experiments and have condemned the scientific establishment for its treatment of cold fusion research. The cold fusion experiments are described in approximately 2000 scientific papers by more than 200 scientists. The September 2006 version of the Wikipedia cold fusion article had a NPOV because it described the point of view of both the skeptics and the experimenters. A new group of editors wants to revert to a two year old version that only describes the point of view of the skeptics. Cold fusion is a controversial subject. This battle has been going on for two years. If Wikipedia cannot produce an accurate and fair article on a controversial subject it should delete the subject. It is requested that either Wikipedia require that both the skeptics and the experimenters POV appear in the cold fusion article or the article be permanently deleted.

Statement by Joke137

Content dispute from a tendentious, single-topic editor. Not the ArbCom's problem, obviously. –Joke 19:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:Ideogram

I was asked to mediate this case. The requestor of this arbitration has not made any good faith efforts at discussion. --Ideogram 20:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:JzG

If anyone's interested, a very good friend of mine, Prof. Séamus Higson of Cranfield University, was in Fleischmann's lab when this came out, and as far as I can tell form the conversations we've had about it the article is pretty balanced. Fleischmann and Pons discovered something but nobody is really sure what. The edit wars over the article are somewhat lame, and there does seem to be an attempt to push crank theories. Sometimes when an article is pretty good the best thing is to simply stop editing it until something changes... Guy 00:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by ScienceApologist

Not ready for arbitration. In particular, other dispute resolution processes have not been tried (not even an RfC) by the person bringing this case. I understand that mediation is currently not working well, but there are other avenues to pursue. --ScienceApologist 13:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Pjacobi

Obviously some editors were shocked, when -- after a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics -- a majority of editors decided to revert to an earlier (a lot earlier!) version. But that version passed FA criteria [16] whereas the new version resulted in FA removal Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Cold fusion. IMHO that only proves, that Wikipedia article evolution not necessary result in changes to the better.

It's rather unclear to me, why this turned up here. After the article protection, not much where heard on the article talk page. User:Ron Marshall is invited to contribute in putting back in some of the newer experiments, but I don't see how and why he shall be able to overturn the decision to start with the FA version.

Pjacobi 18:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Reject. Content issue, no evidence presented, unconvincing application. Charles Matthews 20:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Accept to examine Ron Marshall's behavior Fred Bauder 15:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. Per Charles, this is not ripe for arbcom at this point. Ron, Arbcom will look at all parties; this may produce a less favorable result for you than you might hope. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Reject, please use mediation. Dmcdevit·t 02:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Reject, per Charles, Matthew. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Protecting children's privacy

Initiated by >Radiant< at 18:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties: none.

Summary: There is disagreement over whether a proposal has passed; the ArbCom is asked to adjudicate whether it has consensual support. Excuse me for using a non-standard format but this is a rather non-standard request.

Statement by Radiant!

There is a proposal on Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy, which boils down to protective blocking of accounts from people known to be children, iff they post personal information on themselves. Now I know it's not the ArbCom's job to set policy; but the dispute here is that one party claims that this proposal has consensus and therefore is policy/guideline, whereas the other party claims that objections to the proposal have never been addressed and therefore it's neither consensual nor policy/guideline.

There are a few minor issues of behavior on either side and allegations of various violations of civility, but none of that has been so disruptive as to need ArbCom intervention. I would like to keep personal issues out of this. However, the situation needs some outside party to determine whether consensus has been reached.

Clearly mediation is not helpful here, and a RFC would only result in a repetition of the already-lengthy debate. Since the proposal has a legal angle, Brad Patrick has been e-mailed, but has so far declined to comment. Hence, a request for arbitration to put this matter to rest. The talk page is rather lengthy, but most of it is summarized in the bottom two sections, labeled "Snowball clause" and "Accepted?".

I request all involved parties to leave personal issues out of this. Everybody involved has been working in good faith. It is easy for the subject of protecting children to raise tempers and there have been various accusations from both sides on the relevant talk page, but that really is not the issue here.

>Radiant< 18:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131

In as much as I wrote the first draft of this proposal (following the Cute 1 4 u situation) I would like some version of it adopted. However, it seems to me that if you don't know whether consensus has been reached, it hasn't.

Question to Radiant! I have not been following the page lately. Has there been a straw poll among contributors, and what were the results? How many editors in total have expressed an opinion one way or the other? Do you think it would be helpful to run a new poll, advertised heavily on noticeboards, community portals and the village pumps, to bring in a wider view? -- Thatcher131

• There has been a kind of straw poll, by asking everyone to briefly restate their position. The main proponent of the proposal has made a count of people who commented on the talk page, and found between 61% and 65% in support, depending on the counting method. He has concluded (via the "supermajority" clause on WP:CON) that this indicates acceptance of the policy.
• I do not personally believe in polls on policy because good policy is arrived at through compromise, and polls preclude compromise. Note that (from whatlinkshere) the debate has already been widely advertised, so I do not think that further advertising would help. >Radiant< 18:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this diff [17] is instructive regarding whether any straw poll was made, and why not. Herostratus 01:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't obfuscate the issue; you made a straw poll, canvassed everyone to vote in it, and concluded it had 61%-65% support. >Radiant< 09:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

I am one of the people who does not support any version of this policy that has been proposed. There are many reasons for this, including censorship, assumption of good faith, disrcimination, unenforceability, NPOV, lack of clarity of purpose and doubt that it would acutally be able to solve the problems it claims it desires to. There is not, as far as I have been able to tell, even consensus on such basic things as whether the problems it tries to solve exist or not. There has been extensive attempts at debate on the talk page, made difficult by refactoring and, imho, excessive summarising. Those opposing the policy have asked many questions and expressed many concerns, almost all of these have been repeatedly ignored. There has not been any apparent attempt recently to make changes to the policy to seek consensus.

Recently there was near unanimous agreement that consensus had not been reached and was unlikely to be reached. The policy was first porposed on 26 August, and the debate has hardly moved anywhere since the beginning of September, despite being advertised on the current discussions template since the start. Following this the {{Rejected}} tag was added to the page, with the edit summary pointing to the talk page. This was reverted with a comment to see talk, with no posts made to the talk page. The tag was then reinstated with another comment pointing to the recent talk page discussion. Later on the tag was again removed and another extensive summary made of the page, which claims a supermajority of editors in support (although the count seems to be of people who have expressed support in principle or for parts of one version of the policy, as well as those who support the current version of the page).

To avoid another revert war (a previous addition of the {{Rejected}} tag was met with a revert war and administrator's ignoring page protection), the tag was not replaced at the issue was brought here for clarification. Thryduulf 19:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that I will be away from Wikipedia from later today until the 22nd or 23rd of October (I'm going on holiday to Spain). Thryduulf 09:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved User:The Land

I have been kind of following the debate about this proposal. I have not followed it in detail because trying to do so is like showering yourself in salted herrings. We have had discussions over the content of the page, revert wars about whether it is 'rejected' or 'proposed', several attempted rewrites (including rewrites which seemed to happen in the middle of a talk page discussion, meaning people responding to a post were looking at a markedly different version of the proposal). The proposal takes a lot of thought to understand, and contains several subtle ideas, which has not helped (nor been helped by) the chaotic manner it's been dicussed in. I am not sure that it's achieved consensus but I'm not sure it has been given the chance to because discussion has degenerated. Please ,ARbCom, do something to sort it out! The Land 20:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:CharonX

I never got deeply involved into the discussion (though I did contribute three or four times to state my personal opinion on it). Revisting the proposal a few times several weeks apart I can only agree that not much has changed in the meantime (regarding the policy), and the discussions are seemingly running in circles, both about the contents (what is permitted or not, what should be done, if anything at all) AND the status of the policy (acceptance or rejection, consensus or no consensus). CharonX/talk 23:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Martinp

Urge Arbcom involvement, in order to clarify a point of process of policy making on wikipedia. In this instance, a number of users feel passionately that a policy like the one proposed makes sense, and have been discussing intensely for weeks. A few users feel passionately that it makes no sense to have a policy like this. A lot of people probably have visited the page, had their head spin, made a small remark or not at all, and moved on to other things. I think at some point we just need to agree that there will be no agreement on this and move on. The supporters feel they are being railroaded if the proposal is marked "rejected" and point out there is not "consensus to reject", but we need a way to "set aside" (I'm trying to avoid the word reject) a proposed policy if it becomes clear there is not and never will be consensus to accept. My involvement: seeing this at RfAR and vising the policy discussion page, making one edit to show I am opposed - Martinp 12:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Herostratus

This is quite an interesting request. There are no sanctions being requested here. As I read it, it's asking the ArbCom to serve as a sort of court to weigh in (set 'case law' if you will) on the question: can a community-initiated proposal become policy when there is not near-unanamity and, if so, how? This isn't really in the ArbCom's brief, but it's a good idea anyway, if they're willing to take it.

Just to clarify, we're talking about policy proposals generated from regular editors in the community. Naturally, policies requested or required by the Foundation are treated differently.

Granting that no one person or group can really answer these questions definitively, some questions which I wish I knew the answer to include: is near-unanimous support or absence of of significant contention required for a community-initiated policy to be considered accepted? If not, what methods are available to determine if a proposal is accepted? What is the role of show-of-hands in this process? Should this be part of the methodology for determining whether a policy is accepted, or not? If so, how much of a part? If not, can analysis and categorization of existing comments be used instead? Should show-of-hands be weighed differently than it is in, say, XfD, RfA, etc.? If show-of-hands is permitted, what constitutes a supermajority sufficient to have significant weight in the determination process? 60%? 70%? 80%? 90%?

At Wikipedia:Consensus we have "the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds." Policy proposals may be considered to be "more critical", yes? But are all policy proposals equally critical?

In this case, at the last snapshot taken, best guess at acceptance was running between 61% and 68%, depending on how you count (Details are at Wikipedia talk:Protecting children's privacy#Accepted?). That seems awfully low for a policy. On the other hand, it's not a major policy; it would affect very few editors. Furthermore, the discussion continues to be ongoing; I see that new editors have come to the discussion. For all I know the numbers have climbed into the 70's; or maybe they've gone the other way.

Here's another question: when is it permitted to cut off debate and tag a proposal as Rejected?

In this case, we had (in my opinion) a fruitful, ongoing, and functional discussion going on the proposal. Changes were being suggested and made. Acceptance level numbers were not being taken but were surely running in the majority. A few editors came in and decided that the discussion had gone on long enough and was now just a waste of time (I like it when other editors tell me how I can spend my time on Wikipedia) and, prematurely in my view, slapped a Rejected tag on the proposal (and then requested protection to boot).

So one question is, is it not best to leave a proposal in the Proposed state until it would be quite certain to most any reasonable person that it is clearly dead and not accepted? Should not editors give the benefit of the doubt to leaving a proposal in the Proposed state? What's the big hurry?

After all, if a article is protected in the "wrong version", no really great harm is done (provided the article doesn't contain libel etc.). It can all be sorted out in good time. If, however, a proposal is marked as Rejected, and especially if protected in that state, this is fatal. It can take a week or more to get mediation or whatever and sort it all out. By then discussion will have died out and the Rejected tag becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. After all, no one, and especially editors coming new to the page, is going to spend time and energy discussing a rejected proposal. So here's a case where "easily undone" does not apply.

This almost happened here. (Diffs [18] [19] [20].) In this case, it only didn't happen because I edit-warred and also edited the protected version of an article in which I was involved, both of which are no-no's, especially the latter. Obviously I don't like doing that, but what other relief is available? ((Editprotected}} can't be used in an edit-war situation, I don't think. Suppose I was up on charges for doing this? How would the ArbCom rule?

Well, I don't expect the ArbCom to answer all this. Nevertheless the ArbCom's ruling on the question at hand (is the proposal accepted, rejected, or still in the proposed state) will allow some of the answer to be inferred, I guess. Herostratus 06:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to BigNate

• As for requesting the ArbCom to take a look at my use of the sysop bit, you're referring to this diff: [21] (note protected status), and this [22] and also I guess this [23]. I've already owned up to that and if the ArbCom wants to sanction me, I'll take one for the team, but I hope they at least advise me on what the heck I was supposed to go, given this immediately preceding diff [24] (reversion of page to "correct version" followed by request for protection) given that that is not an an easily undoable action as I've pointed out. Herostratus 20:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC) extraneous material redacted out 12:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by John Reid

I am loathe to comment on this issue but I am even more loathe to see it crop up on RfArb. This is another case of core principles in collision; there can be no winners. I read through proposal and associated talk page before this RfArb was opened; I saw no way to usefully comment. I believe I have had nothing to do with this topic at all.

I hope it is not necessary to summarize the conflict. There is a conflict over deeply held values; that is enough. This is complicated by the fact that the discussion is a free buffet for lawyers. I can easily construct the legal argument that simply by having the discussion we are now forced to do something about the issue, since we can no longer claim simple ignorance. I can also construct a contradictory argument that it is utterly impossible for us to do anything without exposing ourselves. If I were twins and admitted to the Florida bar, I could eat for a year on this. As usual in this sort of thing, the only possible outcome is a parking lot full of fat lawyers and a banquet hall in shambles. I'd rather not toss another load of fertilizer onto this mess. Let's just say that there's a highly sensitive policy issue under discussion.

I object to any thought of ArbCom taking this case. This is an unacceptable broadening of ArbCom's authority. ArbCom's ambit is insufficiently bounded as it is. If Wikipedia is not to degenerate into a simple despotic autocracy, there must be things that ArbCom cannot consider. In this case, ArbCom does not merely steal a policy initiative away from the community; it encroaches on the legitimate role of WMF Board and legal counsel. This will set a monstrous precedent.

There are, at the moment, hundreds of policy initiatives floating around -- I don't use the word "proposals" because many are not labeled as proposals, some are explicitly labeled as being "something" else, and at least a good quarter of them are political/social movements with no particular written page at core. These are all the responsibility of the community to work out -- to talk, to argue, perhaps to fight. Some parties to these discussions will go out of bounds -- and admins then have a duty to block combatants until they COOL down. Some of these discussions, unfortunately, will degenerate into WHEEL wars -- and then ArbCom has a legitimate role to play, since wheel-warring admins must be, at the limit, de-adminned and the Stewards who can do this are not likely to listen to anybody's request but ArbCom's. We need ArbCom to act at this extreme; we need to preserve its limited ambit so that it remains useful there.

Community policy is decided upon by community consensus. The mechanism by which this consensus forms is itself hotly contested but this is the method to which we are committed. To the extent that this proposal appears to demand a change to WMF legal policy, it is in the hands of the Board and counsel. There is no "air" between these two into which ArbCom can squeeze itself.

This RfArb opens a bottomless can of worms. I urge ArbCom members to refuse to hear it and all community members to protest it. John Reid 14:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I should have said, and I do, that conduct of participants may be, of course, legitimate grounds for RfArb. John Reid 15:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by BigNate37

Being the first editor to have stated in so many words that WP:CHILD was not gaining and could not gain consensus back on 9 September 2006, I feel I should comment here. The discussion has gone round in circles for over a month with little new ground made—there are two or three distinct points of view for where this policy should end up and all efforts at compromise have been shot down quickly. Some of these compromises have even been proposed several times by different editors—this does not constitute progression of the discussion. This proposal would have already been rejected if Herostratus had not abused his sysop bit in his edit warring on the then-protected page. I have made several statements which are ignored and archived or rejected as "vocal and unreconciled" by Herostratus who plays referee and chief opponent to myself and those who share my position in the discussion. I have given a thorough treatment of why WP:CHILD has been rejected here, which was archived off of the talk page with little discussion.

I support the ArbCom to weigh in on whether the proposal fits the definition of rejected or accepted (or neither). Furthermore, I strongly urge the ArbCom to take a very close look at the way in which Herostatus uses his sysop bit and whether he can fairly act as an official in a discussion in which he is deeply involved. I believe his actions consistute a conflict of interest and abuse of power. BigNate37_(T) 17:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Please understand that I am in no way condoning anyone else's actions in my excluding them from my comment seen above. To clarify one thing about my comments on 9 September, at the time I was unaware as to how policy proposals were denied policy status. BigNate37_(T) 21:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Sam Blanning

This has been a solution in search of a problem for the entirety of its existence. The red mist that descends over everyone's eyes when you say 'paedophile' obscures the simple yet essential fact that the number of children groomed for abuse via Wikipedia currently stands at zero. Of course, one would be one too many, but Wikipedia's nature - its intellectual focus, its emphasis on not being a social networking system, and most of all the fact that every post you make can be seen by any other member - make it wholly unsuitable for grooming compared with chatrooms and Myspace.

I share other's concerns about Arbcom stepping in to make policy, though there may come an issue that is sufficiently urgent to require such a step. This isn't one. If there is actually an urgent issue here, then, with all the legal ramifications and bad publicity that would result if someone did somehow manage to snare a child that had advertised his/her age on Wikipedia, clearly someone at Board level should hand down a policy. If there isn't, then let the community do a few more laps of the caucus-race until they remember that we have an encyclopaedia to write. Either way, Arbcom should leave this alone and do what they do best. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved user Newyorkbrad

Insofar as the policy consensus issue goes, this would be an unusual type of case for the ArbCom to take (as the case initator and other commenters above have correctly observed). I don't know quite what either side of the issue would envision as an appropriate form of ArbCom decision. Is the request that ArbCom issue a finding of fact and remedy that "Version X of the proposed WP:CHILD policy achieved consensus on Y date and shall be observed as such?" or alternatively "it is determined that there is no consensus in favor of the proposed WP:CHILD policy"? Either of those would be a highly non-standard form of decision for the ArbCom to make (although the /Proposed Decision in the so-called "Giano" arbitration has already taken one step in that general direction, whether for better or worse we shall see).

With regard to any user conduct issues, there appear to have been no prior attempts at dispute resolution, so the precedents would suggest rejection on that basis. Newyorkbrad 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by semi-involved User:6SJ7

I am semi-involved because I contributed some of the language to the policy as it currently stands, and because I have participated on the talk page and have attempted to support Herostratus's efforts to keep the "rejected" tag off the page. I agree with all of the statements of Herostratus, above. Also, although I realize I may have wasted my time, I have just completed a total rewrite of the proposed policy, which for now I have kept in my user space, here. The concept and the end result (deletion of certain information, and potential blocks and bans) are still there, but I have addressed many of the comments about the policy that were made on the talk page. I am not sure how this might help this arbitration process, if at all. It is just something I have been meaning to do, and figured that if I was ever going to do it, this was the time. On another note, I do think it is necessary for someone (whether this committee or someone else) to authoritatively clarify the policy-making process on Wikipedia. There are varying opinions about what the process actually is, and as a result, it is convoluted and mysterious. I am also not sure that a policy should necessarily have to receive a consensus (as opposed to majority), because in the absence of a specific proposed policy, there is still a "policy" in effect, usually the opposite of what the proposal is; but of course, the de facto policy has not had to receive a consensus, or any support at all. It just exists. A consensus should not be required to overcome that. I don't suppose the committee is going to want to tackle that issue in this arbitration, however. 6SJ7 17:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Accept, even tho our decision will be misused to wale on opponents in all future attempts to reach consensus ➥the Epopt 18:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 14:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Charles Matthews 18:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Anonymous Gundagai editor

Initiated by Thatcher131 at 01:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Thatcher131 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Golden Wattle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Longhair (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Bidgee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Gimmetrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Durova (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

IPs the editor has used in the last month (dynamic ISP, probably dial-up):

• 203.54.9.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 203.54.9.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 203.54.186.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 203.54.9.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 203.54.186.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 203.54.9.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Articles involved

• Gundagai, New South Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Murrumbidgee River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dog on the Tuckerbox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Coolac, New South Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Previous RFAR [38] (declined in favor of mediation)
• RFC
• Talk: Gundagai, New South Wales (recent)
• User talk:Thatcher131 (recent)
• User talk:NuclearUmpf (recent)
• I think her response [39] to my rather measured comments [40] [41] demonstrate that formal mediation is unlikely to be fruitful.

Statement by Thatcher131

I became involved in this case after a recent complaint to the administrators' noticeboard. I decided to file this request in the wake of two long-term admins Bidgee and Golden Wattle declaring indefinite wikibreaks on account of this editor.

For the past 5-6 months, someone editing from a range of Telstra IPs in southwestern Australia has been disrupting articles relating to the history of the area, specifically arguing that the articles whitewash mistreatment of Aboriginal peoples by white settlers. While her views have some merit^[1], her behavior is unacceptable and a textbook example of disruptive editing. She refuses to use the simplest of Wikipedia courtesies such as signing her talk page posts. She makes personal attacks against other editors and fails to assume good faith. [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] She refuses to accept the reliable source policy as policy. [49] She relies on personal knowledge and original research. [50] [51] She pushes her own point of view, such as removing sourced information about an archeological site because it was disrespectful [52] but has previously insisted on including an event for which there are no reliable sources. The anon editor was blocked several times for disruption and personal attacks, only to change IPs immediately and continue editing (documented in the RFC).

Also documented in the RFC is the declaration by Golden Wattle that all future posts by the anonymous editor would be reverted if they were unsigned [53]. This decision apparently was born out of longstanding frustration with the editor's long, rambling and often abusive talk page posts as well as her defying of blocks for personal attacks by changing IP address. The decision was posted on the administrators' noticeboard and the RFC where it received a total of one favorable and no unfavorable responses.

The most recent blow-up began on October 3, with this edit hectoring the other editors in the body of the article, accusing editors of racism, with more hectoring and an appeal to personal information. Her edits were all blindly reverted, which was probably inappropriate because among all the hectoring was an actual sourced claim which was reverted but which has since been incorporated into the article. The editor complained about the reversions on (all 6) Village Pumps under the headline Editors Who Are Vandals, and Thugs and Ferals, continuing with more personal attacks. [54] [55] She attempted to crosspost her complaint to her RFC and the administrator's noticeboard. Based in part on his stated policy of reverting unsigned posts, and in part on the fact that she was blocked for incivility and was evading her block through a succession of new IP addresses, Golden Wattle and Bidgee reverted these comments. Eventually User:NuclearUmpf stepped in and reformatted her comments (in the process removing some of the personal attacks).

It is at this point that I became involved. I asked the anonymous editor to talk to me, resulting in posts at User talk:Thatcher131 and Talk:Gundagai, New South Wales. I left a response which I thought was a measured attempt to support her efforts to remove potential pro-settler bias while warning her that her behavior was unacceptable [56] [57]. She responded with more personal attacks [58].

Golden Wattle is definitely displeased with the responses he got from Durova, NuclearUmpf and myself as well, so I either split the middle pretty well or got it completely wrong on all sides. I also want to emphasize that while this most recent outburst was exacerbated by having her edits reverted as vandalism, her disruption extends back to July and before, to a time when Golden Wattle and other editors were responding to her article edits (which were full of POV and unsourced personal experience) with patience, incorporating her changes where appropriate and copyediting them when (frequently) necessary. I also do not believe this is a case of a misunderstood editor who does not understand the "Wikipedia way." Calling other editors racist, liars, vandals, thugs, feral, preschoolers, hoons, and having too much aggro is not the behavior of a newbie who is willing to work within the system but just doesn't know how. In fact, Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/203.54.*.* documents tendentious editing and personal attacks made after the original filing of the RFC, including against unrelated editors at unrelated articles. I believe this editor is disruptive, and is not interested in following normal conventions of negotiation and consensus, preferring to hector other editors and fight over the insertion of statements supported by only her own special knowledge. The topic is sufficiently narrow that attempts to get consensus for action on the administrators' noticeboard are unlikely to draw much attention. I believe the only available remedy is Arbitration.

^[1] Of four main topics of contention, I believe she has useful points to make on two of them. However, her behavior makes it impossible to work with her. I will provide more details about this in the evidence section if the case is accepted or upon request.

Response to Nuclear Umpf Ten out of ten for assuming good faith, however, here is a list of requests to sign talk page posts.

• July 4 [59] *July 5 [60]
• July 5 [61] *July 5 [62]
• July 5 [63] *July 25 [64]
• July 26 [65] *October 7 [66]

I think it's clear this is deliberate, for what purpose I don't know. Thatcher131 02:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to Durova and NuclearUmpf I would like to briefly respond to the implication that this person has been treated badly and just needs mentoring or hand holding. Today I un-protected Gundagai to see if the editors could work together, and things started out civil. However, here she accuses other editors of vandalizing her changes, even though no one else was editing the article at the time [67]. Sarah Ewart, an uninvolved admin, asked her to refrain from calling other editors vandals both on the talk page [68] and on the user talk page of her current IP [69]. She responded by calling Sarah a "pompous troublemaker" and telling her to "buzz off". She continues to assert that her personal knowledge trumps published information [70], and has anonymously complemented herself on how nice it is that she is not a lunatic. So, how many more users and admins will it take to ask her to stop assuming bad faith and stop making personal attacks? Thatcher131 07:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearUmpf

As I stated in the RfC i believe the anonymous editor may be an expert or knowledgable in the field beyond the other editors and have common knowledge or information others do not have access to, however is still breaking WP:RS and WP:V by adding it. I feel the other editors escalated this situation beyond the scope of what it had to in order to silence this user. They reverted the anon's complaints on AN/I, the anon's defense on their own RfC and even their comments when simply answering a question on my talk page. This blanket reverting obviously turned what could have been a discussion and explanation by a third party into something worse. Part of the complaint has been them not signing their posts, but I believe this is because they do not know how to. The user has not offered any wikilinks or dif's as proof showing their lack of knowledge in basic "wiki meta." Further proof is shown above in Thatcher's edits illustrating that messages are being left on IP's that are abandoned, also by Thatcher's own inability to understand, and mine as well, why the only anon who has never denied any of the edits, would simply not sign them if they knew how.

I would like to state officially that I do not think ArbCom should take this as I believe they do not lack the ability to handle a case like this as they only explore spirit and don't actually try to solve the problem, the problem being here that sources need to be examined and provided and an anon user needs to be explained better how they can contribute their work. I think the anon user can or at least could have been a significant member of the wiki community and this is possible one of those cases where an expert is going to be chased off by non-experts, or at least non-researchers.

So in closing this situation escalated in a horrible manner by constant reverts, bad faith and inability to just add unsigned tags where appropriate as it was obvious this user had trouble signing posts. I also think Arbcom is wasting their time as was an RfC, if you are not going to educate the user and they keep getting new IP's this is really all moot. --NuclearZer0 02:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: I am writing this update as new information comes to rise. I now understand partially the refusal to sign posts and it comes from not understanding the system in place possibly. The anon user feels it violates their privacy to expose their IP everytime they post. I would say this is pointless since its recorded in the page history anyway, however after witnessing the users on the Gundagai talk page discuss how to contact the users ISP through former friendly personal channels, I am not really surprised by why they wanted their IP hidden, though it never was. I honestly wish everyone would chill out and actually collaborate on this article because a aboriginal perspective would be an amazing contribution, including claims of massacres if at least one WP:RS source somewhere wrote about it. --NuclearZer0 19:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Update My last till this proceeds further, if it does. While I still believe that the people who have accounts escalated this situation, I now also believe due to recent events that the anon is highly volatile and not likely to contribute in a civil manner regardless of their possible level of expertise. The uncivil behavior has just gone overboard, there lack of understanding in the Wikipedia principles WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF etc, or just not wanting to actually read them has lead to much distress. While I still feel ArbCom really has no action here that would be of any use as they are an anon user, I do believe some action needs to be taken to curb this users disregard for those two principles above. --NuclearZer0 11:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Golden Wattle

• Happy to co-operate with an Arbitration hearing should the case be accepted.--Golden Wattle ^talk 11:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Immediately below, the anon editor claims she is no longer putting information on the Coolac massacre on Wikipedia. These edits of 8 October 2006 [71] [72] to the article on the Dog on the Tuckerbox would appear to contradict her claim. I am happy to expand on why meeting the policy of Wikipedia:No Original Research is so very important in the case of a national icon (the Dog on the Tuckerbox) and the highly sensitive issue of how Australians have treated the Indigenous people of the country. Perhaps for an example, see the debate between a prominent historian and the former Governor General (our head of State) concerning the Governor General's inaccurate references to another massacre. (see Sydney Morning Herald)

The Coolac massacre has no written records, either contemporary or current. There is apparently no publication with textual analysis of the poem linking the poem to indigenous issues as was the authority cited by the anon at one time (ie it was her own hitherto unpublished opinion). [73] [74] The anon has asserted The Gundagai/Coolac Massacre is the most significant Indigneous Massacre in Australia's history which is why it has been covered up. Gudnagai is the capital of Indigneous culture and this was dismantled at invasion and after so that invasion was successful.[75] This an extremely strong POV and any edits that support that view need to be supported with cites. She has persistently refused to provide citations for her assertions [76] [77] [78] [79] and no other editor has been able to find a cite to support the view.

While some suggest that the anon brings a useful alternate POV to the Wikipedia, she quotes selectively and inaccurately. For example, her first post about Yarri being mistreated was without due regard to the source and clearly using it to push a POV (caps lock and all) [80]. Her material on this topic has been out of context though perhaps this cannot be recognised by others who do not have access to the book she is quoting from or familiarity with the topic.

The anon claims that nobody has explained why she should sign tags. I beg to differ as per the diffs provided by Thatcher131 and there are many other instances. Why a person who claims to be 55 years old [81], who claims to have two uni degrees and to be studying for a third [82] and would appear to be a native speaker of English and not an Indigenous Australian [83] would have a difficulty with the concept of signing talk pages after many months and many many edits contributing here when thousands of other editors to Wikipedia do not have trouble signing their messages is beyond me.

I feel unable to participate on the Wikipedia while this anon editor defames me and the personal attacks are not removed. My actions in relation to this editor have been criticised as not being in good faith, criticisms that I am very disappointed to have received. --Golden Wattle ^talk 22:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Anonymous Gundagai editor

Part of your statement was moved to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonymous Gundagai editor/comments from RFC and talk pages. If needed as evidence please shorten and properly attribute with diffs. Then you can reinsert here in your section.

Can I just make the comment that re Thatchers claim immediately above, he didnt introduce himself but just satrted issuing these commands. It seems he has tools and was threatning to use them but at that point no Thatcher had ever spoken to me previously and I had no idea who or what he was. Some of these admins just land on contributors with no wartning and start pushing people around, and contributors have no idea who or what they are or are not. I have since sussed that he seems to have some kudos but I still have no idea who or what he is.

The measured comment he claims he made is very unmeasured as in it he talks about claims made by an Indigenous Elder re a massacre, when that is very incorrect. The first claim re the massacre was made by the Projects archaeologists after being informed of it during earlier surveys by a Coolac non Indigneous resident. The Indigenous Elder referred to is a good friend of mine and he has previously been slandered here and now nonsense claimed re him. Whatever re the massacre, I have been saying for quite a while it isnt going to be posted here after publication of the final arch reports, so carrying on about it is ridiculous. My recent post was about Yarri being kicked and though I gave them probably the most credible original cites in Oz re that (Our National Library) or the local library for a regional wik person, that wasnt good enough. Some of the editors on wik seem to have an issue with comprehension and that causes problems. Anyway, too much 'he said, she said' right through this whole issue. If less said and more just did, such as dropped the bullying of contributors by wik gangs and planning to get mates to interfere with phone accounts, life might be sweeter. Whether the mob like it or not, I do know Gundagai's story way better than them as I have lived here for half a century, so they need to accept that. That I wont give them a scoop on the coolac massacre by providing them with the cites, no matter what they try, also needs to be understood.

One of the big misunderstandings here is that I want to put the coolac massacre up without cites. I am no longer putting the coolac massacre up and have not been going to do that for ages as they well know, as I do not now consider wik a suitable place for it. The cites are not available to be released right now as I have an obligation to a process I am invlved in, but they wont be released later. Those cites, (that some here seem to imagine do not exist because I wont cite them) are from Australia's historical record. There will be other cites through their process soon but they can stay on restricted AIHMS access so that other stuff is also protected. People get sick of the angst anything to do with Indigenous heritage seems to stir up from some so people learn to keep it restricted once the garbage starts to get thrown.

Thatcher may think a bit too much. Its pretty slanderous to claim what he does above. Thatacher also calls me 'he'. I am a woman thanks Thatcher. You seem to not be that connected I think but then I have no idea really who or what you are as you have not introduced yourself to make that possible. You did invite me to talk on your page which I did, but there was no response. You then bounced into the Gundagai discussion room a day after that and zeroed in on me. From that point I am now very very wary of what you are up to as well as previusly becoming very wary of the others (with very good reason seeing there was discussion re my telco and mates and back door ways to interfere with my account).

You know, at no time has any of these people ever said why I should sign posts, what it does, or anything. They just leave rude comments about signing posts. They need a charm school. My security would probably zap it if I did.

Statement by Bidgee

We (Longhair 1, Golden Wattle 2 3 4 5 6 and myself 7 8‎ 9) have told the Anon how to sign comments on talk pages and the Anon refuses to sign there comments. The Anon has been uncivil and has made personal attacks against me 10 11 12 13 and also has disrupted the wikipedia to make a point 14 15. Main reason why I have revert the Anon's is there information they have added is unverifiable or unsourced, Uncivil, Personal attacks, Editing when blocked (Editing a talk page or getting a new IP that isn't blocked to edit with) and Unsigned comments on talk pages. I'm still newish to Wikipedia and I still have a lot to learn however on what has happened in the past few months is putting me off Wikipedia. You can find more about the issues we have had at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/203.54.*.* and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/203.54.*.* -- Bidgee 17:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: I have asked the Anon more then once to sign and how to sign there comments on talk pages and they continue to add unsigned comments 16 17. The unsigned comments makes it hard to understand who has said what. -- Bidgee 04:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: The Anon has been uncivil 18 19 and making clams that I have reverted there edits 20 which I haven't 21 and they continue to have there comments unsigned. -- Bidgee 06:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement of concern by User:Rednblu

So often we forget that we all descended from the same group of fewer people than would fill the average professional football stadium. The "aborigines" got to Australia first, and their European cousins came in later. The aborigines remember over the many years a painful event that happened generations ago in a vague area of land. It is the nature of humans to let their traumatic places of memory free again into the wild: Machu Pichu, Troy, the Garden of Eden, Olduvai Gorge, Coolac, . . . . Some of them were found again; some were not. An Australian environmental impact report characterized the Gundagai site this way: "The exact location of the possible Aboriginal massacre site could not [be] determined." (at 36). And I thank User:NuclearUmpf's Update for starting me on this train of thought. So as technology reunites us on more and more projects, can we find a place for aboriginal citations? --which surely are the most ancient citation WP:V and WP:RS methods that we have in common. Perhaps Wikibooks would do. And of course, we may find some Wikipedia variety of WP:V and WP:RS along the way if we are patient. What do you think? --Rednblu 05:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Durova

I became aware of this at the Village Pump. While Golden Wattle explained several of my concerns adequately at my user talk page, I'm not confident that this is the right time for ArbCom to take up this case. The hammer seems to have come down rather hard on this anonymous Gungadai editor. I'd like to see formal mediation or WP:3O tried. This anon might improve with a mentor. This person did attempt to join the RfC as soon as I suggested it, but the anon's response was reverted through popups.

Given that popups were used so extensively, I'm still willing to give this anon the benefit of the doubt. While this person's behavior has been antagonistic, the popup reverts had an understandably frustrating gagging effect. What concerns me most about the popup blanking was that it was performed without community consensus (in the form of a topic ban or a community ban). However meritorious the intentions of the other editors might be in this instance, I'm concerned about the precedent this could set: suppose a group of bad faith editors on another article used this technique disruptively to provoke and oust a new and well-informed editor?

What I'd really like to see is an earnest effort at reconciliation. If that fails I'd support arbitration, but as yet there are a few stones left unturned. Respectfully submitted, Durova 06:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: subsequent behavior on the part of this editor is prompting me to reconsider the above statement. I'm not ready to strikethrough, but please regard it as tentative. If I decide to retract I'd strikethrough in two to three days. Durova 05:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Amended statement I attempted informally to mediate and mentor, yet my efforts have met with little success. On the good side, the technical quality of this IP's article edits have seen a modest improvement. However, the IP has taken no futher steps toward conforming to site standards and recent arbitration and talk page posts have tended toward the abrasive and the defiant and in some instances are even misleading. The IP reposted material from my user talk page without consulting me and responded on my talk page without disclosing other reposts once I complained about some reposts that selectively broadcasted out-of-date comments which shed herself (this appears to be the correct pronoun) in the most favorable light. Also, although the anon claims that Thatcher131 failed to reply at a user talk page, I read prompt and thoughtful responses to the anon's civil comments - only the rude and sarcastic statements got ignored. Here at the arbitration request the IP claims no one explained the reasons for signing posts, yet my research shows that this editor hadn't asked for an explanation. Nor has the IP offered any reply that I've seen to the suggestions that her privacy concerns would be resolved by becoming a registered user. It is disingenuous and histrionic to habitually lodge complaints with third parties and in general forums without addressing the appropriate editors directly. The IP has also ignored my repeated suggestions to seek a formal mentor. My initial willingness to extend the benefit of the doubt appears to have emboldened this editor's problematic behavior. I thank the other involved editors for admirable patience in enduring this incivility and for tagging unsigned comments rather than blanking them. In the absence of provocations, and while uninvolved editors and administrators extended good faith, this anon has essentially climbed the scaffold and tied the noose to hang herself. I now support arbitration. Durova 00:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by User:Longhair

I became involved in this matter almost at the beginning when the edits of the anon were brought to my attention by administrator, Golden Wattle (who edited under the username of AYArktos at that time) via a message to my talk page.

Before the anon arrived, I had found Golden Wattle to be a level headed and concise editor who has contributed a great deal to Wikipedia since her arrival. In recognition of her efforts and her thorough understanding of Wikipedia policies, I successfully nominated Golden Wattle for adminship during March 2006. From memory, it wasn't long after Golden Wattle's successful request for adminship that problems with this anon arrived.

At Golden Wattle's request, I offered assistance to look into the matter and discovered the anon editing articles relating to New South Wales, Australia in a disruptive manner; adding information based on personal knowledge and unsupported by references, making a plethora of personal and distasteful attacks against Golden Wattle and User:Bidgee, refusing to sign comments despite many advices on how to do so, and inappropriately entering personal commentry and rants into the middle of existing article content in the encyclopedia namespace rather the talk namespace.

Many warnings from myself and others to the anon were given requesting them to edit according to acceptable standards or eventually face a block. The disruptive editing continued, and the anon was eventually blocked for regular brief periods of time upon their resurfacing and repeat unacceptable behaviours. Over the course of the next few months the unacceptable behaviour continued. An unsuccesful request for arbitration was filed, followed by an RfC which gathered very little attention until just recently. As the unacceptable behaviour of the anon continued with no signs of stopping or changing for the better, I began to block the anon on sight as per the 'Statement of intended ongoing reponse' in the RfC concerned', provided by Golden Wattle as I suspect being the only viable solution to an ongoing problem.

The anon has continued to ignore requests by several editors involved to edit in a civil manner, abusing not only myself in edit summaries and comments, but also almost every editor who became involved with the situation. Recently, the anon has futher accused myself of bullying, and recently raised accusations of myself using "tools" to supress their contributions, accusing myself of heavy-handedness and also raising unfounded suspicions that I am stalking them and using multiple sockpuppet accounts to be able to do so under multiple identities, none of which is true. In an effort to restore my sanity, I recently decided I am no longer replying to any of the anons edits as it simply felt I was being baited into action so they could report me elsewhere, allowing them to gloat over the situation when the replies of other editors new to the situation began to arrive questioning my actions.

I am not and have never become involved in the actual content dispute concerning the articles in question. I have little knowledge of Aboriginal massacres in Australia or any other issue under dispute ast the articles concerned. I have never offered any advice in the content dispute, my role being solely as a Wikipedia administrator enforcing policy and activating blocks accordingly.

While I am happy to see this matter progress to arbitration, it comes at a bad time for myself as my personal life is somewhat busy at present and my home internet connection is undergoing intermittent connection problems reducing myself to slow connection speeds rather than the usual broadband access, however I will endeavor to assist where necessary as my free time permits. -- Longhair\^talk 05:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Moved lengthy text taken directly from RFC statements and article talk pages to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonymous Gundagai editor/comments from RFC and talk pages for Anonymous Gundagai editor to shorten and properly attribute with diffs. FloNight 16:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

• Accept. Dmcdevit·t 20:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Accept Fred Bauder 13:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox: clarification on what to do for other user/ Extraordinary Machine

I'm having a major ongoing issue regarding an inappropriate block and a massive misuse of sysop abilities, and I wouldn't be surprised if one thinks I'm simply placing this here because User talk:Velten was protected not long ago. I am editing from an IP address because the original operator of User:Eternal Equinox wants to return to Wikipedia, but does not want to use the same account as I (User:Hollow Wilerding) currently am. I'll understand if this is removed, but there's no other way to ask this as of now.

While I'm here, I'd like to request something of the arbitration committee. In the past few weeks, I've been receiving increasingly abusive blocks from User:Extraordinary Machine which range from reasons such as "removed a template that I think should have stayed there" to assuming that I've edited from an IP address when it can't be proven. Again, I'm sure this will be ignored and removed altogether, but his abuse has got to stop. I'd provide diffs, but most are currently on User talk:Velten and I'm not up to it since this is likely not going to stay here. If I'm going to be placed on an ArbCom decision, there are going to be circumstances under which I can become blocked, because EM has so far abused it to his likening, which is evident through the following:

• First I made two edits to Loose (album) and Promiscuous (song) where we held a debate. Extraordinary Machine kept reminding me that I'm not supposed to engage in edit wars, but I was trying to express my view on the matter. He then went ahead and blocked me for a week because of this and called it "harassment".
• He gives me three-weeks worth of a ban for this and this. How in the world does this warrant a block?
• Because an IP address (74.117.11.247 (talk · contribs)) edited Cool (song) with a similar edit summary to mine (which I do admit, find somewhat peculiar, and wonder if someone's out to get me), I'm positive Extraordinary Machine used this as an excuse to restart the three-week ban over again. I don't even know who this person is!

I've already waited two a half weeks based on his original ridiculous block. I'm not waiting again for something I didn't do. Can the ArbCom please do something? Thatcher131 (talk · contribs) said that he was concerned about this block and that it wasn't within the ArbCom's scope, which if I look at WP:RFAR/Eternal Equinox, is over two weeks the original punishment. This user is now deliberately trying to keep me away.

Could something be done? 64.231.64.221 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways

What would the proceedure be for getting off probation? There were four users placed on probation, SPUI, PHenry, JohnnyBGood, and myself. SPUI did have some run-ins at WP:SRNC, but has left. PHenry has not edited since the conclusion of the case. JohnnyBGood has drifted away from highway articles a bit, editing other articles. (but in effect not doing any mass moves). I started WP:SRNC, and the poll has concluded, and mass moves are being done to move the pages to the agreed upon locations. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The current probation is worded

2.1) Should SPUI, JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and PHenry disrupt the editing of any article which concerns highways he or she may be banned by any administrator from that article or related articles. All bans are to be logged...

I have to ask—what would you do differently if the probation were not in effect? What specific benefit would accrue to Wikipedia if the probation were lifted? As long as the parties involved continue to behave civilly and avoid the destructive behaviour that led to the arbitration in the first place, the probation won't be tripped.

I'm extremely pleased to see things finally being worked out. I remember the bad old days with the move warring, and the blocks, and the bloody stupid namecalling, and the pages and pages of sniping on WP:AN, and the borderline wheel wars that resulted, and the month it took to deal with the arbitration from submission to close. I'm enjoying the peace and quiet. I really don't want to go back to that mess, and I'm quite comfortable leaving the probation in place; I like having a remedy in place that encourages participants in the naming debacle to think twice before opening a new can of worms. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Basically, the only thing that bugs me is the word "probation." I have to ask, if there was no probation, wouldn't it be the same? Considering that if other users did the same actions they would be blocked too? I'm not asking for the probation to be removed right now, I'm just seeing how I would go about it. In reality there is a new user who is trying to open another can of worms related to the naming convention stuff, but he finally realized that he was getting nowhere. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If a new editor (or a 'new' editor) shows up in the highway naming disputes, I would be inclined to give that editor one polite, friendly, civil, and patient explanation of the current situation and the arbitration from which it arose. There's no reason, after all, to bite a newbie who innocently stumbles on the dispute.

If the polite and friendly explanation didn't work – and I wouldn't proceed if that condition hadn't been met – I for one would be willing to entertain, support, and enforce community-imposed article bans on parties not explicitly mentioned in the existing arbitration. (Such bans would best be requested/proposed on WP:AN/I.)

I can't see how the solution to bad behaviour by new parties is lifting restrictions on the old parties. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well my concern is I'm wondering what difference the probation makes, if anybody can be blocked. Not that I'm asking for it now, though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Probation does two things (as I see it). First, it allows an otherwise good editor to be banned from specific articles that he disrupts while allowing him to edit other articles and without having to block his account entirely. For example if Joe Smith is passionate about birds and Star Trek but only disrupts articles about birds, he can still edit Star Trek articles. There is very little precedent (as yet) for a community imposed article ban, so this would be difficult to apply to new editors. Second, it lifts somewhat the need to take an editor through all the prior steps of dispute resolution. A new editor who is disruptive needs to be treated per WP:BITE and helped, guided, hand-held, or whatever, until it becomes absolutely neccessary to impose sanctions. A prior editor on probation is on notice that, having gone through the dispute process in the past one way or another, is not entitled to the same gentle and forgiving treatment. (No opinion on the issue lifting probation in this case.) Thatcher131 12:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Warren Kinsella

I hate to be a pill, but in this case, two arbitrators amended the prinicple

• A set of users or anonymous editors who edit in the same tendentious pattern or engage in the same disruptive tactics may be presumed to be one user. The provisions of an arbitration decision may be enforced on that basis.

with the addition

• Yes to this when the ArbCom has had time and reason to come to grips with a situation. It is not a great idea for individual admins to apply the same reasoning, on the fly. Mistakes then get made.

Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is under a 5 day block for disruption and sockpuppetry. 64.230.112.190 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) today performed characteristic vandalism, including calling Warren Kinsella names [84] and blanking a section of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement [85]. Two other IPs 142.78.190.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 64.230.111.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which are consistent with Ellis' venues and manner, also edited articles from which Ellis is banned. Based on the findings in this case, should this IP be treated as an Ellis sock (in which case triggering enforcement against Ellis), or should they be treated as de novo vandals. Thatcher131 20:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Another wrinkle for clarification. The arbitrators' ruling is

"Arthur_Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from Warren Kinsella and articles which relate to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. Any article which mentions Warren Kinsella is considered a related article for the purposes of this remedy. This includes all talk pages other than the talk page of Mark Bourrie.:

"Today one of the IPs mentioned above made this edit, removing the Warren Kinsella section from the Bourrie article. This edit raises the question whether Mark Bourrie is still covered by the ban. Bucketsofg✐ 22:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume that means he is banned from all related article and talk pages including Mark Bourrie but not Talk:Mark Bourrie. Thatcher131 00:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the exception is to permit him to comment on the article about himself. Fred Bauder 20:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That is my reading of the remedy. FloNight 05:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Still wondering whether to hold Arthur Ellis responsible for the contributions of the IPs. Thatcher131 05:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the judgement call of the administrator who is familiar with the problem and the edits. If you are reasonably sure it is him, go for it. Fred Bauder 20:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Fred. Thatcher131 18:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

One more request for clarification.

"Arthur_Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from Warren Kinsella and articles which relate to Canadian politics and its blogosphere.:

Does that include the Rachel Marsden page? Marsden has been involved in Canadian politics. Geedubber 23:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Dmcdevit·t 15:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

Statement by Andries

1. Does not linking to purportedly unreliable websites also include the homepages of critics with their own articles of Sathya Sai Baba e.g. Robert Priddy (see [86]), Basava Premanand, M. Alan Kazlev (see here [87] one of the webpages on the website authored, owned, and maintaind by Kazlev, linked to in his Wikipedia article), Sanal Edamaruku, Babu Gogineni, the late Abraham Kovoor, and the late H._Narasimhaiah? If the answer is yes, how can this be reconciled with a seemingly contradictory guideline WP:EL that states "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if there is one"? SeeWikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/#Robert_Priddy for a description of this dispute. (amended 09:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC))
2. Does not linking to unreliable website also include wikipedia user pages such as user:Andries See [88] #Do unreliable websites also include the websites created and maintained by user:SSS108 especially for Wikipedia. In certain cases such as this one [89] the webpages on this website are simply copies that SSS108 took from the webpages of exbaba.com [90]
3. Is it okay to use webpages with copies of reputable sources on purportedly unreliable websites as convenenience links in the references. See e.g. here [91]If the answer is no, how can this be reconciled with a seemingly contradictory guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources regarding intermediate sources that states "A common error is to copy citation information from an intermediate source without acknowledging the original source." (amended 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC))
4. User:SSS108 removed a lot of information from the article talk page [92] that I had moved from the article [93] to the talk page [94]. In spite of my request to do so he did not justify in specifics why this removal was either justified by WP:BLP or the arbcom decision regarding posting external links. I object to mass removals of information from the talk page that are not motivated in specific terms if and where it violates WP:BLP or the arbcom decision. SSS108 stated the intention to remove more of my future comments from the talk page [95] Is SSS108’s or my behaviour a violation of talk page etiquette?
5. This may not be the place for it, but I also want to express my concern about the number of disputes between SSS108 and me on the Sathya Sai Baba article and related articles that seem to increase in the course of time. If it continues like this, then I will file two requests for comments per week without any end in sight. Regarding Pjacobi's request to step aside, I would like to point out that I am by far the greatest content creator on all articles related to Sathya Sai Baba during the past years. In the weeks that I was away from the article no new content or hardly new content was added to any of these articles. Andries 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC) amended 18:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Andries 13:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC) added question about contradictory guidelines. 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC) added new point expressing concern about the number of disputes. 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 18:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by SSS108

• Point 1: Wiki pages about a certain person can include a link to his/her homepage. The link Andries was/is trying to include on Robert Priddy's Wiki page is not his homepage. It is an Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba Site (one of three maintained by Priddy). Priddy's homepage is already listed on his wiki page.
• Point 2: Andries agreed to the neutral geocities site in mediation with BostonMA [96]. This site does not link to or promote any pro/anti site. Furthermore, the articles that Andries claims were taken from the exbaba site are not copyright protected to the exbaba site (nor were they ever originally published on the exbaba site). Therefore, the exbaba site cannot claim copyright status to the articles in question.
• Point 3: If the reputable sources in question are duplicated on (never originally published on) biased, partison and controversial websites (such as the exbaba and saiguru sites), I think WP:RS prohibits this. Also, JzG expressed the opinion that citing these sources on any non-reputable website is a copyright violation [97] [98] [99].
• Point 4: See FloNight's Thread [100] & Tony Sidaway's Thread [101] & My Thread [102].
• Point 5: Pjacobi requested both Andries and me to step aside from the Sathya Sai Baba article [103]. I expressed my willingness to do so 3 times [104] [105] [106] . Andries has not expressed any willingness to step aside even once. Andries is reintroducing controversial edits without obtaining consensus. Andries should step aside and let other editors work on the article and he would not have to be repeatedly challenged. I am not the only editor disagreeing with Andries. All the other editors disagree with him about his recent edits. Even the person who responded to his RFC [107]. Yet Andries is still fighting it. SSS108 ^talk-email 07:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

I want to comment here on my dual role in this matter. My first response on this was that it seemed to be a matter for administrators to resolve, and I investigated as an administrator and warned Andries politely in my role as an administrator that in my view and that of other admins he was contravening the ruling in the arbitration case.

Andries has come back politely with what amount, in my view, to clear signals that he requires much closer direction on this matter. I suggested that clarification from the arbitrators might be a good way of resolving this matter, and his query here is the response. Andries has shown by his responses and actions that he is eager and willing to comply with the arbitration and in my role as a clerk I commend his queries to the Committee, While this is clearly a dispute that could have become very rancorous, it seems to me that Andries is doing his best to avoid that path and seek clarification. I also commend SSS108 for his civility in the course of expressing a difference of opinion in a forthright and honest manner.

I hope that this is not "crossing the streams". I hope it's clear that my views as an administrator and as a clerk are quite distinct. My regard for both participants here is very high. Their honesty and civility is impressive. --Tony Sidaway 02:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Archives

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (extremely sparse, selective, and unofficial)