Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Archives
January 2004 – October 2004 October 2004 – January 2005 January 2005 – April 2005 April 2005 – June 2005 June 2005 – July 2005 June 2005 – July 2005 July 2005 – September 2005 September 2005 – October 2005 November 2005 – December 2005 December 2005 – January 2006 January 2006 – February 2006 February 2006 – March 2006

ArbCom decision violations by Lightbringer socks

I really need a RFCU for User:Anderson12 and User:WMMrgn as socks of User:Lightbringer AKA User:Basil Rathbone. It is patently obvious who these people are (Anderson12 basically came right out an said "By your actions, I take it you are a Freemason", he's copied someone else userpage wholesale to cover himself, and yet his edits are only to Freemasonry articles) and yet no one will take action. What is the point of a decision when it is not enforced when a problem arises? I have tried to find an admin on IRC, and all I got was bad info from Tony Sidaway to ask Kelly Martin, who hasn't been doing WP for some time. How hard is it to do a simple check and block the socks? MSJapan 15:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you try posting to WP:ANI? Robert McClenon 20:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly. I used AIV and VIP, as well as RFCU, as they seemed to be more appropriate to the situation. MSJapan 21:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I posted to ANI here, and nothing yet. MSJapan 23:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Notification regarding -Ril-

I'm not quite sure where the best place is to put this message, but as there's an open arbitration case involving -Ril-, the arbitrators should probably be made aware that I've blocked -Ril- indefinitely as a reincarnation of CheeseDreams. For the discussion, see the noticeboard. --Michael Snow 20:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek (appeal)

I'd like to appeal for the remidies I got.

• Firstly Davenbelle and in part Stereotek (aka Karl Meier) have continued stalking me (some actions include actively trying to get templates used on my userspace deleted). Granted they did not stalk me to excess... [1]
• In about december their stalking have had stoped (overal Karl Meier didnt stalked too much aside from a few isolated incidents in contrast to davenbelle) and Davenbelle basicaly got bored and left wikipedia (after all that was the majority of his contribution)

So the very reason for the fileing of this rfar is unnecesary now. It exists solely to be an excuse to oppose my rfas although I admit even if all the rfar remidies agains me is gone, some people will find some new excuses. I am currently displeased with the rfa process and am a bit burnt with my 4th failed rfa on commons as it is the same people opposing... I will address individual remidies. and apeal them individualy below.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Findings of fact

POV editing by Coolcat (Passed 6-0)

It is a fact I have had a history of pov editing as a newbie, which was fine as I was learning. I am currently more in the know of NPOV and try harder to keep my bias and pov checked. For instance I contribute little to the articles I have pov on and only try to gather general comunity attention to such topics (not individuals who have my pov). This "finding of fact" hurts the discussions I have as it basicaly insures people assuming bad faith. In general this makes me look bad and hurts discussions I participate in.

Every body makes pov edits some time or another, we aren't machines. I have understand the necesity of neutrailty during the duration of this finding of fact. This kind of behaviour is someting I avoid now.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Remedies

Coolcat prohibited from mediating (Passed 4-3)

While I try to stay away from other peoples disputes, on many occasions people asked my assitance in dealing with problematic or potentialy problematic behaviour.

I try to help people with their disputes and I believe I am more successfull now and hence feel this remidy is obsolite now. I want to be allowed to help.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Coolcat prohibited from restructuring (Passed 7-0)

I never understood what edit behavior of mine warranted this remidy but I feel this remidy is now unnecesary. I want to be allowed to edit talk pages without restrictions just like everyone else. This issue had nothing to do with the dispute I had with davenbelle (them stalking me/my actions prompty stalking) and hence is very unnecesary in my view. I have on ocasions did archive pages such as Wikipedia talk:Counter Vandalism Unit and no one blocked me for it (although davenbelle complained to my mentors about this and was the only person)

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Coolcat Mentorship (Passed 7-0)

I do not need formal mentorship anymore, I mostly (if at all) did not require their offical attention as I was able to handle matters myslef. However I still would like to see the individuals as my informal mentors and continue the relationship. I do not want my relation with them to appear "forced" as I am in a better level of dialouge than that.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sentences: Concurrent and/or Consecutive

Are these sentences concurrent and/or consecutive ? Just visiting. Martial Law 06:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC) :)

I've seen people banned, placed on parole and/or probation and the like. Martial Law 06:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Remedies run concurrently unless otherwise stated, IIRC. Johnleemk | Talk 09:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate the info. Martial Law 11:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Me too! Learning somethimg new everyday. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Trying to move forward

A little while has passed now since my last request. I want to again ask the arbs (except Raul) if they will tell me what I can do to get them to consider granting me the possibility of an appeal. If there is nothing I can do, this will also count as an answer, albeit an unpleasant one. Everyking 07:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an arbie but I'll say some things. I certainly don't like to see you sanctioned, because I know you as a person with a reasonable view on Wikipedia, and reasonable opinions which I often agree with. I also know you as a hard worker. Personally, had I made the decision, I would not have imposed a year long ban, because a year long ban is quite long and I don't think that the offense warranted that. Still, I agree with what TenOfAllTrades says at the top of this talkpage. I think that the best chance you have for an early overturning of your sanctions is displaying some acknowledgment that you are responsible for some of the things which got you into this mess. For instance the fairly predictable condemnation of any blocks made for disruption made several admins feel that you were condemning them without looking deeply enough into the reasons behind the block. It is better to ask about the block than condemning it outright. ("I'm wondering, I've seen this person make several good contributions to the encyclopedia. Exactly what was it that made you decide that a block was neccesary here" is better than "This block is absurd. This person has done nothing but good work.") Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware that I've ever maintained I was without error. Specifically, I acknowledged that I crossed the line into incivility on a number of occasions. Several of those acknowledgements were actually made before the ruling. And as for your comparison of the two communication styles, I think I did reasonably well about staying in the range of the former, but seeing the same things being done time and time again, always outside of policy, never with any sufficient justification, kind of broke down my ability to stay civil. It eventually became impossible to perceive the attitude of certain users as anything except "I know what is best and I don't care what anyone else thinks." And when that attitude means people who typically do good work are getting blocked from contributing on a regular basis, the frustration mounts and eventually becomes very intense. Everyking 07:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the sanction banning you from the Admin's Noticeboard were lifted today, what would you do differently from what you did before the ArbCom case? Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I would even get involved in any of that again. It's more about the principle of the thing than it is about practical restrictions. But I suppose I probably would get involved on some level, because I feel so strongly about some of those things. Certainly I would be less bitter and sarcastic and try to be better about staying calm. I think this would be easier because I tend to see less of the kind of blatant, infuriating abuse on the part of single individuals than there was last year. I think it has become more and more difficult to engage in that kind of abuse, because the community reaction to it is getting stronger. It's certainly still possible for some of those people to play the part of the petty dictator, but it's getting to be more trouble than it's worth, I think. I suspect there is a growing recognition even among the more powerful users that, yeah, it really is important to take decisions deliberatively and cooperatively, regardless of how much they slammed me for promoting that idea last year. Everyking 08:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have another question to add to that first one. Does a ruling against a contributor give the ArbCom any sort of responsibility to answer a question like the one posed above: does the ArbCom's penalizing of a user carry with it an implied requirement that the ArbCom address a question about how the penalized user might mollify the ArbCom, how he or she might address their concerns, or at least tell him or her whether this is even possible? Does he or she have a right, furthermore, to an answer beyond unworkable vagueness and tautology? Basically, does the user in question have the right to expect the ArbCom to tell him or her, in clear terms: A) what he or she did wrong, by the ArbCom's definition, and B) what he or she can do right, by the ArbCom's definition? Everyking 10:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I haven't seen any written rule to that effect, and even if there is one somewhere, it certainly isn't enforced. I think I can count the occasions when I've seen an Arbcom member give a useful answer to this sort of question in the last five months or so on my thumbs. PurplePlatypus 10:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not optimistic, but we'll see. Wouldn't it be cool to see several arbs chime in with helpful ideas, clear and workable suggestions, and actually discuss them like reasonable people? Damn, that's a thought. Sometimes I think we've drifted so far from where we need to be that we've forgotten our destination altogether. Everyking 11:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

After two days, I'm going to narrow things down to two possibilities: 1) the ArbCom does not read the RfAr talk page, not even a single arb: a shocking neglect of responsibilities; 2) the ArbCom has consciously decided to ignore me, although I of course don't have the option of ignoring them (wouldn't that be nice?). I'm thinking 1) is somewhat better, from a moral perspective, than 2), although still really bad; on the other hand, I'm thinking 2) is a good deal more likely than 1). Everyking 05:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

(For the benefit of those just joining us who do not wish to read the 100+ kilobyte circular discussion above) I am well aware of this thread and have actively refrained from commenting on it because, to be frank, it's a complete waste of time. Everyking has asked the same question ("what do I need to do to get the sanctions lifted") 5 times now (on January 24, February 8, February 24, February 25, and March 7); the first four of those times (January 25, February 8, February 24, and February 25), I answered with the same (verbatim) response - that I will not consider the appeal, or anything else that weakens the sanctions, until I see convincing evidence that he has reformed and will not go back to the behavior that got him sanctioned. (Perhaps someone should just put the response on a template?) Consider this verbatim response #5 and - I swear - my last. Everyking has apparently chosen to ignore the answers he is being given and keeps asking the same question over and over again until he gets a more favorable answer. (I think I know where he picked up the tactic) However, now that the arbitrators are aware of his Argumentum ad infinitum tactic and are rightfully ignoring him, he has decided to cry foul about how the evil arbitrators are ignoring him. Considering the sheer volume of commentary his repeated queries have brough, this is absurd on its face.

And, for a final note as to what I consider to be 'convincing evidence' that EK has reformed - to quote Potter Stewart, ""I shall not today attempt further to define [it] ... [b]ut I know it when I see it". However, bearing in mind that admitting you have a problem is the first step, a statement from EK acknowledging (1) that his campaign of harrassment against other admins - snowspinner in particular - was wrong, (2) that his comments to the AN were unacceptable in their entirety, and (3) that there were many occasions he commented without doing basic research -- this would be a start. Raul654 07:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You know good and well that "I will not consider the appeal, or anything else that weakens the sanctions, until I see convincing evidence that he has reformed and will not go back to the behavior that got him sanctioned" is not an answer: I am asking what would constitute convincing evidence, and you keep telling me that you've answered my question. You've obviously been trying to avoid giving me any meaningful response. But I'll let that slide because in this response you have, for the first time, given me the first hint of something meaningful I can do. I'll deal with them point by point:

1. I disagree that a campaign of harassment even existed—what was happening was a series of responses to controversial admin actions. This is like saying it's harassment when you play loud music late at night and the neighbors complain—"they're harassing me!" No, you're causing a problem and they are responding to the problem in a reasonable manner. You don't have the right to be an absolute pain in the ass for as long as you want without any repercusions. If you act unjustly, it is reasonable to expect people to react negatively to that. Hey, actually I think that would make a nice ruling for the ArbCom to make: "If you act unjustly, it is reasonable to expect people to react negatively to that." I mean, since we're reinventing the wheel about the nature of justice and all we've come up with is a square block so far, I think that would be a step in the right direction.
2. How am I supposed to do that with a straight face? Am I supposed to renounce even the comments Raul himself agrees with? There's an extended history of me commenting on AN that involves way more than Raul's stereotype of me always raising the hue and cry over admin abuse—but even so, I'm not going to say it was wrong for me to raise the hue and cry. I will say I got too angry and bitter and became uncivil occasionally. But there's no way I'll say that the comments were fundamentally wrong; even at their worst, they still had the same basis: treat people fairly, behave cautiously and not aggressively with respect to admin abilities, and deliberate with others before taking a potentially controversial or "borderline" action. I will admit that was wrong the same day I admit that the earth is flat and the sun orbits around it: that is to say, the same day the ArbCom begins applying physical torture to the accused.
3. I don't know what "basic research" means: does it include reading what was posted to the AN board and making a response based solely on that? I will freely admit I sometimes did no research beyond simply reading what was posted on the AN board. Typically a comment so based would consist of cautiously asking a question about what happened. Greater knowledge of the subject = greater conviction about a viewpoint on that subject = greater manifestation of that conviction by argument and/or outrage when something is done that I perceive as wrong. That is to say, sarcasm and bitterness show up much more frequently when I am damn sure that I'm right, and they show up less or not at all when I have a more limited understanding of the subject. Everyking 09:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've heard from Raul, who wants me to renounce my beliefs in exchange for an appeal. There are many other arbs, however. What are their opinions? This sure does take a long time. Don't you guys have clerks now? With someone else to do the paperwork, you should have more time available to deal with the concerns of people like me. Everyking 06:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If you read the section regarding your previous appeal attempt at the top, you should note that another arbitrator, Dmcdevit, has already rejected your plea. I think other arbs find your constant demand for an appeal disruptive and time-wasting, and are simply ignoring them. If you keep demanding appeals time after time using the exact same arguments and methods, don't be surprised if additional sanctions are imposed on you, like Raul previously warned. --TML1988 21:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Additional sanctions? I don't know what else they could do, but yeah, knowing them they'd think of something. That wouldn't be all bad, anyway, because if they were going to impose additional sanctions I think they'd feel some pressure to talk to me. It's hard to justify punishing someone who you are giving the silent treatment, I think.

But anyway. If I'm being disruptive and time-wasting, OK, but how do you propose I change that? What alternative routes can I pursue? Seriously, name something I haven't tried already. I do the same things because there ain't nothing else I can do. Everyking 04:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Try subscribing to the wikien-l mailing list. You may also want to consider communicating via the IRC. --TML1988 15:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If on-wiki communication gets me ignored, is there any way I could communicate with the arbs off-wiki? E-mail or IRC? Would any of them agree? Everyking 12:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Speeches on an evidence page

Lou franklin/Evidence is beginning to fill up with back-and-forth speeches and responses. When the second one was posted I moved it to the talk page, but then reverted myself because all of Lou's evidence is in that vein, so logically I would have had to have moved all of it. I considered trying to tell Lou that it's better for evidence to consist of specific allegations backed up by diffs, but as I filed the RFAR and most of the evidence it would be ridiculous at this point for me to pretend to be giving him impartial advice (even if that's what it is). Could someone else could take a look at the Evidence page and maybe explain to Lou how to give evidence and use diffs? --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at this. There's nothing that can be done to refactor his submissions because there are no diffs provided anyway. However, I think he's fighting a losing case anyway -- there probably is no evidence he can present that will alter the likely conclusion that he's a blatant POV pusher with incivility issues. I think spending a lot of time trying to educate him as to the way we do things here on Wikipedia would be nonproductive. Perhaps someone could persuade him to find an advocate? Kelly Martin (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest someone at least make the gesture anyway despite the WP:SNOW-like considerations above, but Kelly is right - Lou's "evidence" tends to confirm, rather than refute, the charges against him and even if he backed it up with diffs and so on, the most he could show is that his opponents aren't any better, not that how he's behaved is okay. PurplePlatypus 19:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think he could be a good contributor so long as he stayed away from this page and someone took the time to show him how Wikipedia is supposed to work. A little hand-holding, I think, can go a long way. Do we have any projects like that around here - for taking users who seem to not be understanding certain things about the wiki and carefully guiding them in the right direction? I think, if there were something along those lines, it would help more than banning him would. -Seth Mahoney 19:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There's mentorship. Users can be involuntarily placed under mentorship as part of ArbCom rulings as an alternative to banning. -Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I'd like to see that happen, if its something Lou can agree to. I'm also unfortunately ignorant as regards the arbitration process - is there an opportunity for us to suggest possible outcomes? -Seth Mahoney 20:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The Workshop allows users to make suggestions as to proposed decisions. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I've added my recommendation. -Seth Mahoney 20:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

PurplePlatypus wrote: Lou's "evidence" tends to confirm, rather than refute, the charges against him. That is a very common situation. Recently, when a user conduct RfC is written, the response is very often a diatribe against the subject's opponents, who are the certifiers of the RfC, thus confirming (without the need for diffs) that the editor is uncivil and makes personal attacks. There is only so much that the Wikipedia community can do to acculturate editors who are chronically angry. Kelly Martin wrote: Perhaps someone could persuade him to find an advocate? An advocate might help some, but probably not much. There is only so much that an advocate can do for an editor who is chronically angry. Chronically angry editors often do not cooperate with their advocate. There is a point when assuming good faith only means realizing that these editors are not consciously self-destructive. Robert McClenon 13:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kelly Martin that Lou Franklin needs an advocate. I have offered. However, I think that there needs to be another law, which is that the more a controversial editor needs an advocate, the less likely they are to request and work with one. Robert McClenon 12:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Decision enforcement

Where is the appropriate place to ask for administrator involvement to enforce ArbCom decisions? The administrators bickerboard is a flood of admins who only care about ripping on each other about the wheel-war-du-jour (userboxes, lately). Anything that requires judgement, or doesn't personally involve people already arguing there just gets lost. It's also regularly over 256K (a quarter megabyte just to load the page, never mind edit) and has to get archived daily. So for appropriateness, size, and attention, WP:AN/I just isn't the right place for ArbCom enforcement. Maybe it is time for a page for Enforcement Requests? It'd give the advantage that only admins interested in ArbCom would follow it and hopefully be a little familiar with the backgrounds of the cases on requests coming through. The number of cases coming through ArbCom, and the streamlining/fast tracking of cases since implementing clerks certainly would justify the volume for an independent page.

Thoughts? SchmuckyTheCat 01:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

We already have WP:AER, but right now only arbitrators and clerks can edit the page. Johnleemk | Talk 08:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's communication from ArbCom to admins, not from anyone to admins asking for enforcement. Currently, there isn't a place where non-admins can ask for enforcement against a user with an ArbCom ruling and expect a response. SchmuckyTheCat 08:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat has a good point. I frequently see posts that a banned user is posting via sockpuppets, typically asking how to request enforcement, or that a user who is on probation is disrupting an article and requesting that the user be blocked. As he mentions, WP:AN/I does not appear to be the place. Perhaps there should also be an ArbCom Enforcement Noticeboard, WP:AEN, for requests to block users who are violating probation or are sockpuppets. In the case of personal attacks, whether by users under sanctions or not, WP:PAIN is appropriate. In the case of disruption having the nature of vandalism, AP:AIV will work. However, where can requests about trolls, flamers, and obsessional editors be posted? Robert McClenon 12:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

How about we renamed AER (which I've never particularly liked the name of given the task, I have to admit) to something like "Standing orders", and make AER exactly as Schmucky suggests?

James F. (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on a prototype with templates and pizazz. SchmuckyTheCat 08:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As long there remains a static page with the remedies as James suggests, this sounds like a good move. Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Take a look

User Request for Enforcement of Arbcom and feel free to edit at this point. SchmuckyTheCat 19:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is worth persuing (though I think a better name is warranted; "Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement", perhaps?

James F. (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the abbreviation UREA a coincidence or deliberately chosen? :) Talrias (t | e | c) 00:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, it was a coincidence. After I saved it, I decided it wasn't so bad as a pun on whining. I did try and make it EAR, but it didn't work.

Renamed as suggested User:SchmuckyTheCat/Arbitration enforcement, good choice as WP:AE will be available as a shortcut. The only other thing I was thinking of adding is a heading by date and a notice to request that admins who look at it but decide not to act say so, the latter helps users from thinking their grievance went into a circular file.

So, I haven't seen anything negative about this yet. I'm going to put a notice on the Admin bickerboard for further comment from admins. What's a good time scale to implement it? I'm thinking a few more days for admins to look at it. Should I worry about disrupting anything, or should I just be bold and make the necessary changes (see the to do list in the wiki code at the top of the page)? SchmuckyTheCat 00:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems logical. Inforcement of arcom descissions doesn't require the generaly admin population anyway.Geni 02:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Active!

WP:AE SchmuckyTheCat 23:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm Curious

I thought the 'Request for Arbitration' was not supposed to be a discussion board. Why are comments from Waya sahoni on other folks statements concerning his request for arbitration being allowed? And yes. I'm one of the involved parties. --Jerry (Talk) 04:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

My appreciation of the ArbCom

I've just read Raul's ninth law, and I'd just like to say that I have personally always been awed by the dedication and wisdom of the ArbCom.

I once took a WikiBreak because of my frustration with the actions of a certain user, and my sad belief that the user in question was an exceedingly skilled troll, who was far too adept at abusing WP:AGF to ever be properly held liable for his actions.

When I came back from my break, I saw that this user had been brought before the ArbCom, and banned for an extended length of time. The fact that the ArbCom recognized the heavy damage subtly wrought by this editor was very gratifying to me.

Since then, I've been taking a look at how the ArbCom handles cases, and my first impression of their competence and dedication has been confirmed.

I honestly believe that Wikipedia would be far, far worse off without the ArbCom, and I am saddened that Raul's ninth law exists. I regret that I have but one voice with which to show my support. :) --Ashenai 11:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me add one more voice. The ArbCom was originally established by Jimbo Wales because Jimbo became too busy to ban disruptive editors. Without the ArbCom, Wikipedia would be nearly impossible. Robert McClenon 12:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Not completely true one of the other large language wikipedia gets by without one by giving the job to the general admin population.Geni 14:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The above comment is a reference to the german wikipedia. The german wikipedia was *actually* run by a cabal (as opposed to the insubstantial accusations made on the english wikipedia). However, I'm told that the cabal is losing power, and that the germans are definitely experiencing serious systemic problems now. Raul654 14:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

In the English Wikipedia, with a diverse and fractious population of admins, giving the power to sanction disruptive editors to admins collectively would result in wheel warring. Robert McClenon 12:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

With no offense intended to anyone in particular, it's seemed to me for a while that en has way more admins than it really needs. Could that be part of the problem? Phr 14:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Considering the number of users and traffic we get, it's pretty similar to other wikipediae. We have 1328 registered users per admin; German has 1032, Spanish has 1688, French has 995, Italian has 1168. So we're right in the ballpark. It just seems like a lot because we're significantly bigger than the rest :) Ral315 (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this post originally, but I would like to add my support to it. You guys do a thankless job, do it very well on the whole, and get complaints for it all the time. I'm glad you're all willing to stick with it. The process seems to be functioning more smoothly and quickly and the remedies are for the most part working. Keep up the good work. - Taxman ^Talk 16:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't spent much time around here and have never been part of a case, but I would imagine that it is quite difficult. I give my support as well. -- Kjkolb 18:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The Henryuzi case sounds familiar

I spoke up when HerschelKrustofsky was being put on probation after voluntarily stating his position in an ArbCom case, when there were no findings of fact against him. I am well aware that HK was not a model Wikipedian, but many people aren't model Wikipedians and manage not to end up on ArbCom probation.

Henryuzi's situation sounds very similar to me. Of course ArbCom can make the decisions it wants, but it should realize the consequences. You're creating an atmosphere where an ordinary user - one who may have done a few things wrong in their time on Wikipedia - should fear ArbCom and should avoid participating in an RfAr at all costs. If you pay back people who provide extra context to your cases with their testimony by putting them on probation, then eventually users will get wise to this, and people who want to offer their considered opinion will avoid RfAr like the plague. So then the only testimony will come from ArbCom itself, and from people who don't care if they get punished for stating their viewpoint (generally, these would be attention-seeking trolls).

My advice: don't overextend your power, even if it does seem like "the best thing for the encyclopedia". It eventually won't be the best thing for the encyclopedia if the most effective form of dispute resolution is too frightening for anyone to use. And I urge you to accept the Henryuzi case; when there are no real checks on ArbCom, you might as well try to have the integrity to be a check on yourself.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I reccomend that you look over the case more carefully. Henryuzi was not sanctioned at all because of his support for Larvatus, even if that is what he claims or how he interprets it. Rather, Henryuzi was banned for being disruptive in the same manner as Larvatus; he was banned for his article space edits, nothing more. If you would like to make a case for why those disruptive article space edits don't warrant the limitations imposed, go ahead and I'll consider it; but this has nothing to do with "punishing someone for providing context". Dmcdevit·t 05:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please reconsider your position. As far as I know, every major factual claim in my edits of the WebEx article ([2] and [3]) has been accepted as verified and incorporated in its current version. Consider also that without my initiative in making these contributions, this information would in all likelihood have gone unnoticed by Wikipedia contributors. Besides, no findings of fact have designated my edits as "disruptive". In sum, I got banned for nothing more than performing a valuable service to this community. Henryuzi 06:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Henryuzi

Can I?

Am I allowed to discuss the present request for clarification? The amendment to the ruling did not allow for any exceptions that I can recall, but it seems insane that I would not be allowed to respond to something like this. Everyking 05:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

On a not-directly-related note, but regarding the same request for clarification - it seems itself in need of clarification, as I can't make heads or tails of it. The first part especially shows uncharacteristically poor writing. PurplePlatypus 07:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - has been a very sleep-deprived week. Will clarify it. Phil Sandifer 08:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Someguy0830 and I are in a dispute over whether or not to include the TV ratings in the USA and Canada on children's TV shows (animated and otherwise). Can we please settle this before this becomes an all-out editing war? NoseNuggets 5:53 PM US EDT Apr 8 2006.

Taking a case into voting

Is there a standard for when the Evidence section of a case is closed and the case goes into voting? Is there a way that one of the parties to the case can propose that the case be moved into voting? In particular, this question has to do with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- 2, where I see that no new evidence has been posted in four days, and the Workshop is simply being filled with exchanges of comments (of which I am also involved). However, it is also a more general question. Robert McClenon 13:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, there isn't any standard. Arbitrators just move it to voting when they feel like it. Johnleemk | Talk 14:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, typically it goes to voting when an arbitrator feels the proposals on "/Proposed decision" are sufficient to begin voting on. Though the actual moving to the voting stage isn't that importsnt, since proposals can be made afterwars, also. In the -Ril- case, while the workshop is full, the decision page hasn't been written up by any arbitrators yet. Dmcdevit·t 19:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for clarification

I believe User:Lightbringer AKA User:Basil Rathbone is at it yet again, this time as User:40 Days of Lent. Could someone please checkuser him and take the appropriate steps? Thank you. MSJapan 15:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Copied to WP:RFCU. Dmcdevit·t 08:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Er, never mind, that account has already been blocked for puppetry. Off to bed with me. Dmcdevit·t 08:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Back to basics

Let's say someone gets restricted from doing something for a long time—a year, let's say. And let's also say a few other things: this user is an admin, having officially received the community's trust, and has been for almost two years; this user has made tens of thousands of edits; this user promises not to do what the ruling ostensibly penalized him for, provided it is defined in some clear and reasonable way; this user is open to dialogue pretty much infinitely and has repeatedly expressed willingness to compromise. Would it be reasonable to think such a user might be granted an appeal after half of his sentence is done—six months, in this case?

I don't want to get into "I was right and you were wrong", or anything like that. That achieves only frustration, as we have seen, and both sides have been horribly guilty of it. Even if we are beyond ever reaching an agreement on the theoretical issues at stake, is it still possible to reach an agreement on the practical ones—that is, to develop some pragmatic arrangement that both sides find acceptable? Is it at least worth talking about that possibility? Everyking 04:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you think that the Committee is a "side". It belies a completely mis-understood take on the nature of Arbitration.

James F. (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, forget that part then. What about the rest? Everyking 21:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Very well, next bone to pick with what you said (;-)) - "some pragmatic arrangement" suggests that the Committee's outlook is something other than absolutely pragmatic. We've let almost impossible-to-work-with users continue to edit because we felt that, even if they didn't reform, their contributions, net, were still worth trying to get, worth trying to reform; conversely, though less often, we've banned users who quite possibly could "reform" simply because we didn't think that it was worth the community's time and patience hoping that such a thing would happen. We are not, have never been, and never will be a body bent on "justice", on "righting wrongs", on punishing people for transgressions; our job is to apply a little grease to the wheels that are the project, to remove broken cogs, to correct faults. It is in some ways a terribly rude thing of me to say, but the restrictions placed on you aren't in any way vindictive; it's for the good of the project, in our entirely practically-focussed and pragmatic opinion. Sorry.

James F. (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

All right. In terms of strict pragmatism, could you justify the decision to place the restrictions on me and the decision to deny me an appeal? How is one decision of more practical value than any of the possible alternatives? Explain your general line of logic to me in the context of this pragmatic outlook, and let me in turn attempt to show you how there are more pragmatic alternatives. Everyking 03:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No response, I see. I expected this. There is in fact no real argument to be made along these pragmatic lines. To successfully make this argument, you have to get into the question of whether the actions I was criticizing were generally right or wrong, and the issues associated with that. For example: Admin A blocks User B and says "sockpuppet of banned user". EK says "Wait a minute. What evidence is there? Shouldn't we consider this first, before taking action? A block on these grounds may be appropriate, but clearly there is some degree of ambiguity as to the identity of User B; we need to look at this and discuss it before any block is made." This is the kind of issue at the root of everything here. Should questionable blocks be made on the decision of a single admin without prior deliberation? Really, everything hinges on this question. Did it serve a positive purpose for me to be banned from AN for a year for arguing in favor of greater caution and deliberation? Can James F. make the argument that this was a pragmatic decision for the benefit of the project? Please. Go ahead. Read, reason, and answer. Everyking 09:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Beware of delusions of grandeur; you seem to suggest that the project will fall apart if you are not allowed to form or partake in an inquisitorial squad to investigate any and all sysop actions. Others both can, and do, perform such a function. Your services in this area are not merely not required, but required not to be given.

As to my not replying sufficiently rapidly for your liking, I've had more pressing, and more pointful, uses of my time, so I didn't check this page until just now.

James F. (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I never said anything would fall apart. I do say that my contributions in that area were helpful to some degree. If someone else does the same thing as me, won't they get the same treatment? Everyking 14:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Your vandal reversions are helpful; your WP:AN contributions were unhelpful. Fortunately there are 900 administrators, and thousands of other editors, who can challenge any questionable actions taken there. Your offers of "compromise" in this area have only ever come after sanctions, and have never actually involved offers to substantively change your negative behaviours. Instead, they've involved exactly what you're doing here; justifying your behaviour, and wikilawyering. Moreoever, you're currently violating your Arbitration Committee ruling, specifically "Everyking is prohibited from making comments on non-editorial actions taken by other administrators other than on the administrator's talk page, a Request for comment, or a Request for arbitration." You've been violating that ruling, see [4] [5] [6], and justifying your doing so "Why in the world should a comment have to go on the admin's tal page? ..." [7] Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I belive that you made many positive contributions on WP:AN, Everyking. However, your tone was often harsh, and there was a justifiable perception that you had a habit of hounding certain admins whose actions or attitude you disagreed with. The problem was not in arguing for greater caution and deliberation, but rather when you lost your temper and your ability to maintain even a bare facsimile of good faith. In this old thread I think I actually agreed with your concern and undid a block. However, making statements like "...And good Lord we've got to get Snowspinner's adminship removed somehow...." doesn't help advance a discussion.

In my experience, the benefit of your contributions in some discussions was outweighed by the inflammatory and divisive effect of your participation in others. The tone and attitude that you have adopted in trying to have your sanctions lifted had led me to conclude that it is likely you would be unable to resist making the same sort of incivil remarks if you were allowed back on WP:AN.

I would imagine that the Arbcom has pragmatically concluded that you were more hindrance than help on WP:AN, and your departure from there was a net positive. I suspect that they have pragmatically adopted the notion that your comments here in questioning their actions have been incivil (downright rude, in fact) as they were before on AN, and that it is likely such behaviour would be transferred back to AN if the restrictions were lifted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Question about presenting evidence

Hi. There is an arbitration case, the Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Jason_Gastrich case, and I am not involved with it, but I have some evidence that I think is important in that case. I do not want to get involved at all with the case, but I think the evidence suggests the possibility of a policy violation(s). I added an "Evidence provided by Ben" section and basically only said "These links might be of interest" and posted various links [8]. The evidence I think needs no additional context or explanation. Some other users told me that not providing my opinion on it was not appropriate, and I should explain why I am adding the evidence [9]. Like I said, I do not want to get involved at all and I want to limit all involvement. Should I provide an explanation? --Ben 19:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no such requirement. However, the fact that you have not provided specific instances of evidence (arbs are not going to search a whole site for evidence; they expect links, just like how they expect diffs) nor made a basic one-sentence description of what the evidence you are presenting is about. As a result, it is likely to be ignored by the arbcom. Johnleemk | Talk 19:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice John. I think I will add a little bit more info. --Ben 19:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If "Ben" feels the need to add "a little bit more info," I will probably keep an eye on that and rebut, as needed, to provide balance, information, and perspective. Regardless, I'm guessing that we can forget the commentary about not wanting to get involved "at all." - WarriorScribe 19:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that a person claiming to disdain involvement "at all" feels the need to involve himself. Regardless of that, the "evidence" that has been allegedly presented was exceptionally vague as to what it should represent, and so "Ben" was asked to clarify. He claims potential policy violations, but he's not clear what they are or why his "evidence" suggests that they have occurred. It seems to me that at the major impetus for his complaint has been answered (note, specifically, the comment, "since they followed Wikipedia policy, when they're on Wikipedia they're part of Wikipedia, not Maleboge (and btw, if they haven't actually announced their membership, it's not like they've hid it - many of them have linked to discussions on Usenet involving them)"). It also seems to me that, if someone is going to present "evidence", one should be expected to explain just what it is he feels the "evidence" specifically suggests. - WarriorScribe 19:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, if Ben is presenting more evidence, I may unstrikeout my evidence which further demonstrates Gastrich's lack of good faith. Are there strong objections to my unstriking and commenting in the workshop? JoshuaZ 19:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Not by me. - WarriorScribe 20:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Any of the evidence Benapgar is presenting that is specifically against editors he's negatively interacted with at Talk:Intelligent design, JoshuaZ for example, will need to viewed in that context. He has a clear, established pattern of attacking those who oppose his changes to the ID article, often taking the strife to user space or the project space, of which WP:RFAr is part. This pattern is detailed in his user conduct RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Benapgar FeloniousMonk 20:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry in the Rook RfA

[10] seems to strongly indicate that the claimed "outsider" is in fact a sockpuppet of Sloan. JoshuaZ 02:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Strong retraction of above.

Where did you got this idea from? All these posts are strongly against Sloan. In fact mostly they are signed with the name Louis Blair, a regular from rec.games.chess.* Rook wave 02:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I very much misinterpreted some edits. JoshuaZ 02:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistency on the "Completed Requests" page

I have noticed an inconsistency on the "Completed Requests" page: Up until June 2005, almost every case is listed with the closing date and a brief description of the verdict. From June to mid-August 2005, neither the closing date nor the verdict is listed. And then, from late September 2005 onwards, only the closing date is listed, with no verdict summaries. I believe this inconsistency of style will confuse many readers of this page. Does anyone have any ideas on a consistent pattern for this page to clean up the current inconsistency? --TML1988 03:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The closing of cases, which was essentially only practiced by me, used as you say to include a brief summary. Recently, this has stopped, mainly due to new people doing it; now we have the Clerks closing cases, so I suppose we could ask them to start putting summaries in, and possibly even get one or more overly-keen Clerks to deal with the backlog in a similar manner, too.

What do the other Committee members think?

James F. (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

A short summary would be helpful. Often the case name doesn't reflect the main party or issue. I don't think it should be a top priority to fix past cases, though. FloNight ^talk 14:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It might be helpful if the parties affected were listed also. I spend some time searching ineffectively for the right case sometimes. I do forget what the case was about too; although, short summaries are inherently misleading, however well done. Fred Bauder

Blanking of banned users' userpages

Is there a policy on blanking users' pages after they have been banned by the arbcom? EffK's userpage was blanked yesterday by an admin. I reverted the blanking as I see nothing in the arbcom decision against EffK removing his right to a userpage. Obviously he is no longer able to edit the page - he continues to use his talkpage; but immediately before his banning he used it to state his position and his belief that he was being banned unjustly. I think he has a right to do this, even if other users disagree with his statement. I have asked for other views at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts, and there is more detailed discussion on my talkpage. But I would like to ask the arbitrators as well: do you see your banning of EffK, and/or indeed any user in general, as removing his right to a userpage?Bengalski 12:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Banned users have no rights at all on Wikipedia, except the right to request a review their ban via off-wiki channels. Their user pages and talk pages may be blanked, deleted, or protected as is necessary to avoid disruption. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the "banned" have no rights. But what about the rest of us, the un-banned? I for one, feel that all wikpedians ought to be allowed to read whatever is posted, unless, if, on its face, it's simply so horrid that it must be deleted. When you delete a banned user's talk or personal page, you are harming the community and depriving others of the opporunity to stay fully informed. It's sort of like how the oldest Kennedy sister was shunted away after her lobotomy - never to be heard from again. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Banned users' personal pages can make great object lessons on how to spot the thinking of vandals and trolls. I urge you to reconsider. Merecat 22:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

And if there's no disruption? It just seems to me blanking is completely unnecessary. If his statement does no harm to the encyclopedia or anyone else, why take it away from him? Bengalski 18:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It's traditional to replace a banned user's userpage with a notice. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Arbitration Committee has any particular policy about blanking a banned users user and talk page. Sometimes they do things there that are disruptive but that is an exception. I see no problem with them making statements about their situation or regarding the arbitration case. However, it is possible that a practice has grown up among administrators. I don't think I would vote to accept an arbitration case from a banned user whose page had been blanked and protected. I just know I would not do it unless they were being disruptive in some way. I think free communication regarding our decisions is more important than driving that last nail in their coffin. Fred Bauder 18:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It's probably worth archiving off the Talk page, to provide a fresh start when they return and to remove the inevitable acrimonious exchanges that have gone before - I did that with User Talk:Jason Gastrich. Just my $0.02. Just zis Guy you know? 18:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Page size

This page (the main page) is now over 140KiB, I would propose to subpageize all requests. _→AzaToth 19:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

We transfer cases to subpages when we accept them. If the page is too large, (a) we need to accept or reject them, and (b) maybe people need to stop bringing cases. :-)

James F. (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Having everything in one page is good because it makes it easier for people to learn of new cases via the watchlist. I don't see any compelling need to subpage it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, it'll go down in a week or so; these are just normal fluctuations. Dmcdevit·t 05:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Question re. -Ril-

Given that the Arbitration Committee's has basically found that -Ril- is CheeseDreams, is there a problem with me blocking him before the case finishes? I'd like to do get clarification from the ArbCom on this before I do so. Ral315 (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Only if he is causing serious trouble. Fred Bauder 05:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Other Benapgar RfA

Shouldn't the other Benapgar RfA be removed also per his being hard banned? JoshuaZ 06:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

500 word limit enforcement

How dare the Arbitration Committee unilaterally top-down antidemocratically fascistically attempt to remove the right to arbitration from the incoherent and insane. RFC Tony now! And Kelly too, just in case!! (not.) - David Gerard 13:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment, but I fear that you might prompt some WP:BEANS from the humour-challenged. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Reques for enforcement: Lightbringer sock/meat puppet

Fyodor_Dos (talk · contribs) seems to have the same edit patterns as Lightbringer, and has also been trying to force incorrect or unsourced information into occult and Freemasonry. He is heading for his third 3RR block in as many days. MSJapan 06:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The 2nd 3rr was was caused by two of the edits being corrections of page loading problems, which I noted, and were corrected. They were not reverts. The first wasn't 3rr either, the admin didn't investigate my edits enough, if he had he would have seen that they were for different sections on the same page. But once you are hit with this you can't defend yourself and then you get tagged with a 3rr label. I am trying to be very careful about 3rr, but it is extremely difficult when there is a group of editors working together to rv all my edits, and making multiple allegations on every Wiki complaint page, such as is occuring. This group doesn't like my edits to the pages they feel they 'own', as they have done to others previously. It really is a cabal of sorts at work here.

This is an abusive and completly unjustified complaint. I have made no allegations or referereces of or to "satanism". I simply noted that on both the esoteric page and the occult page there are references to the two words having the same meaning. This same editor has no dispute with the existing statement that Freemasonry is an esoteric society. I deny completely the allegations of being a sock of a banned user. I note this user made a request for a check user yesterday on me but appears to have removed it - along with my response which pointed out this users unreferenced, undiscussed, and unsummarized deletion of a sentence on occult page - which stated that the word esoteric was the Greek word for occult.(The esoteric page contains more information on these words meaning and links.) As with my response on the check user yesterday - that disappeared, I ask that this users abuse of the Wikipedia be noted, especially his frequent habit of accusing others of being 'socks' as well as his continual check user requests and filing of unreferenced complaints of other editors he has an editorial disagreement with. This is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to function. This user has also made some statements that border on uncivil or even abusive conduct towards me such as "Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Go somewhere else.", "End of story." " especially when you don't have anything to back it up." "an attempt to mold the article to preexisting ideas", "I don't believe in coincidences" etc. yesterday on the Freemasonry Talk page.Fyodor Dos 07:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

MSJapan has a current 3rr complaint against him. here. He also made a checkuser request against me two days ago that was denied. He has engaged in repeated uncivil behaviour and comments against me and has an additional false complaint against me on Vandalism page here. He is abusing Wikipedia and making vexacious complaints.Fyodor Dos 06:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I've blocked FD as a lightbringer sock. Let me know if thats a problem... William M. Connolley 14:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

In the course of a checkuser investigation of other Lightbringer socks, I determined that Fyodor Dos is indeed a Lightbringer sock. I've tagged the account as a sockpuppet confirmed via checkuser. I will be more than happy to make the results of my check available to the AC upon request. (I've started a list of Lightbringer socks/IPs that I've uncovered and/or blocked at User:Essjay/Checkuser/Cases/Lightbringer as well.) Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 17:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the procedure here

Someone with a history of vandalsiing my user page has now brought me here withpout an Rfc or aqnything in what looks to me to be pure trolloing. What is the oprocedurte exactly, and how is it that someone with a history of harrassing me can use this page to harrass me further? I am at the end of my tether. This person won't led me edit, has made endless false accusations, is calling me mad on this page, and has vandalised my user page on repeated occasions, mostly using sockpuppets but also here. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Monicasdude case

Am I allowed to comment on the case on Monicasdude? If so, how do I go about it? Despite being a Wikipedian for over a year, I'm still completely new to this Requests for arbitration thingy. JIP | Talk 15:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Just add your statement like the others. You can make the header "Statement by uninvolved party JIP," or involved, or whatever you are. Dmcdevit·t 17:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Why has it become acceptable in this case for other users to alter and annotate my statements, despite what I would think are clear directions to the contrary? Monicasdude 03:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the actual case is that you are altering and annotating other people's statements? Might that have something to do with it? --Calton | Talk 06:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No, since you have simply fabricated that claim. Monicasdude 13:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, more stuff you make up, then. Free clue: the case is against you, personally, so you don't get to alter the case and charges against yourself. --Calton | Talk 23:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It is getting rather messy, I agree. All parties need to go for some WP:TEA. Anyway, the case opens this evening, I trust we can down swords until then? Stifle (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

General questions

How is it decided when an arbitration case is opened? When enough arbitrators accept it? Is there a time limit for acceptance? When a case is opened, does it get its own subpage right away? Where are the links to these case subpages? All I have seen is links to further subpages of them. To get to the actual case pages I have to visit those and then follow the "back" link provided in the navigation bar. JIP | Talk 17:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If 4 arbitrators vote to accept, it is accepted regardless of how many reject or recuse votes. When we are tired of looking at it and no more votes are forthcoming it is removed. The clerks now open the cases and set up the subpages. Yes, the initial links are to /Evidence and to /Workshop and you have to go back up to get to the actual request. Fred Bauder 18:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like the committee to loook at the editing behaviour of User:Acuman

moved from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee James F. (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

His behaviour is very biased and counter-productive. Him and a small group are casuing disruption. When I told them in the past that their editing was not based on the truth but an invinted fiction guided by politics they replied the truth does not matter. I have been warned on my conduct and I admitte that I can be more sensinsitive but I do not attack people. I just want justice and factual articles. 69.196.139.250 17:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Academic Challenger

moved from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee James F. (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Can the committee please take a look at the actions of this user with regards to User talk:AssBurgler? I feel the speed at which this admin jumped to blocking was far too fast. The vandal apparently created an article and was banned for it without receiving a welcome message or anything less than something resembling a test4 or bv. I'd like to know the context of the deleted article to see if there is possibly some sort of specific problem that Academic Challenger had with the vandal. I also think there is a certain amount of incivility in these edits that needs to be addressed. Thanks, and I hope somebody looks at this seriously. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My response is on JHMM's talk page. Academic Challenger 07:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I am now completely satisfied. I will remove my complaint from ArbCom as you have adequately shown me the reasoning behind these actions. I only went there because it appeared you were not answering my request, and perhaps I was a bit hasty. I will leave this subsection up on this talk page so it can be archived accordingly. Thank you again, and I hope to see you around! JHMM13 (T | C) 07:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Paris public transporation Infobox

moved from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee James F. (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm warning you on this but there's a need for an arbitration about Paris public transports infobox and specifically Template:Infobox_Paris_Network_main_content. This page is dedicated to Paris public transportation services, but despite this the user Captain scarlet was constantly adding national rails infrastructures. His argument is that Paris suburban trains are running on those infrastructures and as such they should also be mentionned. However, this leads to three problems :

• Those infrastructures aren't dedicated to Paris public transportation as national rails are also using them.
• The infobox is dedicated to transportations services (metro, bus, etc...), not to the infrastructures used by those services.
• Adding infrastructures in the infobox makes it totally unclear to the readers as suburban trains appear twice : once as a service and once as an infrastructure.

Because I am still open to Captain scarlet, I've added internal links to each infrastructures on each service pages. However, he finally decided to create a new template known as Template:Infobox Paris Network main content real, which replaces the former one on the Paris public transports pages. As an example, you could see how messy is now Paris suburban rail article. Metropolitan 21:25 24 March 2006 (CET)

The argument is not trains are running on those infrastructures but what services exist. The services of Paris' railway are sold under the one branding Transilien, this can be found at stations, on SNCF and Transilien's websites. I am as stated on various pages open to discussion which is why I have not deleted other content but let both live along together. I have been faced with vandalism and arbitrary decisons which go against what exists. The current infobox is indeed inappropriate and requires all 6 Transilien links to be deleted from the infobox. This topic is a popular topic and should have an agreed layout suitable with how things are run. This discussion originally started between myself and Bz2 and it was then agreed that the current layout is not accurate nor correct.

I may also bring to your attention that the was until one week ago no information concerning Transilien Saint Lazare and this argument has arisen after I took it upon myself to fill this void using verifyable sources. Captain Scarlet 20:37 24 March 2006 (GMT)

Recused arbitrators contributing to workshop

Is it ok that recused arbitrators contribute to the workshop of a case? --Ligulem 18:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, although they should avoid using the "Arbitrator comments" section (e.g. comment as a party or as an "other") and/or note that they are recused on the case. Mistakes happen; do not attempt to use an Arbitrator who accidentially commented in the "Arbitrator" space on a case from which s/he is recused as a reason to get a case against you thrown out, as that won't work. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

AC Elections December '06

Hey. Just throwing this out there:

Last year we started thinking about the elections in October, and we ended up with was a huge mess in December. An open voting system, postponement until January, candidates dropping out mid-race. So, I think we should start thinking about what we'll do now (not even full-blast, maybe just slight suggestions) so that we don't have the disendorsements disaster of 2004 or the open voting mess of 2005/06. What does everyone else think? — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Already started some time ago;Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Elections/December 2006.Geni 02:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm looks like I missed that. — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Timetable for arb com action?

The RfA on the user Terryeo was accepted on April 3. I've never been involved in one of these before, and I'm curious when active discussion by the arbitrators is likely to begin, and roughly when a decision can be expected. I hope it isn't a breach of protocol to be asking. The user's behavior has not moderated (indeed, he is currently subject to a 24 hour block from an admin due to his disruptive actions yesterday), and it is my belief that his continued agressive policy violations and "wikilawyering" are draining the good will of the Wikipedia community in the areas in which he edits. BTfromLA 21:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You can typically reckon on an arbitration case taking two months or so from start to finish. Some are much shorter, some are longer. In the meantime if a user's activities, say on Scientology-related articles, shows a pattern of disruption, you could propose a temporary injunction in the appropriate place on the Workshop page. --Tony Sidaway 05:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Fred Bauder 14:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The arbitrators usually discuss cases privately through email, not on the wiki. The most you'll typically see is some brief comments from them during the workshop and voting phases. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for this info. BTfromLA 14:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

He's back, evidently.

I believe that everyone here remembers User:Jason_Gastrich, right? Well, the bad news is that he just might be back. While I cannot immediately discern the validity of this assertion, the user User:MiddletonPriorsShropshire has claimed in his edits to the Louisiana Baptist University article that he is, in fact, Jason Gastrich. His edit essentially consisted of an unexplained deletion/blanking, so I'm not sure. I believe we should look into this matter further.

Mister Mister 17:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Or we could just indefinitely block him. In fact, Curps already did. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Well then, that problem is solved.

Sorry if I didn't do something right, I'm semi-new to editing and such.

Mister Mister 20:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Question

Arbitration is described as "the last step in the dispute resolution process", but I see that the arbitration archives contain no content dispute cases; rather, they contain only "criminal trials", resulting in users being banned from editing on account of their inappropriate conduct. I was considering going through the entire dispute resolution process to end a certain content dispute, because I'm pretty sure the parties will never reach a consensus unless a binding decision is imposed. I would like to know if this is actually possible. --85.187.44.131 19:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom traditionally rejects content disputes, but accepts issues where editors need a binding resolution to interpersonal conflicts. I would suggest making the request for arbitration - after all, the worst they can do is reject. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Case opening templates

I've created the following templates for opening new arbitration cases (based in part on Tony Sidaway's work) that I'd like the arbitrators to consider using:

• Template:ArbComOpenCase (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — Main case page
• Template:ArbComOpenCase/Evidence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — /Evidence page
• Template:ArbComOpenCase/Workshop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — /Workshop page
• Template:ArbComOpenCase/Proposed decision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) — /Proposed decision page

All of these accept the case name as the first parameter, and all of them must be substd. The Proposed decision template has the added ability of automatically calculating the majority (if you provide some additional, optional, parameters). If the arbitrators do use these, I strongly urge redirecting/deleting the old templates to avoid confusion when updates need to be made.

Questions/suggestions welcome. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 22:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

IIRC Fred Bauder edited the clerks' procedural page to discourage the usage of such templates. I also think usage of the templates messes up the timestamping in HTML comments for temp injunctions and the like. Johnleemk | Talk 04:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you mean this edit right? Do you happen to know what it was that he had to fix by hand? And ewh, I just noticed the HTML comment thing.. I'll see if I can find a workaround. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 06:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have had to add extra templates in each section. The method was producing only one template per section. Fred Bauder 07:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fred; yeah, it looks like Tony Sidaway's template literally omitted them. The template I created has the extra templates intact. I'm still working on the HTML comment issue Johnleemk mentioned above, but if that's not a show stopper for the arbitrators I think the templates should be ready to use now. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 08:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Something a clerk writes != Clerk writings

• Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Tasks
• Reversion of subsection

I'd changed what is clearly a personal opinion under the heading "Clerk notes" to reflect that it was a statement without official credence. It's not a summary of anything other parties have said, and clerks aren't Junior ArbCom. Statements like Tony Sidaway's here are only one step short of "Reject - Not an arbcom concern" and are exactly why there was such strenous objection to the creation of the office.

The Clerks page says "The Clerks assist the Arbitration Committee by reviewing and summarizing evidence submitted on evidence pages; helping write the decisions; and opening and closing cases which have the required number of votes." The section created by Tony Sidaway is not any of these things, and thus is by definition not a clerk's action.
brenneman^{L} 03:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the principle that we should separate editors from their hats is a good one. I'm sure Tony meant well, but agree that this should have been put under his name rather than the Clerk's office. Probably it was just force of habit. Nandesuka 04:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My notes on this case as a clerk are on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and pertain solely to the applicability of the request in the context of the dispute resolution framework. My notes on this as an editor are on WP:AN/I and give my personal opinion on the proposed mentorship. Note the marked difference in nature and tone. Do not interfere with clerk notes. --Tony Sidaway 06:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge Wikipedia:Blocking Policy has not yet been amended to allow blocking for "interfering" with clerk notes. - brenneman^{L} 06:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

All things being equal, it probably isn't a good idea to engage in edit warring on the arbcom-related pages. --Tony Sidaway 06:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless I've developed some new onanistic wrinkle on a military term, it's impossible to have an "edit war" by myself. Thus you've blocked, without warning, someone whom you considered yourself to be in a content dispute with.
brenneman^{L} 23:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ani thread

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request for review of "clerk" actions

I've started an area for discussion here. - brenneman^{L} 07:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Threaded discussion moved from 'Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others re Biological psychiatry'

I moved this threaded discussion here. If you want your point to appear on the main application, please make it as a brief non-discursive statement, and provide whatever evidence you can.

This behaviour spans multiple articles, such as anti-psychiatry, anti-vaccinationist, psychiatry and numerous others. In fact, an RFC against Ombudsman dealing specifically with external links has already taken place (here). JFW | T@lk 21:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That RFC doesn't appear to be related to this dispute, though. I'd recommend taking it there first. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

If the primary concern at issue here pertains to safeguarding the Wiki's credibility, then adherence to npov policies should take precedence over the disruptive hounding, badgering and character assassination mindset that has plagued the Wiki's medical articles. A number of medical journals have witnessed their credibility plummet in the wake of revelations about their reckless publication of fraudulent clinical trial research studies, which have rightly been described, in many instances, as little more than marketing propaganda.

Too often, thanks to certain of the Wiki's more relentless editors, the opinions of mainstream medical authorities are presented as incontrovertible facts, while hard evidence to the contrary is marginalized or simply deleted wholesale. One of the Wiki's ongoing, unmitigated problems revolves around the fact that certain editors tend to gang up to ensure the Wiki is basically immune to the questioning of mainstream medical industry dogma. The first priority of medicine, in stark contrast to the dubious premises underlying the propagandistic mass marketing of neuroleptic drugs and vaccines, is to avoid perpetrating harm upon the patient.

Vaccines and neuroleptics, in many if not most instances, are marketed on the basis of protecting the community, and the profit driven marketing of such programs rarely bothers to weigh the costs and benefits to individual patients. Such marketing falls well short anything approaching a rational discourse that would assure informed consent, presenting a huge void that the Wiki could and certainly should help fill. While it is widely and justifiably accepted that the polio vaccine helped eradicate a serious threat to public health, a few instances of real benefits accrued via herd immunity hardly justifies the mind bendingly vast expansion of vaccine schedules in recent decades. Single minded profiteering and propagandistic marketing of vaccines, courtesy of big pharma, has resulted an autism epidemic and millions of additional vaccine injury cases. The doublespeak of big pharma endorsed 'destigmatization' campaigns, designed to reduce social resistance to psychotropic interventions, provides further evidence of the manipulative marketing of neurotoxins.

The lobbying, corruption and dangerous deceptions, orchestrated by big pharma to promote the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, provides another egregious example of the abuse of power that now defines an undeniably greedy industry engorged with a trillion dollar annual cash flow. When asked point blank, at recent legislative hearings, whether or not ADHD is actually a disease (or not, as the evidence overwhelmingly indicates), big pharma apologists could not come up with any response at all.

In effect, the licit drug cartels willfully vilify enormous swaths of the population as sufferers of mental illness, often portraying their victims as prone to violence, in order to expand their markets for palliative neurotoxins. Such disingenuous marketing ploys, which are leveraged by the rigidly hierarchical medical community, are aided by a code of silence in the mainstream media, where reporting on certain medical controversies can equate with career suicide (as intimated in a recent report in the Columbia Journalism Review[11] - thanks to Jfd for the link). These facts indicate that medical authorities have completely lost sight of what many still consider the first priority of medicine, not harming the patient. In order to safeguard the credibility of the Wiki's medical articles, it would seem, reflecting knowledge relevant to the protection of the well being of patients (and informed consent for that matter) is just as important as espousing the purported benefits of mass vaccination campaigns and mass mental health screening programs. Ombudsman 18:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

While the normal dispute resolution path is RfC, mediation, then arbitration, Ombudsman did not respond to requests for mediation. At that point, I don't know what other option exists besides arbitration. As Jfdwolff said, he's repeatedly and disruptively POV-tagged other articles. This has been a continuing problem for some time. However if you inhibit solely the POV-tagging aspect, he can just continue by constantly reverting content, merely omitting the tag. I understand your guidelines, but if anybody with extreme viewpoints can roam about Wikipedia under the protection of "mere content dispute", stuffing those viewpoints into as many articles as possible, that damages Wikipedia's credibility as an unbiased reference. A determined individual can do a lot of damage that way. Eventually he finds articles where editors aren't watchful or get tired of fighting him and leave. Content then essentially becomes a web-based soapbox masquerading as an article. You could argue there are other mechanisms to stop that, but they haven't worked or we wouldn't be here. Joema 13:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I requested mediation with Ombudsman, specifically with respect to his repeated incivility and reluctance to openly discuss contentious edits[12]. JFW | T@lk 21:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

To be sure, the request was removed without further comment[13]. JFW | T@lk 21:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, because your 'requests' appeared to be deliberately annoying at best, and exceedingly relentless at the very least. Some editors appear to spend far more time agitating animosity than even bothering with the pretense of collaboration. Jfd's behavior has not been so overtly bothersome recently, but the rabblerousing hasn't abated with Midgley taking over much of the duty. There is a certain amount of speculation that perhaps one or both of these editors are actually being paid by corporate or other special interests to be disruptive, though the form that such influence might take in manifesting itself within the Wiki is not yet clear, regardless of the behavior of these two. The sheer number of antagonizing edits and edit summaries by these two editors alone has been staggering, though Jfd was almost at the point where it was time to express appreciation for toning down the rhetoric. It would be appreciated if these editors and their allies would try a little harder to concentrate more on actually building the encyclopedia, rather than on engaging in what equates with the hazing that goes on in medical schools. Ombudsman 21:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems a bit of a stretch to imply that JFW or Midgley are receiving money from special interest groups! Applying similar logic, perhaps the same could be said of edits from the opposing side, knowing the close connection (and obvious financial interest) between trial lawyers and "vaccination-causes-autism" activist interests! Andrew73 21:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ombudsman does not point to an instance of that "certain amount of speculation" and should be asked to, or else retract that suggestion. Given that he says the form it might take is not yet clear, is one to assume he means he is suggesting something that has actually had no expression in WP? I suspect he cannot. If he could, it is unfounded specualtion and is inaccurate as far as I am concerned. "Hazing" is an Americanism I think, we don't have it as far as I know in UK medical schools. Midgley 23:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the kind of "hazing" that Ombudsman is referring to...certainly he is not talking about the Animal House variety. Andrew73 23:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I am very disappointed at Ombudsman's failure to assume good faith by suggesting that I (or any editor) am paid to edit. Whatever his feelings, I regard his rhetoric against medical editors of minimally the same severity as that ever has been leveled against himself. All this talk of conspiracy, hazing or whatever actually distracts from the issues, and this has been happening for months.

A request for mediation is a request for mediation. Its removal without comment was an act of bad faith.

As for lecturing about building an encyclopedia, I am sure that most of my edits fall into that category (a look at the list on my userpage will suffice). But an encyclopedia should not be used to relentlessly push views that are fringe, unproved (and unprovable), of limited notability or simply wrong.

For all intents and purposes there has been almost non-stop trouble, frequently involving Ombudsman, for the last few months. RFC and RFM have not had the desired results. I think time is ripe for arbitration. JFW | T@lk 14:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I wish to also draw attention to Ombudsman's frequent incivil and unnecessarily charged edit summaries. I quote "rv: the objective is to build a comprehensive encyclopedia, not to obscure knowledge that is inconvenient to Big Pharma, corporate special interests and their ilk"[14] and "it is the credibility of medical authorities that is, at best, questionable, and increasingly so due to the influence of big pharma"[15] (in this RFAr nota bene). References to "big pharma", "conflict of interest", "mainstream medical dogma", "pseudoscience & expert worship"[16] and more are aimed at a large group of editors and are actually highly insulting for professionals who aim to rely on scientific judgement rather than the occasional sales pitch from drug company representatives. Again, this is rooted in assumption of bad faith and non-constructive. JFW | T@lk 15:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Jfd's unfortunate tendency to identify with the medical establishment is so strong that, seemingly every time the establishment is mentioned, the depiction is described by Jfd as a personal attack. Perhaps there is something about the Queen's English that infers, to Jfd, a certain plurality of first person pronouns. Again, the sheer number of rhetorical gambits proffered by Jfd has been staggering. Jfd has expressed great annoyance whenever such, uh, fishing expeditions haven't elicited response(s). When the unrelenting rabble reaches a crescendo and a restrained response designed to pierce the intellectual barriers is offered, Jfd seems anxious to jump all over it as if it were red meat, perhaps overly eager to find a morsel that might easily be misconstrued for Wikipoliticking. This behavior pattern has changed little since the time Jfd removed a series of Whale.to links with scathing edit summaries questioning the sanity of the site's webmaster. While Jfd appears to have been a prolific contributor to the Wiki, and that is to be commended, the crux of the matter boils down to a simple question about deletionist tactics, including entire article deletions: In Jfd's ongoing efforts, apparently to ensure deletion of invaluable content and links essential to assuring npov articles, should Jfd be allowed to continue distracting so much attention from building an encyclopedia through methods such as hijacking certain Wikiprocesses (which are often used in a manner akin to public stocks), portraying sources in such unflattering terms, or by filibustering article discussions? Ombudsman 17:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's very simple, Ombudsman. (1) I make an edit, (2) you revert, attacking an anonymous "medical establishment" in your edit summary. You know I'm a doctor, because that's what I've put on my userpage. It takes minimal thinking to understand that these attacks are obviously aimed at me. I do indeed identify with the "medical establishment", if you read for that "a medical profession that aims to use scientific knowledge to improve health". I'd have thought that after I'd asked you a few times to stop, you'd actually cease taking pot shots at some ill-defined "medical establishment". It doesn't resolve edit disputes and just poisons the well.

And I regard your suggestions above that I am paid by the pharmaceutical industry as a personal attack and was rather hoping you'd apologise for that. It's a rather poor show if you use this request for arbitration (against you, I note) as a further platform for the villification of other editors. JFW | T@lk 20:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There was no attempt to vilify contributing Wiki editors; like many of Jfd's relentless assertions, the above appears to lack any pretense of assumed good faith. The simple point was to share information from complaints received, some specifically mentioning Jfd and Midgley as examples of Wiki editors who seemingly reflect corporate influences upon the Wiki. The clause regarding what form corporate influence might take was meant to indicate an expression of doubt. Far less subtle mechanisms for corporations to wield influence may be in the offing, such as the legislation being drafted (or perhaps has already introduced), that would give corporate gatekeepers ample control over access to information on the internet. Editors who make no bones about their obvious conflict of interest issues are relatively inconsequential in the grand scheme of corporate hegemony over institutional knowledge. However, the politics of personal destruction betwixt and between mere carbon based life forms are mere toys compared to the frightful arsenal at the disposal of pharmaceutical behemoths. Jfd often redefines, as personal attacks, any comments relating to such inanimate entities. So be it. But if the mere mention of remuneration from corporate special interests can be redefined that way, then consider big pharma's enormous impact, stemming from trillion dollar plus annual cash flow, upon media pov and upon the very nature of modern scientific research. Under the circumstances, npov guidelines assuring incorporation of significant contrarian povs is invaluable, especially with regard to enhancing the public's right to informed consent, and is vitally important to the credibility and ethos of the Wiki. Such influences must be discussed in an open and honest manner, because they have turned the business of science upside down, eliminating much at the pure research end of the spectrum, while leveraging most practical scientific research funding for strictly marketing purposes. If Jfd doesn't want to read about it, then perhaps a little less marching to the beat of big pharma is in order. It wouldn't hurt, and it would greatly be appreciated, if Jfd's ways would lighten up a bit on the politicking while concentrating more on being resonable about npoving content and being more tolerant of content critical of big pharma and the medical establishment. Above, Jfd attempts to soften the notion of deletions by describing them merely as 'edits'. Similarly, Jfd has rushed into procedural snarls with abandon, then decried the procedings as a platform for vilification. Jfd wants it both ways; there is more than one logical fallacy at work on that matter alone. Jfd's deletionism first popped up on the radar[17] with an edit summary that was not quite polite. Months later, Jfd really got things off on the wrong foot by repeatedly and abrasively qustioning the sanity of the Whale.to webmaster[18] [19] [20] last Halloween. After the third such unwelcome commentary on November 2nd, the day after All Souls Day, a restrained response was gently provided[21]. 25 minutes later[22] a conduct RfC was filed by Jfd, who later admitted it should have been a content RfC regarding Whale.to links. Interestingly, the very uncertain science surrounding Shaken Baby Syndrome have again made headlines this week.[23] That sort of uncertainty about medical science can and should be reflected in the Wiki's medical articles, and when orthodox medical views are presented without a critical perspective, Jfd and his allies should try to work out their differences in a collegial manner before removing pov tags, rather than rushing into processes while crying foul every step of the way. It would be much appreciated if Jfd, et al, would stick to the policy of assuming that efforts to keep articles npov are being made in good faith. Ombudsman 04:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think its clear, in an attempt to bring this section back to its point, that this is not a simple content dispute. Ombudsman has (very helpfully) noted here that his agenda is to counter the medical establishment's position (for that read ' the opinion of the mainstream scientific community') on matters of great interest to him. It is this position - one that is alleged to be against the spirit, if not the letter, of NPOV editing policy - that a number of other editors wish ArbCom to comment on, not any specific disagreement about content. I'm not sure continuing the debate above will achieve much, perhaps having made our own statements, we would all be better to wait for ArbCom's decision before further comment. Rockpocket 21:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ombudsman has made what may seem to him to be an apology or backtracking with regard to J Woolf, but it is barely possible to perceive that he has altered his assertion that I have been paid to corrupt Wikipedia. I have not. He specifically asserts above "..complaints received, some specifically mentioning Jfd and Midgley" that he has received more than one complaint about both or each of us. Despite his user name there is no particualr reason why remarks made to him should be regarded as complaints rather than gossip, but in any case it would be reasonable for him to be asked to show these to either all of us or a member of ArbCom. He appears to admit above that the suggestion either or both of us had been paid is made up entirely by him, and without either evidence or external suggestion. His withdrawal of it above seems to me to be insufficiently definite, particularly when taken with the tirade around it and assorted other attacks. As to uncertainty about medicine and science, Dr Woolf and I both handle this a dozen times a day, and Ombudsman's efforts are generally POV, commonly disruptive, poorly cited, poorly sourced and unencyclopaedic. Midgley 21:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Subtle and confusing apology accepted. Apparently the hatred of pharmaceutical companies (just look at the invective) goes so deep that it makes one make strange accusations at bona fide editors.

As for polypharmacy, I expanded that article significantly[24], and added references. That is not deletionism. The external links I removed were the ones that in my assertion did not give the topic a fair treatment, which is a matter of editorial judgement and not of deletionism in itself.

As for the deletion of the Whale.to links, I have never directly called John insane. But I have referred to the collection of material on his website as such. If Ombudsman is allowed to call pharmaceutical companies "behemoths", then I am allowed to refer to the content of whale.to as "loonie", "outrageous", "bizarre", "ridiculous", "nutty", "off-topic" and all more. JFW | T@lk 22:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

A recurring trope among a small group of editors is that " the vaccine critics (note that it is never bracketted) article was hijacked and replaced with an extraordinarily pov article". It isn't true, but despite that being pointed out on various occasions, it is still repeated (most often by User:Whaleto who wrote the article, and against me - I was not involved in the slightest. The article pointed _at_ as replacing it has a different title, and as declared by that group a different subject, was originated by a different initial author, after a distinct gap when neither article existed, and is long. The former was a short list of people. The latter survived an AfD[25], the former did not (AfD:vaccine critics). There is in fact now an article vaccine critic which followed many suggestions that if someone thought there ought to be they should write one. It is an attempt at definition rather than a list of people who are asserted to be penumbral to the anti-vaccinationists.

I think this is relevant, apart from being untrue and a nuisance, as I submit that a contributor persistently repeating throughout the WP - even on talk pages - what has been demonstrated to be false is not compatible with writing encyclopaedic articles. Midgley 07:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and welcomes: "a very pov interpretation of npov guidelines" says Ombudsman overleaf. Ombudsman is in the habit of posting greetings to new or newly identifiable wiki users, including the suggestion that they have a "unique perspsective on neutrality". This seems on the one hand a very pov interpretation of npov, and on the other liable to confuse new users or subvert the intention of the standard welcome message. An edit to Wikipedia:Standard user greeting I made[26] was improved, generalised, and had the Karmafist judgement added to it as a reference[27], it remains there and could be taken to be in accordance with the concensus[]. User:Ombudsman's attention has been drawn to it[28] thus giving him the opportunity to argue that policy is different. Since then Ombudsman has continued to advocate or proselytise as before[29],[30],[31] unchanged. Midgley 22:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Case for Arbitration against Wikipedia policy

Sceptre's current triad against myself violates Wikipedia:Resolving disputes policies.. it states that Arbitration is the last course of action... his current problem seems to be that I've reported suspected sockpuppets (something which numerous users other than myself have suspected recently too) [32]

I was not even approached to discuss any issues beforehand, no effort was made on Sceptre's part to do so (any old issues were rejected and resolved over a month ago) it was just brought directly to ArbCon with no attempt to take it down any other avenues first neither any form of Meditation or discussion was attempted (which official policy states must be done before coming here as a last resort) or even discussing with me why he thinks reporting sock puppets is a violation of anything (which it isn't of course), thus making the case nul and void, acording to the official Wikipedia policies - Deathrocker 20:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

If you took the time to read ANI, you should've read that I consulted a few people on IRC before doing so Will (^E_@) T 21:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

And how does that alter the fact that the case is still a violation of official Wikipedia dispute policies? The fact stands that no effort was made to discuss your issue with myself or Meditate, which it states must be done before any case comes to ArbCom... as an admin you should know these kind of things and be following them. - Deathrocker 21:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It also states that in case of more complex problems, or where the mediation process has been tried before and has not worked out (We tried discussing it with you and putting out a RFC, both of which you shunned), that an RFA can then be authored, bypassing the normal mediation process. If your going to try to Wikilawyer, please read the policy pages in more detail. Ley Shade 03:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm no, try again. That was from a case that was REJECTED by ArbCom over a month ago. (Something you don't seem to comprehend).. Those issues have already passed, as I have served ban time (and the fact that I was working with you only yesterday on an article we were disputing back then goes further to prove it), I haven't broke any further 3RR restrictions which that case was centered around, this was around the time that the RfC was passed up on (I seem to remember you didnd't comment on it either), because those issues were rejected here, and I was serving ban time already... also try to assume good faith there is nothing "innapropriate" about me arguing this case based on clearly mark out Wikipedia policy's...

This is a new issue, (read what Sceptre wrote on the ArbCom page) to do with me reporting suspected socks, which Sceptre claims was "uncivil".. no attempt was made on his part to discuss that with me and no attempt was made at meditation... which is in violation of Wikipedia policy as per ;Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. - Deathrocker 04:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No, but he could of outright blocked you for being Uncivil which DOES violate a Wikipedia policy. Actually, i think it violates two. Considering your on a basis for a permenant ban, your 'skating thin ice' the same way as i am.

Also with you trying to Wikilawyer this case, your doing nothing to support your own claims. I will offer you advice as a fellow Wikipedian, even though i have no personal taste for you: Sit this case out, dont break policys, and dont Wikilawyer. Ley Shade 04:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Considering your on a basis for a permenant ban", that is a total lie on your part and you know so... I have never been "considered for permenant ban", but I see what you're doing. Again claiming I'm "Wikilawyering"... assume good faith, the points I brought up are entirely apropriate.

Masking as good faith "offering advice" while littering your post with subtle little stabs, doesn't really cut the crust with me. Though atleast you admit the proper actions were not followed, which in turn shows that the case is still in violation of Wikipedia policy as per ;Wikipedia:Resolving disputes

If anybody "personally attacked" anybody on the Incidents board, it was you attacking me, claiming ridiculous things that had nothing at all to do with what I was reporting (a suspected sock), the message you left was "uncivil" and if it wasn't your good buddy Sceptre who replied to it, I would suspect you would have been told not to be "uncivil" too. - Deathrocker 05:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

First off, Sceptre has already said both on the ANI board and in his ArmCom statement that you were eligable for a permenant ban, thus i am repeating what Sceptre has said.

The proper actions were also followed. You refused to partake in discussion and refused to partake in RFC. After experience of you refusing before, the Policy explicittly states that both can be bypassed and RFA can be explicittly made.

Thirdly, if you thought i was being uncivil, then i apologise, as that wasnt my intention. However i would like you to provide a diff, quote what part was uncivil and ive reason as to how it was uncivil, so i dont repeat my mistake again. Ley Shade 07:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Recommended reading

The list of links on top of the page includes a bunch of pages owned by arbcom (as I was told that this project page is), and a single page in an editor's personal space. I have no doubts that the link is useful and I'm told that it's valued by some ArbCom members. However, I believe that including a personal essay in a list of official arbcom links is inappropriate, and may create the wrong impression that ArbCom favors particular users. Since many editors feel that it's inappropriate to edit other users' pages, especially if it's an essay and you disagree on a point, that is not a true community page; neither is it controlled by the ArbCom. Therefore, I propose that the page be moved to Wikipedia: namespace, under either community or ArbCom control. Failing that, the link to the personal essay should be moved to a more appropriate place. Zocky | picture popups 03:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that the page is also not under anyone's actual userspace, as that is no longer my account. Also that, upon writing it, I invited arbitrators to edit the page so as to get it accurate, and they did so. Phil Sandifer 03:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have no reason to suspect that there's anything wrong with the page's content or the way it's written. But this is a question of appearances, not of substance. Zocky | picture popups 03:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)