Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

cs interwiki request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove cs interwiki cs:Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor from the header for WP:RFARB subpage to not connect Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor with WP:RFARB here.

There is mess in interwikis in between languages - they are not matching procedural steps in arbitration. Not just english wikipedia has different pages and subpages for individual procedural steps.

This particular header Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Header implements interwikis for request subpage. There is request subpage counterpart in czech Wikipedia (see), but this header (and so the WP:Arbitration/Requests page display it) is now containing interwiki for the main arbitration site (czech counterpart of WP:Arbitration). The interwiki for czech request arbitration page would be suitable here (cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž) , however that interwiki is already present at the end of page body of WP:RFARB. It results in two different cs: interwikis being generated in the interwikis list in WP:Arbitration/Requests. From those two iws, the one in header (here) is the wrong one.

Sumed: I ask to remove cs:Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor interwiki from here. Or optionally to replace it here with cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž (and clean then the ":cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž" from WP:RFARB)

Note: It seems to me that the another interwikis here have the same problem, for they all go to the main arbitration sites of respective wikis, but I am not familiar with their overall procedural structure there (they may or may not discriminate between WP:RFARB and WP:ARB like cs and en wikis do). --Reo ⁺ 10:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, your latter option. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Thank You Martin. So I did follow You and did remove the remaining cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž interwiki from WP:RFARB body.

Now I am sure that the :es: interwikis are in the same situation like the cs interwikis were. Here in the header is interwiki pointing to WP:ARB, at the same time the correct one for WP:RFARB is simultaneously at the bottom of the WP:RFARB.

Moreover there are two more iws, the azerbaijany and Russian iw's. They should be here in the header as well. Sorry for bothering again. And thank You. (I just came to solve the cs, but, seeing this, it's better fix all)

So the es: should be replaced here, and other two moved from WP:RFARB to WP:RFARB/Header --Reo ⁺ 14:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing me. There is already an ru interwiki in the header. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha, ha, yes, it is confusing ;) But now it is still much better then before, thank you. Basically the confusion is why we are here. There was quite a mess. The only remaining part, where I can navigate are those two :ru: interwikis. Of those two - the [[ru:Википедия:Арбитражный комитет]] does not belong here, it belongs to WP:ARB.

After some time, it will need some update, becouse we will see what the interwiki robots will do with it on the other sites (as it was this way, there was bot confusion cross-languages, confusion between wp:ARB and wp:RFARB in all languages) Reo ⁺ 18:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've lowered the protection so you should be able to maintain these interwikis yourself now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will do just few languages per day. It is quite difficult. Going through googletranslate (with and without translations) and I need to follow rather more links coming fromthose pages to verify that I interpreted the meaning of those pages pretty well.

One note to slowenian case. It seems that they had one before, but due to their internal processes they modified it to mediation process - they renamed the page and deleted the link. Google translation of the deletion log. Reo ⁺ 11:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming old cases

How would clerks and arbitrators feel about renaming some old arbitration cases. Some old cases have rather long names. For example I would like to rename Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Davenbelle for example. -- Cat ^chi? 12:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Such a rename would not be appropriate. Your disruptive editing was also covered in that case. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who threatened me on IRC not too long ago you should not be lecturing me. Do you HAVE TO stir a controversy all the time? -- Cat ^chi? 14:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Me? Stir controversy? You started the thread :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good god... How dare I initiate a discussion? Maybe I should be banned from it, huh? -- Cat ^chi? 15:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would we want to rename that? Three of the four remedies pertain solely to Coolcat. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comma looks odd in the url. I guess I am a perfectionist. :) We can name it "White Cat" if mentioning my name would satisfy others. Linking to long titles looks ugly in wiki markup. It is not like anyone cares what the name of an arbcom case from 2005 happens to be.

Also I do not like the old username references. It is rather tiring to explain who is who. In my view RfArs should represent the most recent username if the user is legitemately editing. "Coolcat" would be "White Cat", "Stereotek" would be "Karl Meier", "Davenbelle" could be "Jack Merridew". It has gotten rather complicated.

-- Cat ^chi? 17:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No, let's not go down the path of trying to change history here. The case was heard under a particular name, and that's the name under which it should be archived. Kirill ^(prof) 17:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What history am I changing? Seriously... This is a very serious accusation and I want to know the reasoning behind it. I am merely suggesting a little tidying. I am not removing remedies or anything. -- Cat ^chi? 18:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll give my two cents as a Clerk. There are two sides of this proposal to be considered. Firstly, whether the precedent of old arbitration cases being "left be" (I can't think of a single closed case being edited, except for 1/ amendment by motion of the committee; 2/ updating of logs of blocks/bans) should no longer be left to stand. That would open up the Committee's archives to, potentially, a new wave of ammendments, which I personally think to be quite problematic and concerning: by-and-large, I think closed cases are best kept untouched.

Secondly, does the Committee agree to cases being tweaked post-closure, outside of the usual permissible boundaries (i.e., entry to ban logs; updating further to amendments)? This really isn't an area for the clerks, but for the AC: case pages essentially "belong" to them, as they are established as necessary for their efficient functioning. My final view is this: permission from the AC is required, White Cat, to implement the changes you have proposed; whether such permission should be granted, in my opinion, is something I will make no comment as to. Anthøny 18:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitrator or two can approve the change, thats fine by me. We shouldn't just randomly mass rename pages. I also do not want to invent an entire new process wasting arbitrator time. I think clerks can deal with such renames if arbitrators agree to delegate this. It would be nice to tidy some old cases that are poorly named. -- Cat ^chi? 18:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

My point is that it is probably best that cases, even if "badly named", it is best to leave it be. Anthøny 19:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what do we mean by "case name"? A single header = header = could hold the long official full name of the case and the page name (article name that appears on the top of the page could be some shorter name. An array of redirects can be used:

Let's consider my 2005 arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek. The title of that case is inaccurate because User:Fadix has gotten remedies too even if he isn't mentioned on the title. Right now the names of arbcom cases are typically determined by the person filing them. Typically people pick decent, understandable, acceptable names.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek was filed as a complaint against stalking. The name could for example represent that.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't believe for a second that you want that case renamed because it has a "rather long name". Perhaps if you were more upfront with us, we'd be more willing to hear what you say. --Deskana (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, White Cat did state that his primary motivation for a rename is that the name is not reflective of the issues decided therein (in his opinion)–that is to say, he believes that the name suggests that he was held as having bad conduct in that case, which is not true. Anthøny 20:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a further point, I don't think the rename you have suggested, White Cat, is suitable. That arbitration case involved you as much as it involved the other two accounts, and indeed, contained numerous remedies pertaining to you. I've thought about it for a while, and I must say, this rename really isn't suitable. I for one, for what it's worth, oppose this proposal. Anthøny 09:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can pick a different name and perhaps reach a compromise but you should also come up with a suggestion. Please also see my above post. I was honest enough to go directly to the point, please do not shoot me for that reason. :) -- Cat ^chi? 10:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(In reference to deskana) Please assume good faith. People typically do not want to be accused of a hidden agenda. I am such a person. What other reason could I have to be renaming the case in question?

(In reference to AGK) When the case was filed (and a name was picked) my only involvement was being the victim. Arbcom ruled of wrong doing on my part as well - no doubt. But had I filed the case, I would probably pick a different name. The case name should represent the accusation or the dispute. It was at no point intended to list the involved parties. In addition the past remedies and findings are more important that the cases name. While I do believe I got more than what I deserved in that case over the course of time other involved users got infront of Arbcom for continuing bad conduct. Fadix was in front of arbcom with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan, Davenbelle with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick (as Moby Dick - current username: Jack Merridew). Stereotek with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irishpunktom (as Karl Meier).

(in general) I was very involved with "/Moby Dick" rfar, my username isn't listed in the case name. I guess what I seek here is having a consistent naming scheme while making good use of redirects. Currently old cases are hard to find and hard to link to particularly if the involved user(s) change usernames. Some old case names are rather complicated and are hard to link to as well. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests lists all old cases. Each case is followed by a list of involved users.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Consider Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. Just by reading the case title you get the idea what was being discussed which is more important than who was involved. What do you think is being discussed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/K1? Without loading the page that is... How about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency? -- Cat ^chi? 11:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The case concerned interpersonal issues, not tied to any particular article, and not limited just to the issue of stalking, and made findings relating to all three editors named in the case title. I don't disagree that some case names could probably be changed, but in this situation the title is apt and is a good descriptor of the case's contents. --bainer (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interpersonal issues? Someone was accused of policy violations. The case has been and still is predominantly about that. It is very annoying to constantly type one of the longest arbitration cases name.

As for the general issue a general cleanup is necessary, I obviously will not be allowed to make such edits... Some parties will not allow me to edit like a regular user...

-- Cat ^chi? 15:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Appeal process

Does someone know what the process is for my appeal? Is ArbCom deliberating? Or are they waiting for something? Is Morven's view representative? Etc.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this matter should be addressed by the outcome of my below thread. Anthøny 21:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had asked for some more input from another arbitrator (FloNight), as well as Morven, whom made a (rather unsubstantiated) view on this particular appeal - I only today realized I have got a reply from FloNight whose view was also that there appeared to be no reason to intervene, but she did guarantee that she will look into the issues further as she was unsure that inappropriate admin action had happened in the case.

If you still feel your grounds are solid for an appeal, I will ask 2-3 other arbitrators for their input also. Prior to your reply to this, you may want to consider making any necessary modifications to your statement/evidence accordingly. Evidence may include whether the blocking admin has exercised questionable judgement in other instances - WQA, AN/I, certain article talk pages and certain user talk pages are most likely to contain them if they do exist. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could even revisit the perennial question of whether the question of former arbitrators having access to the arbitration committee's mailing list is handled transparently enough. Wikipedia:ARBCOM#Mailing list confirms that Raul654 (the admin who gave Basboll the topic ban) is subscribed to the mailing list. I shouldn't have to ask whether Raul and the arbitration committee have discussed this topic ban on the mailing list. I presume they haven't, but because we don't know for sure, the question is always there in the background. In Basboll's favour, I note that he appears to have kept to the terms of his ban, and (as far as I know) is not trying to edit the 9/11 articles by other means. I also note that Raul's ban of Basboll from those articles appears to be indefinite until further review (Raul said "I am banning you", not "you are banned for a month" or "you are banned for a year"). Whatever the truth or rights and wrongs of the matter, leaving the matter in limbo for this long is completely unacceptable. As Basboll has said: "Almost three weeks later, I am still waiting to hear the Committee's position, and Raul has not yet made a statement." How can that be acceptable?

As if that wasn't of concern enough, we get an Jehochman coming up with the following (I would have said something at the time, back in April, if I had noticed): "The community has been put on notice. Enough is enough. Let the administrators do their work." That seems to be saying that admins should be chosing sides in an intractable content dispute in order to resolve it, and if that is what is being said, and if that is what "discretionary sanctions" ultimately leads to, that is just as unacceptable.

Finally, people have said that the main article in question has improved immensely since the topic ban. Well, I think that the article would improve even more if everyone currently working on the article was banned from working on the article, and 4 or 5 completely new editors (with experience elsewhere) were brought in to edit it. I think they would do an excellent job of editing the article to a very high standard. If one "philosophy" of dealing with problematic articles is allowed, why are others not? Sometimes re-starting an article from scratch doesn't just mean re-starting the article itself from scratch. Sometimes it means removing all the editors that got involved and letting other editors have a clear run at writing an article. The end result might be the same, but the difference in process might make all the difference. Carcharoth (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is puzzling. I am not going to base my defense on an attack on Raul654. Raul has made a mistake in this case. If ArbCom does not agree with that, I don't see what good it will do to introduce evidence that he has made mistakes in other cases. I don't understand Flo's suggestion that there is "no reason to intervene". I am not asking for an intervention; I have appealed a ban, which is part of the remedy in the 9/11 case. My appeal should be rejected or granted, not ignored [or "intervened" in]. That was actually my question. Does Morven's remark and the absence of any other remarks, constitute a rejection of the appeal? If so, a clerk could note that the appeal has been rejected and the case could be archived.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 05:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I shouldn't have brought up the mailing list issues or gone on about stuff in general. It just frustrates me when I see this sort of thing going on and, as you say, the inaction. The inaction is particularly galling because ignoring someone is not only injust, it is rude as well. I would say mail the arbitration committee mailing list, but I think you said you had done that, and from what I've heard, it doesn't get much more of a reaction. Anyway, I'll let a clerk weigh in and respond to you, but it would be nice to get a clear answer on whether unanswered or "one answer only" appeals really mean anything other than "the committee is overloaded and unable to deal with the volume of work". Just a regular update every week (eg. this has been discussed on the mailing list, we will get to it at x date) or a date for when to deal with it (eg. we have lots of other stuff to deal with, but we have scheduled a discussion of your case for x date) would help. Everyone knows that we can't have instant responses, but it is annoying when some incident blows up somewhere, resulting in an arbcom request, and suddenly arbitrators find the time to comment on that, but not on more, dare I say it, mundane (or complex, your mileage may vary) stuff like this. I really will stop here, as I am still intensely frustrated by this. Carcharoth (talk) 07:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I think your suggestion to leave a note that it is being discussed on the mailing list would have been helpful (I haven't used that channel). Also, it would be good to say when ArbCom has all the information it needs (no further statements needed). The procedure could then be to deliberate (announcing a deadline would be useful but not necessary) and a clerk could simply notify me on my talk page about whether may appeal has failed (as it seems it will) or been successful.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it is confirmed that the rest of the arbitrators agree with the conclusion, i.e. ArbCom is not going to overturn the community in this case. Of course, you may make an appeal directly to the community (i.e. at the appropriate administrator noticeboard). Regards - Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts, Ncmvocalist. That's the end of it. Can you make a note of it (under clerk notes, I guess) and archive it? Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drive for action: current clarifications and prior-case motions

Folks, we have a number of current requests for clarifications, and motions in prior cases, which require a response from the Committee. I'm willing to undertake any Clerk action required to get the various threads on Requests for arbitration processed and archived.

The current threads are:

That list deals only with clarifications of prior cases, and with requested amendments to prior cases; it excludes ordinary requests for arbitration, of which there is only one. For each entry in the above list, I would like to open discussion as to which of the following categories it should be placed in: 1/ requiring arbitrator proposals; 2/ stale and requiring archiving; 3/ new, and no action currently needed. I'm also open to further categories as required.

Note, by category I simply mean what stage it is currently in; I'm not proposing placing it in a category, tagging the request itself, or anything. Rather, I'd simply like to have a list in this thread, of which stage each is in. For example, an entry in the finalised list at the bottom of this thread would take the form of,

Request to amend prior case: Example case is requiring arbitrator proposals and voting.

Suggestions on what stage each thread is currently in? Anthøny 21:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My appeal seems not be listed, but I would suggest putting it category 1.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The following statement, made in a related discussion, suggests (at least to me) that this case is somewhat urgent: "Basboll is an SPA who is here to promote conspiracy theories about 9/11 and has been indefinitely topic banned from those articles." [1] Its author makes the reasonable assumption that the topic ban licenses the characterization, which is, of course, a character assassination in the specific sense of terminating the assumption of good faith. I have only one name. It is quickly turning into mud around here.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listed now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK: Category 1 - requiring arbitrator proposals

Category 2 - stale and requiring archiving

Category 3 - new, and no action currently needed

Done. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the two IRC ones are somehow combined or partially archived, or that advice its sought from the arbitration committee on whether these (or other threads) are truly stale. I think it should be the job of clerks to occasionally (on their list) forcefully remind the arbitrators of these outstanding issues. It would be silly if inactivity on such threads became evidence in future arbitration cases. Better for the arbitration committee to deal with things properly now. I also share Basboll's concern that the support of single arbitrator (Morven) and the silence of the rest of the committee (apart from the recusal), has led to MONGO's comment about Basboll at the Tango arbitration case. Basboll is attempting to defend himself, but the slowness of the arbitrators in dealing with the appeal is making it difficult. It is the equivalent of keeping someone locked in jail for x days before charging them. Carcharoth (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, I'm also looking at proposing some sort of ongoing version of this list, which could be dynamically updated by arbitration frequenters as necessary. Anthøny 15:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently been trying to help out (with some nudges/questions/comments to arbitrators) in making opened cases move just a little more quickly. If arbitrators/clerks don't mind, I can likewise do the same for these requests for clarification/appeal? Of course, as with the opened cases, I will only give a certain number at a time, and after a certain period of time has lapsed from when the case/request was opened. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out {{RfarOpenTasks}}, which is in development (the statuses are not yet accurate). Anthøny 08:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice!--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about clearing out the ones that are not going to go anwhere first? There are at least 2-4 of them. That'd at least get the numbers down. This is the highest I recall clarifications ever being. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be specific? I've listed some suggestions in the categories. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline proposal on clarifications

Similar to the way a proposed RFAR has a 7-day limit, I propose setting a 3-week limit on requested clarifications, as in if the clarification/motion/amendment has had not any comments in 3-weeks, the clerks should close it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to this and not only because I feel my situation has been mishandled from the start. Everything to do with the Arbitration committee is full of protocols and wiki-speak which those who are experienced are more likely to prevail while newbies are at the mercy of a confusing process. I have been waiting patiently nearly a month and tried to navigate the waters at the AE board before that. I feel deadlines on justice might be well-intended but have less than positive consequences for the project as a whole. It would be nice to know what is going with my case but near silence has been my experience so far so I can wait until they get around to it. Banje boi 22:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more relevantly, it's been a week since I opened a Request for clarification. Many people responded. No clerk, and no arbitrator has commented yet.

In short, I think that the 3-week limit for a part of the page that Arbcom seems very slow to deal with is... probably not going to work. Things would get arbitrarily dumped because Arbcom didn't get off their arses, not because they lacked merit. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be useful to have an AC calendar of sorts. That way clerks can simply schedule cases to move forward. The arbs would of course have to agree to be "managed" a bit, but a good team of clerks could ensure that their attention circulates in an orderly manner. This wouldn't require deadlines (especially not for a final decision). Just a date and time period where the arbs are expected to grant a few minutes of their attention to the case and state their position so far (always open to be revised and even a "still thinking about it" comment would do.) If involved parties knew when the arbs would look at a case, the waiting itself would be much easier (and less time consuming. I check back every day, for example. The watchlist doesn't help much, for obvious reasons.)--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of this is to get quicker repsonses from the arbs. A clerk repsonding is nice, but generally speaking, until the arbs decide what to do, it can't be closed. I feel the requestors, in most cases, are entitled to a resolution quicker than a month. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After discussion with ArbCom, I've updated the template created by AGK to reflect all of the threads that are stale. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal - please help

It is high time that the abuses against the unjustly banned user "Gibraltarian" were dealt with rationally and fairly. My ban was brought about by a troll user's malicious complaint, and he continually vandalised any words I tried to post in my defence. I appeal to any admin or Arbcom member with a sense of justice to please contact me on a_gibraltarian@hotmail.com to discuss the matter. Many thanks

DO NOT REVERT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.124.68.211 (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a block on this IP address, due to its recent disruptive contributions. Additionally, it is rather evidently a sock puppet of Gibraltarian. Anthøny 00:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the ill-founded Betacommand decision

Please see how well Betacommand is observing the recommendation/suggestion/whatever-the-heck-that-was, that the ArbCom did in the Betacommand case. Bellwether ^B _C 01:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and here is how he deals with an administrator calling him on the carpet about such nonsense. Bellwether ^B _C 01:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you contacted an admin about it? They still have the authority to deal with any disruptive incidents. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted it here, so that the Arbcom could see the result of their (in)actions. And there's already an admin involved. Bellwether ^B _C 02:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post back here how this goes. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I told everyone that all the remedies are useless, but nobody listened. ArbCom is failing. --Kaypoh (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Arbitrary Committee is working normally. -- SEWilco (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Was Kurt the first to use that phrase or is it spreading? The ArbCom do good work. Even if you disagree with them, or see their decisions as arbitrary, it would be very divisive to adopt such a dismissive nickname for them. Please focus on the decisions, not the contributors (the committee). Carcharoth (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to their "working". If more than pronouns are used then something more specific can be discussed. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if you use terms like that, you may discourage reform or you may discourage people from standing for election. You may also discourage sitting arbitrators. If you think something is failing, do you continue to knock it down, or do you try and support it and make constructive suggestions? Carcharoth (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are edits like that, irrespective of any AC decision, not block worthy as outright NPA violations? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I like to warn users before blocking them, even in serious cases like this. Any admin was free to overide that and issue a block, I just do things differently. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thats the right thing to do. And I love Beta, but these NPA violations are what... every other day? Every second day? If there is no sign of stopping, and no one is preventing him from attacking others, something is obviously broken. Why is anyone exempt from NPA? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many warnings does Beta need to get before being blocked? It's not like he hasn't been told that his behaviour is a problem. He has been told time and again, but apparently he doesn't change. I hate to make this comparison, but any other user would have been blocked a long time ago. A ecis^Brievenbus 16:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because "Blocking or sanctioning Betacommand needs to be weighed against the generally productive and much needed work he brings to the project. He is honestly quite irreplacable…" [2] Mike R (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one gets exemptions to policy. No one. Any attempts to give anyone a free pass needs to be not just shot down, but executed. Anything that makes all editors not the same in this regard is incredibly disruptive and unfair. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved Parties

I can't figure out what format I am supposed to use to list the involved parties (in the anti-americanism case). Life.temp (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the formatting/links now. You can check the difference from this-link so you know what you did differently. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]