Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell

I am placing Paul's messages under a single Level 1 heading, instead of having them scattered over various Level 1 headings. To be honest, I don't know why you're posting here instead of at the talk pages of your own discussion page. The Tkorrovi vs. Paul Beardsell case is beginning to flood this talk page. --Deathphoenix 02:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The reason I have done so is that until I took debate about the case in which I was embroiled away from the case-specific pages (the court room itself) to the general pages (to the steps of the court house) few of the questions I was asking about the case were being addressed timeously or at all. I was essentially being ignored. Where my questions are not being answered for some time, where the behaviour of the ArbCom or one of its members is against the principles of natural justice or its own rules or the the principles it itself identifies as applying to the RfA I am embrolied in I will contine to raise those issues here. My only effective weapon is to expose the oft-ridiculous behaviour of some ArbCom members to as much public scrutiny as possible. Paul Beardsell 09:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In my view many of these these issues are of general interest. What one says is more interesting than who one is. I will therefore outdent and leave my sigs so those who wish to ignore me can. Paul Beardsell 09:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You want to go on a soapbox, fine. Read this before continuing. If you wish to continue using Wikipedia as your soapbox (which may get your further sanctions), don't put a level 1 heading on each and every point of yours, because doing so is disruptive. If you must make additional headings, insert them as level 2. Enough people have this talk page on their watch lists that you don't need to place a million level 1 headings to get their attention. I'm putting your comments back as level 2 headings. Please don't revert me again. --Deathphoenix 22:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did not initiate this RfA. The case should never have been accepted as the incidents were all 10 months old. I was found guilty by some members of the ArbCom before I had a chance to file a statement, and by others before I had assembled any evidence. I raised certain basic queries on the RfA's own pages some of which were not answered for 6 weeks, those answers do not all address the points raised, some queries remain unanswered. Ambi and Grunt accuse me of other, new stuff for which they decline to bring evidence. Ambi does so on a page ordinary wikipedians (i.e. me and you) may not edit and that page's Talk page is the one where I am routinely ignored. I need a bloody soap box. What you need, Deathphoenix, rather than to criticise me making a noise here, is a competent ArbCom. Paul Beardsell 22:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ambi

Please see here. Paul Beardsell 02:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where Paul Beardsell says "It took a threat to get some action out of you." [1]Tkorrovi 23:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am unsure what point Tk is trying to make. Perhaps he would care to elaborate. Paul Beardsell 02:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The admissibility of evidence

I attempt to discuss a general principle re the admissibility of evidence here but there has so far been no response from the ArbCom. Or anyone. Comment invited. Paul Beardsell 09:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No response. Paul Beardsell 09:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about this as a response: stop digging yourself deeper. I know I'm tired of the incessant spew coming from this case; I suspect the ArbCom is too. The ArbCom is not a courtroom, so extensive legalisms and lawyerese tend to be looked down on. --Carnildo 03:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wish I could see an alternative. My accuser in the case claims me saying to him, as you now say to me, "When in a hole, stop digging" was a personal insult. And I wish the ArbCom would pay better attention to due process. Paul Beardsell 03:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I replied on the arbitration case talk page [2] (in the end of the section). I would recommend to continue any discussion concerning only that particular arbitration case there, not here. This page here is for discussing general issues, which are common to many arbitration cases.Tkorrovi 15:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To Carndilo: admissability is a very basic concept understood even by lay people (heck--it's brough up on law shows all the time, it's a law TV buzzword), so it makes no sense to group it under "extensive lawyerese" as if it were somehow confusing or hard to understand. The Arbitration Committee is does Arbitration. Arbitration is, by its very nature, very similar to a court room. So your reasoning is bunko. Not just that, but one of the arbitrators had specifically told me that evidence from #wikipedia on IRC was not admissable, so the ArbCom actually disagrees with you.

To tkorrovi: This SHOULD reamin here, because it is a general issue that affects all arbtiration cases, not just this one. Allowing people to essential drown the arbitrators with irrelevent (inadmissable) evidence only distracts them from the real truth behind the matter. It's not limited to "personal attacks", but for the sake of demonstrating how this can be a problem (as evidenced by this case and mine), I will use that as an example.

It is a tremendous act of bad faith to list any criticism of someone's behavior as a "personal attack." For example, if someone engages in rather dishonest behavior, would it be a "personal attack" to call them a liar? Of course not, the same applies to accusations of trolling and other things. The Wikipedia:No personal attacks page even has a discussion going on about whether or not such accusations (such as troll) should automatically be considered person attacks.

Now, that said, someone can easily construct a list of criticism of someone's behavior and create an RfA with a said list. However, it just wastes the time of the arbitrators time since it's being submitted as something it's not. Plus the arbitrators will likely just skim over it, get an impression of some hostility and automatically label them as what they're not.

While it is possible to reply in your own section to refute these accusations, that's really just making the RfA even longer and harder to read. If it's been establish that some evidence is not a case of [insert name of the _explicit_ accusation made accusation], then it should simply be deleted from the page, as it's not admissable. Nathan J. Yoder 17:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be some misunderstanding about what the ArbCom ought to be doing. The purpose of Wikipedia is to build a free (as in both speech and beer) encyclopedia. The ArbCom exists to further that goal by trying to resolve the most serious user conduct disputes, and—if necessary—sanctioning egregious offenders for the purpose of allowing the rest of us to carry on with that primary task.

The ArbCom is not a court of law. Records of ArbCom proceedings will not appear on the nightly news, nor will they affect your ability to secure employment or earn the respect of your real-world friends and family. They do not have access to the secret files of the KGB, nor can they employ retired CIA operatives with thumbscrews to extract confessions. They can't fine or imprison you; their only power is restricted to if and how you may edit Wikipedia.

This is not all necessarily true. I post under my own name and I am more identifiable than most of you. That I react so fiercely here is partly a consequence of that. (I imagine some might think that I am doubly unwise!) Also note that no one here as agreed to restrict their actions to Wikipedia. There is recourse to normal legal process. Paul Beardsell 23:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The notion of 'admissibility' in this context is silly. The ArbCom can and should consider any information which is relevant to a given user conduct issue, whether it be on Wikipedia, in the #Wikipedia IRC channel, or if it is on a personal blog. (To suggest an extreme illustrative case...if I were to post a message "I have been defacing GNAA on Wikipedia every day this week as an anonymous IP. Suckers" in my blog, I would expect ArbCom to consider that.) While the ArbCom is not empowered to sanction editors for their behaviour outside of Wikipedia itself, it is appropriate for them to consider that behaviour where it directly affects Wikipedia events.

The notion is not silly. Far from it. It all hinges on the definition of "relevant" or "admissible" - they are near synonyms so your argument is a little circular. I find I have had to repeat my well-reasoned assertions of Tkorrovi's dishonesty and trolling in order to defend being accused of making these assertions unreasonably. But I am being found guilty NOT of the original "bad" behaviour (which Grunt refuses to cite) but because I re-make the assertions! I am not being allowed to defend myself! Paul Beardsell 23:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For remarks made within Wikipedia, admissibility shouldn't be an issue. Obviously the substance and tone of editors' remarks are likely to be quite different depending on the namespace (articles, article Talk, Wikipedia, etc.) in which they are working. Within the context of an RFArb I'm sure that some leeway may be granted precisely because criticism of behaviour is often necessary. The ArbCom can, should, and probably does take this into account.

Yes! So you would think. But not in my case. The error which you are making is that you trust the ArbCom to be behaving well. I say they are not. This is not a welcome message. I am denounced for this! I simply ask: Have a look. The ArbCom is NOT being reasonable here. Paul Beardsell 23:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With respect to the mere act of describing someone's behavior as a personal attack, one must be careful. Saying "I think User:TenOfAllTrades is violating the the Three Revert Rule on GNAA" is acceptable. Saying "I think that asshole User:TenOfAllTrades is violating the the Three Revert Rule on GNAA" is a personal attack. (Again, an extreme illustrative example.) Tone and phrasing are important. It's usually not necessary to call someone a liar. Use phrasing like, "I believe that User:TenOfAllTrades is mistaken, for the following reasons...", or "User:TenOfAllTrades' current statements seem to contradict his remarks at...". Not only is it more polite, but it makes it easier to back down if (heaven forfend) you later discover you might have made an error.

Generally good advice. But when a lie is detected, it is pointed out (maybe even politely) and then it is repeated, again and again, finally it gets to the point where the liar must be denounced. Paul Beardsell 23:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quite frankly, if half the effort spent here on assertions of bias, inadmissibility of evidence, general wikilawyering, and petty bickering were instead directed to trying to make peace, resolve the dispute, and maybe offering a mea culpa, this mess likely would never have reached arbitration. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 18:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Possibly, but due process was not followed in this case! There is real bias, some evidence is genuinely inadmissible, and some of this bickering is far from "petty". AND NO ONE IS TRYING TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE - THE ARBCOM IS CONCERNED TOO MUCH WITH THE DEVISING AND ADMINISTRATION OF PUNISHMENT. And I will soon write a short section here on the fallacy of denouncing an argument only because it is "wiki-laywering". Paul Beardsell 23:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is important in presenting your case to focus on the main points you want to make and point us to good examples of edits which illustrate those points. RIght or wrong, most arbitrators will give up on masses of disorganized material (see Vertigo. Fred Bauder 18:03, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Something is more important than that: Due process. It can take a lot of work and time to defend oneself against a barage of half-truths, inventions and lies. In such a circumstance the existence of the ArbCom makes the problem possible: The mendacious can abuse the process. In my case I asked for the ArbCom to quickly sift the large set of accusations to see if their was a case to answer. I waited and reminded but this request took 7 weeks to answer and, I suggest, the answer I eventually obtained took only one minute to craft and it is unsatisfactory. By that time many members of the ArbCom had already made their mind up. And now seem incapable of admitting they may have been over hasty. And in a frenzy of post hoc justification the mistakes are being piled up to the point where the ArbCom makes itself look ridiculous. This case should never have been accepted. A least not in the form it was presented. At least Tkorrovi should have been told (to find himself an advocate to help him) to present a coherent case containing allegations that had at least some chance of being fairly upheld. Assuming, that is, that was possible. A suggestion, why not start again? Declare a mistrial. There are more than adequate grounds for doing so. Paul Beardsell 01:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kangaroo court

Here we have Grunt admitting to changing his vote in a RfA case because he does not like my demeanour. He further makes charges which he has yet to substantiate. Paul Beardsell 02:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) And he continues to fail either to justify himself or to resile from his position. Paul Beardsell 02:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nathan J Yoder is right: Arbitration is, by its very nature, very similar to a court room. However, what you and he need to realize, is that it is NOT a court room (however similar). There is no set of real-world laws that the committee has to follow. I warned you two months ago "Complaining about the process is your right, I suppose, but it won't win you the case." --Kbdank71 18:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You tried to give me good advice back then. I found myself unable to follow it. I had raised questions which were ignored for weeks by the ArbCom. They found me guilty before seeing my statement or my evidence. I got cross. Now I have annoyed them more and but I am in the process of amply demonstrating that they do not act reasonably and they are incapable of admitting they may have made a mistake. Now Grunt admits he is finding against me because I am holding the ArbCom to account! Paul Beardsell 22:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore: You are wrong that there is no set of real-world laws the ArbCom has to follow. Everyone, in the street, at the golf club, or on a web forum has to behave according to "real-world laws" (quoting you). You introduce the issue not me so don't get cross at me for pointing out there is many a golf club committee which has had its unfair decision reverted by due legal process. We can all therefore be confident that we can demand and, eventually, receive due process from the ArbCom. All of us are liable for our actions. Paul Beardsell 00:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More to the point - given that PSB's incivility is what led to the arbitration in the first place, it's not surprising in the least that Grunt should change his vote based on Paul's (less-than-stellar) demeanour during arbitration. →Raul654 19:07, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

What the Lord Chief Justice for Life (nearly) of the Supreme Court of Wikipedia Behaviour (and, soon, Wikipedia Content) is endorsing here is Grunt's assertion (paraphrasing): "Behave in the Court or we will find you guilty of whatever you are charged." Paul Beardsell 22:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But further: Note that the Head of the ArbCom has now effectively found me guilty. Before the case is over, before the arguments have been completed. This is a farce, not justice. Paul Beardsell 00:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) Unless, by making the comment in a section entitled Kangaroo Court he is crafting a too clever joke! Paul Beardsell 04:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When it comes to less-than-stellar behaviour there are plenty of examples that can be cited. There are number of cases of this from the arbitrators themselves. That I am pissed off and show it is, I reckon, understandable: How am I supposed to take such cavalier attitudes except other than personally - I am personally involved. I reckon the ArbCom should be more on its guard from witnesses cosying up to them than those who are prepared to make their contempt of the stupid process and their sometimes stupid pronouncements plain. That the chief honcho of the the ArbCom approves of one of his members acting in such an unfair manner is no longer a surprise to me. That further he makes his judgement of the RfA plain and public here when he is recused (or ought to be - he certainly seemed to have arranged, after my recusal request, not to get involved) from this case detracts once again from the process. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. You should be ashamed. Paul Beardsell 20:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Given that user behaviour is certainly something that the arbitration committee looks at, the behaviour of those involved in an arbitration case is highly relevant in changing an arbitrator's vote. Such matters are highly relevant to an arbitration case that involves and examines the behaviour of the involved parties. --Deathphoenix 19:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In which case the ArbCom would be judging only onanistically, so to speak. Surely members of the committee need to be able to judge, to step back, to be forgiving of the manner in which the evidence is presented and bona fide queries about the process itself are made, and not be distracted from that upon which it was asked to arbitrate by the emotional state of any of the proponents during the process itself. (Unless, of course it has been specified in advance what contitutes contempt of process, and anyone's actions fall outside that specification.) One is not able to judge effectively if one is affecting that on which one is judging. Not answering rational questions made by Paul he appears to believe is verging on the vexatious. Aren't his beliefs and the facts that give rise to them to be given any credence? If ArbCom's objective were to see what happens when you try to wind someone up then it would indeed be highly competent ;-) Matt Stan 22:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If and where Paul has been guilty of any incivility, let it be examined. I'm sure that if you could show Paul how his behaviour might have upset any particular sensibilities then he'd be happy to apologise and retract whatever was deemed offensive. Where has Paul been uncivil and to whom? Matt Stan 22:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whatever you think of me, place that on one side and consider the issues. That my behaviour in March-May 2004 was a problem is not demonstrated by my behaviour now. Have you considered the possibility, for example, that my behaviour now is ironic. (Audience laughs out loud.) Have you considered that until the RfA no one else seems to have been unduly concerned by my behaviour other than my one antagonist? The incidents complained of were 10 months before the date the RfA was brought but only a short time after I had made my annoyance at Raul654 known elsewhere. If you are charged for an ancient speeding incident I am sure you would not like to be found guilty on the basis that the magistrate saw you speeding in the court parking lot. Paul Beardsell 20:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Or that you were dragged to court on a trumped up charge because you told the magistrate's boss recently to keep his car clean[3]. Paul Beardsell 22:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grunt loses the plot?

This is just plainly unbelievable. Despite all of the above about due process and admissibility and wherein I mention this we now have my (I suggest: reasonable) criticism of him added as one of the insults he intends to find me guilty of in the Tkorrovi vs Paul Beardsell case. See [4]. Either I am being deliberately provoked by Grunt or he is losing the plot. Paul Beardsell 02:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...note that this is in response to a personal attack in which I am called "a disgrace to Wikipedia" [5]. I still maintain the belief that Paul's actions largely speak for themselves and are inexcusable. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:43, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

I provided the necessary link to that. You made false allegation against me in your capacity as a member of the ArbCom. I tried to discuss this with you. You refused. I have discussed it here in depth and you are watching this page. Rather than back down you repeated your false allegation and still refused to provide evidence. You "maintain a belief". You call the ArbCom into disrepute (not that that is too difficult). And, as a member of the ArbCom, to act in such a way is a disgrace to Wikipedia and the ArbCom. Whatever semblance of justice there is here you destroy it. At the very least you should now recuse yourself from this case. At the very least! Paul Beardsell 02:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that the respected Arbitration Committee, who have been involved in countless numbers of cases would suddenly implode and "disgrace" themselves and Wikipedia because of one person. --Deathphoenix 03:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Death, that Grunt disgraces the whole ArbCom or the whole of Wikipedia is not a claim I am explicitly making. Paul Beardsell 03:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Award them a barnstar! How do you explain it? Paul Beardsell 03:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh no, they already disgraced themselves a while ago; the surprise will come when they decide to start looking for redemption. Everyking 03:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Everyking's suggestions for improvements to the ArbCom

Instead of taking shots at the ArbCom, why not make suggestions for improvement? I've read the principles in your user space, but you need to take the next step and actually propose useful policy. (You have to admit, a lot of those ideas are kind of vague.) As a sysop/admin on Wikipedia, you should be willing to step in and involve yourself in the management of the encyclopedia; if you don't like the way things work, you ought to be bold enough to propose changes. Sniping—continuously—just creates ill will all around, and certainly doesn't help to convert anyone to your viewpoint.

I offer you my constructive assistance to bring forth positive policy proposals on any of the issues that you have listed. I will do my best to make useful suggestions, and if nothing else I am at least a competent copyeditor with some familiarity with how things work around here. This is a wiki; things can change if necessary. Make a good case, a sensible case, a logical case. Set aside your bile and contempt, and build a better Wikipedia. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the the offer, Ten, but I think I'll decline your offer of Grunt's place on the ArbCom. But I second your suggestion of Everyking replacing Raul456. Paul Beardsell 07:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Say what? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 18:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was (opaquely?) making the point (using humour, perhaps not my strong suit) that perhaps something a little more revolutionary might be in order. Paul Beardsell 19:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that Everyking has -- except in the most grudging and, evidentally, tactical way -- never admitted that HE has to change his behavior. All of his system gaming, pleading, snark, rewriting of history and reality, and yes, the at-the-core-self-serving "principles" he suddenly espouses are aimed at letting him get HIS way -- manifested most strongly in his peculiar obsession with Ashlee Simpson. Wikipedia shouldn't, in my opinion, be bent to accomodate the wishes of a single editor; at the very least, the default assumption should be that the editor must be willing to accomodate the purpose, philosophy, ethos, and methods of Wikipedia, not vice versa.

And to pre-empt the inevitable claim from Everyking, he has - objectively and demonstratably -- not been co-operative. His constant assertions otherwise are contradicted by the clear evidence of 2 ArbCom rulings, megabytes of archived Talk pages, and dozens of editors. His claims in the face of overwhelming evidence borders on outright solipsism, and I don't believe Wikipedia should accomodate that belief system. --Calton | Talk 04:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't you just have said "Drink!"? ;)

I'd like to see him have a bit of a clean-slate shot at things. I'm aware of his history, and it would be good to see him acknowledge that he made errors in judgement with respect to Ashlee Simpson...but I'll settle for constructive policy suggestions instead of sniping. I'm sick enough of watching the same shots back and forth here and on WP:AN that I'm willing to make a good-faith offer of my own time and effort to try to rehabilitate his relationship with Wikipedia. I'm not suggesting turning Wikipedia into an Everyking-managed dictatorship; rather, I hope to see him funnel some of his efforts into more useful pursuits—I dare say that some of his suggestions might even be helpful. Benefit of the doubt, eh? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 05:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem with giving the benefit of the doubt to Everyking is that used up all his credit at that bank and is currently overdrawn. He's promised to behave himself numerous times -- all while proclaiming his innocence -- and I can't recall a single case where the person he made the promise to felt that he's kept to his word or felt he tried to find some loophole/ambiguity to exploit to his own ends. I don't see the value at taking him at his word and assuming that this time he really isn't looking for some kind of angle. --Calton | Talk 02:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to e-mail me if you like. I have nothing to say to Calton except to say that I'm pleased to see that he kept the psychology to a minimum and focused a bit more on general principles for once. Everyking 05:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which is, of course, part of your problem: when faced with uncomfortable truths your invariable reaction is pretend you didn't hear them, redirect to irrelevancies, or attack those pointing out what you do. Three RfAs, 2 ArbCom decisions, dozens of editors in opposition or expressing concerns, and your only reactions have been to blame the messengers. It's not about me, personalities, or some awful conspiracy centered around you: it's simply about you. --Calton | Talk 02:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I have of course always tried to take the opinions of others into account. Needless to say there have been disagreements at points and I have made my views known, but for the most part I respect where others have been coming from about this. Everyking 02:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The arbitrators seem decidedly unenthusiastic about accepting my appeal, with the vote split four different ways currently. Are they really intending to leave me waiting for 10 more months before I get my editing rights back? If not, could they explain what it is they would like for me to do or say so that they will accept the appeal? Everyking 01:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom's original decision was to restrict you for 12 months, not 2 months: why are you asking them to rejustify their original decision? What has actually changed, other than your impatience? Your overweening sense of entitlement certainly seems to have remained intact. --Calton | Talk 02:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suppose I sort of do have a sense of entitlement. You can edit the articles, Calton, even though you've contributed nothing to any of this except ill-will; I on the other hand wrote them from scratch and yet I cannot edit them. So yes, I have a certain sense of entitlement about it. And you know perfectly well why I want them to release me from the restrictions; first and foremost the restrictions were not just to begin with, and furthermore the articles need updating. Everyking 02:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See, there's your problem. Ambi 03:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're not helping. How about taking a shot at my original question? Everyking 03:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I find the fact that you feel "entitled" to edit articles because you started them disturbing, and to smack of the tendency towards article ownership that got you into trouble in the first place. Snowspinner 15:03, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Coming from someone who is only rarely involved with article editing, I'm sure Everyking will weigh your opinion accordingly. Wikipedians have watchlists because it is somewhat healthy for editors to stay involved with articles they work on. I challenge anyone to more clearly define the line between active participation and ownership. -- Netoholic @ 15:23, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

The existence of a watchlist feature does not imply any degree of entitlement. Nice random slur against me with the bit on article editing though. Snowspinner 16:02, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

If that is true, then, make an example for us and clear out your watchlist. You won't do it because, as much as you give grief to Everyking, you have shown unhealthy ownership in the Wikipedia space (especially punishmentpolicy pages) and in your campaigns against various users. My comment would only be a slur if it was contested. I doubt you'll disagree that you do very little article work. -- Netoholic @ 16:43, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Instantnood

Why was this case closed? Ambi's oppose vote put it at three votes to close, not four, so the case should remain open. Furthermore, I've recently had someone ask on my talk page for me to look into another naming dispute that Instantnood has apparently gotten himself into. I would appreciate a day or two to look into that before my case is closed against arbcom policy. Snowspinner 13:44, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

It's already been closed, apparently by mistake, which I'm not very happy about. Ambi 14:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Surely a case that's closed by mistake can be, you know, freely reopened? By, say, any arbitrator? Snowspinner 15:01, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

gasoline and petrol

No one takes me seriously, even when I'm just kidding! Anyway, I moved petrol to gasoline, with clear instructions on how to un-do that (if need be). I used template:fuel name so we can switch it back to petrol whenever the mood strikes us. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 01:04, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Er, can we assume you're withdrawing your request, then? -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:33, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

If you honestly believe that the objective is to be able to switch back and forth between Petrol and Gasoline "whenever the mood strikes us," you must be divorced from reality.

The original conflict arose because users were switching back and forth between the two titles/descriptions! We were on the verge of settling the debate once and for all, when you wandered in and unilaterally declared our formal dispute resolution process invalid. You then introduced a template that violates more than one Wikipedia policy (including UK/US English rules and general template use). This was explained to you (and deletion of your template was proposed), but you swooped back in, deleted the ongoing debate/vote, and recreated your illicit template at a new location.

YOU ARE NOT HELPING, Mr. Mod, and it's obvious (at this point) that you never intended to. —Lifeisunfair 03:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposed mentorship for Everyking

For what it's worth, I think this is an excellent suggestion. Though I loathe the term 'win-win', it seems applicable to this situation. Everyking will have the opportunity to demonstrate healthy editing habits on Ashlee Simpson articles, and the community need not be concerned about the time, hassle, and bad blood of another ArbCom case should things go awry. As long as the three mentors are willing to (generously!) contribute their time and effort, I strongly support this sensible compromise.

Regarding Everyking's question about the applicability and scope of his mentors' authority, I would presume that they might exercise their powers over any articles that are covered by Everyking's current restrictions. (If I'm not mistaken, those are detailed in the Everyking 2 RfA; please correct me if that's been further updated or clarified.) --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Understandably, given my past disagreements with these people, I'd like their authority to be somewhat clearly defined. I don't want this deal to hurt me even more than the old ruling did. Everyking 02:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't you just withdraw from the agreement in that case? Snowspinner 04:15, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I guess I could. But I'd prefer that it benefit me and not hurt me, so I just want to be careful at the outset to know that it will. Everyking 09:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rovoam: assassination threats?..

Dear ArbCom,

Following my brief communication with Fred ([6]), I think it is time for you to seriously re-consider the issue with Rovoam, which indeed, as I said before, is an unprecedented case in the history of Wikipedia. The regular disclaimers about Rovoam give enough info on the range of this vandal’s activity.

But, now I want to share with you an email that I received today from an anonymous person, who I am 100% sure is Rovoam. This email uncovers a totally new side of Rovoam, showing that this person is not just a virtual troll and vandal, but may also be dangerous in real life. Please, read attentively:

>From: Vincent Dike <vncntdk@yahoo.co.uk>

>To: huseynov_tabib@hotmail.com

>Subject: Report

>Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 06:02:04 +0100 (BST)

>MIME-Version: 1.0

>Received: from web26105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.12.10.229]) by MC6-F32.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 21 Jun 2005 22:02:05 -0700

>Received: (qmail 92150 invoked by uid 60001); 22 Jun 2005 05:02:04 -0000

>Received: from [213.185.106.131] by web26105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 06:02:04 BST

>X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jHRznqdGqUNJG8pMa+q7lNvKmUL4l3OAp4=

>DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.uk; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=MSVP7v/XJcPFTR1q1lK41fqZbXsAebnaqk8pb+IhCpn7/vDoM4IZCUe8WAG9wJzwkrB+wRJyb9EpXn2O/ploEhZrn7x52uJdNsX3aj5c/FAHQ8yRNc2l9nAO5vkJvdf9o1BzOAh+WFoV8FpcG6cd7FqWgnMhX1vNdeKFSpLfDkw=  ;

>Return-Path: vncntdk@yahoo.co.uk

>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jun 2005 05:02:05.0782 (UTC) FILETIME=[88FE5760:01C576E7]

>

>Dear Tabib,

>

>Since early last year I fled into this your country, I have been experience odd in my life than before.

>My first month in is land is like in a hell.I looks like a wanderer, I spent all I have in hotel before I met with Dan, who took me to his house in sub-town.He introduce to me his friends with illegal businesses, they be a help to me.

>

>I got your contact and Know about you when some of our gang brought your data, they are pay to assassinate you or any of your relatives.

>

>Why are your people want you death, is like your are bad man. We believe that man makes man to be wicked.

>

> I advising you to make a peace with your enemy to avoid this assassination plans. Some time I cry because of people I associated in your country.

>

>.Please try to reconcile with people you has offend, they want you death.

>

>Bye

>Vincent D.

I have no doubt that this is Rovoam, even his intentional distortion of his English could not deceive me. I do not think that the threat is real, although Rovoam in the past has similarly threatened me by writing “Thank you Mr.TABIB HUSEYNOV. I will face to face in Baku very soon, and we will discuss with you all your problems” ([7]), however, I think you should be aware of this and once again see whom are we dealing with.

Btw, Rovoam’s real name is Andrey Kirsanov (or Andrew Kirsanoff, depending on writing style). He owns (or works for) a Russian-language web-site http://www.vehi.net (which, btw, regularly gets lots of visitors). He also once said that he “currently live[s] in California (L.A. Agoura Hills)” (see, [8]) but this may not be true.

That’s all info about Rovoam. So, in case something happens to me, you know who’s the culprit ;-).

But seriously, as I said to Fred, I believe the ONLY way to stop this madness is unity of many editors against Rovoam and formal decision by ArbCom banning him from editing Wikipedia.

Also, on a human level, if to look at Rovoam not simply as a virtual troll and vandal but also a human being who does all of this behind his PC screen, I think, we would see a person who is in deep emotional crisis, who wants to prove to himself, to me and all all others, that he is not a “loser”, that he can “teach [anyone] a lesson” and show "them all" their place.

In the past, I have made some steps to mitigate the situation with Rovoam, calling him to stop and calm down ([9]; [10]) and even going as far as appeasing him ([11]; [12] to which Rovoam responded like this [13]) (moreover, these are examples from after the ArbCom decision, I've made much more appeals to him before the ArbCom decision). Therefore, now I am convinced that this person simply cannot be appeased, he cannot be treated as a discussion partner and above all, he cannot be allowed to edit Wikipedia. --Tabib 12:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Tabib the above email is best dealt with by the emailer's ISP. I recomend that you forward it to abuse@yahoo.co.uk and let them deal with it. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 14:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Theresa. This is important advise which I will definitely follow, although, again, I want to repeat that I actually do not think the threat is real, but still this is a serious abuse.--Tabib 15:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Following this issue for a while now, I increasingly tend to believe that Tabib is having serious personal problems as reflected in his possible self assessment above, reading: " I think, we would see a person who is in deep emotional crisis, who wants to prove to himself, to me and all all others, that he is not a “loser”, that he can “teach [anyone] a lesson” and show "them all" their place. " . I recall vividly an incident, in which I was approached by Tabib off record (re "Safavids"), and where he tried to entice me to join him in unacceptable, unethical and unfair manner against other editors. This and the constant badmouthing of others and rallying of goodmeaning but disinformed ADMIN helpers is UNACCEPTABLE!! It is surely not the WIKIPEDIA spirit we are all living up to.--Deli-Eshek 18:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deli-Eshek, I am sorry to get such comments from you, which are actually on the verge of personal attack. I dont know what your motives/intentions are, but you literally claimed that when I was writing my thoughts about Rovoam ("deep emotions crisis" etc.) I was actually writing about myself, which is ridiculous. Let me remind you that it was Rovoam (and not I) who sent me this anonimous letter threatening to assasinate me (which didn't really cause me to experience an "emotional crisis", but gave me valuable info about Rovoam..) Doesn't this mere fact, as well the fact that Rovoam, despite being universally reverted by dozens of other editors all around Wikipedia, still keeps his vandalism and stubborn reverts, tell you something?.. You know, it doesn't take a Freud to portray the psychological portrait of this person, especially, if you've been knowing this person and seeing all his tricks for several months..

When I was writing my thoughts about the current psychological situation of Rovoam (at least, as I imagine it), my only purpose was actully to give a better idea or "food for thought", if you want, about how to deal with Rovoam. I am convinced that formal, OR informal, but strongly endosed, BAN against Rovoam is primarily for the good of this person himself, because the sooner this person realizes the whole senselessness of his actions, the sooner he will stop, reconcile with the situation and will return to his 'normal life'. As to me, I repeat once again, the primary driving force that makes me to continue my activity in wikipedia, is Principle. I simply do not want to retreat and allow the vandal to get along with his deeds. Unlike Rovoam, I dont have to "prove" anything, all it takes me is just to be there and point out to the vandalisms by Rovoam. As I said before many times, in a certain way, constant vandal attacks and sneaky and open vandalisms of various entries that I have created or significantly contributed to in the past, were actually the main reasons which defined my activity in Wikipedia and kept me constantly bind to this resource.

User:Deli-Eshek also advanced another allegation against me claiming that "[I] tried to entice [Deli-Eshek] to join [me] in unacceptable, unethical and unfair manner [?!] against other editors." My brief communication with this user is actually open and visible to all other editors, and you can judge by yourself the quality of such allegations. Pls, see Talk:Safavids as well as my message to Deli-Eshek (which I wrote in response to his post against another user with purpose of avoiding further protraction of unnecessary personal discussions in Safavids talkpage). So, you can judge by yourself whether I "enticed" Deli-Eshek to somethings that he alleges..(also available in User:Deli-Eshek). Sorry, if this "elaboration" about Deli-Eshek etc. made my message too long.--Tabib 15:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

p.s. btw, I just noticed that Rovoam was listed in Wikipedia:List of banned users#Banned by the Wikipedia community.--Tabib 15:38, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Policy on NPOV dispute tag

How is it decided when to remove an NPOV dispute tag from an article? May just anybody declare that "the article's neutrality is no longer disputed"? Is it a violation of 3RR to put the NPOV tag back more than 3 times in 24 hours? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:03, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I remove it when there's no more discussion going on, but if someone immediately adds it back I generally won't fight about it. On the other hand, if someone is adding them willy-nilly (especially if they aren't citing reasons with specificity), I'm a little more lassaiz-faire about removing them →Raul654 21:06, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

csloat removed it three times at gitmo. [14] [15] [16] -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:27, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Policy on personal attacks

I tried to get user:zen-master to stop abusing Patrick and that other guy at race and intelligence. Now he has turned on me as well. Am I correct in my understanding that once some has been warned but persists in violationg the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, any admin may block him?

Is there an exception for personal attacks on the admin who is trying to stop him from attacking other people? This is ridiculous!

And if I block him now, will *I* be the one who gets scolded / blocked /demoted by the arbcom for excessive force in upholding the rules? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:00, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Asking someone to explain their apparently illogical statements, and comming up with plausible theories if they refuse, is not a personal attack. Why do you keep framing this issue as a personal attack when even a simple analysis by a neutral third will determine that it is more complicated? You still have no comment on analyzing how language is misused on Race and intelligence with the apparent purpose of confusing cause and effect? zen master T 22:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. Asking someone to explain their apparently illogical statements is okay. In fact, it's usually valuable.
2. Coming up with plausible theories if they refuse is another thing. It's okay if your theary is that their statements are illogical. It's a violation of policy if you conclude from their refusal that they are racist, Nazi, etc. I do hope you see the difference. You seem like an intelligent person and I'd rather keep you in the project than have to make you leave.
3. I'm not framing anything. When you call people Nazi or racist, you are making a personal attack.
4. You still have no comment on analyzing how language is misused on Race and intelligence with the apparent purpose of confusing cause and effect? Not my business. I only got involved to enforce rule which bars personal attacks. If you will comply with that, you are welcome here. Try to stay on topic and please avoid personal remarks. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:43, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

At present, the blocking policy does not support blocking for personal attacks. Of course, that doesn't mean it's not a Very Good Idea. Snowspinner 22:59, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion does not count. I was addressing the arbcom. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:46, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

  1. Daniel Mayer, aka Maveric149 -- maveric149 at yahoo.com
  2. Fred Bauder -- fredbaud at ctelco.net
  3. Sean Barrett, aka The Epopt -- sean at epoptic.org
  4. Rebecca, aka Ambi - misfitgirl at gmail.com
  5. Sannse - sannse at tiscali.co.uk
  6. David Gerard - dgerard at gmail.com
  7. Mark, aka Raul654 -- mapellegrini at comcast.net

If I describe users' statements on a talk page as being nazi-esque that is not a personal attack. I will try to keep a much more crystal clear distinction between describing a person vs describing their words in the future. zen master T 23:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is Zen Master. It is clear you feel strongly about the matter of race and intelligence but it is not acceptable to describe those who disagree with you as making "naziesque statements". The best way to argue your case is to stick to the point in question and not use colourful or flowery language at all. "I disagree very strongly with blah blab blah because blah blah blah" is much preferable to "that's the sort of thing a Nazi would say". If you could agree to do this, then the whole matter can be sorted out right now without the need for arbitration.

Stating the issue as "I consider my nazi-esque description to be a historically accurate comparison of the repetition of statements used to maintain language propaganda or language confusion" is exactly the point in question here. As I see it the point is not (yet) to resolve the problems with the article itself, instead, the first step is to shed light on the misuse of language generally (techniques used to maintain the status quo of a non neutrally presented article). zen master T 05:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To Ed Snowspinner's opinion does count as it's the community that decides policy not the AC. But anyways, he's right. You can't block for repeated personal attacks without coming through us except in extreme circumstances (which this isn't) Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 05:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Theresa →Raul654 08:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks is policy. I've enforced it in the past, and the community has nearly always agreed. The arbcom is not a governing body; it's merely part of the dispute resolution process. This is not a dispute, it's a policy violation. cut and dried. I've re-started the talk page for R&I, and I expect everyone posting there to adhere to policy. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:11, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

How do we enforce policy around here?

I started another rfa on csloat, but I suddnely realized this was an error on my part. I don't want "dispute resolution". We are not on equal standing. We are not two mothers going before Solomon about whose baby it is.

Either I am right as an admin to enforce the rules on neutrality and civility or I guess I should just forget about it.

Is there a proviso that, once an admin gets involved in editing an article himself, he foregoes the right to enforce the rules? (conflict of interest)

How many hoops must an admin jump through, before stopping one of the hundreds of "volunteers" who show up here and apply themselves very energetically to editing articles - but violate the core rules on NPOV and civility?

(I'm not talking about little style things like the size and placement of a taxobox, or AD vs. CE.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:39, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have a similar problem going on. A new(ish) user CltFn (talk · contribs) and a sockpuppet of his Diglewop (talk · contribs) are creating a bunch of book pages about rightwing or anti-Islamic books, including only publishers' blurbs, lists of chapter titles, and pictures of book covers, so the pages are POV data dumps and free advertising for the publishers. Efforts to communicate with the user failed, as s/he ignored enquiries. I became involved as an admin, not as an editor, to restore NPOV by blanking the pages, redirecting them to the authors' pages, and protecting the redirects. I then started talking to User:CltFn about how s/he could restore NPOV to those pages. However, s/he complained that I was abusing my admin powers by protecting redirects. I took this seriously and unprotected. Now s/he has declared she intends to restore all the pages, with the POV contents, and if I object, I should edit them, at which point I'm sure s/he'll simply revert. However, as soon as I edit, I won't be able to take any admin action in relation to her. The pages seriously violate the NPOV policy, as well as What Wikipedia is not, and so I'm confused about the boundary between what I can do here as an admin, and what I'm supposed to do instead as an editor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:51, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

You are over reacting SlimVirgin. As I stated I intend on following wikipedia policy on the matter. Is that not enough for you? I do not plan , as you seem to be convinced, to violate NPOV. What I suggested is that you can discuss your concerns on the discussion pages if you see an edit that is POV. --CltFn 00:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in discussing the specific issue with you here, as I came here to talk about general admin/editing conflicts. As you're here, I assume you're following me around. I'll say this once more, however: all your edits so far have been POV and I have serious doubts about either your ability or willingness to follow our policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:10, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

In all fairness , your accusations are without merit , have I violated a single Wikipedia policy?? No. Have I inserted edits that are influenced by my POV ,perhaps , haven't you?? You keep pointing the finger at me, but it is you who is going around slandering me as a right wing and anti-islam. Is that not a personal attack?? It is you who is trying to enforce non existent policy regarding position of bibliographies, book pages and chapter lists. All I am saying is follow the wikipedia policy and process , that is use the discussion pages. Yes I may be a newby but in all honesty you are not setting a very good example for an admin --CltFn 00:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My usual opinion on these matters is that if you enter first as an administrator, you may remain as one even if you've touched the page, at least in terms of that specific conflict. Snowspinner 00:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Snowspinner, that's helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:21, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is a bit stronger. You can switch at any time from mere editor to "admin who enforces rules". BUT if you feel there is a Wikipedia:conflict of interest, ask another admin for advice and "stay admin" until it's clarified. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 01:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

The Committee has taken and no doubt will continue to take on cases where the dispute is rather one sided, but that's for them to decide who did wrong where; bring your case, and if you've done no wrong nowt wrong thereof will come to you, and all that.

James F. (talk) 11:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Easy to say, but I'm guessing you've never taken a case to the arbcom. It's a lot of work, and to have to do that for every troll and inveterate POV pusher who knows how to game the system, and carefully avoids 3RR and vandalism (the only things we can instantly block for) is a waste of everyone's time, including the arbcom's. I know there are good reasons for restricting admins' right to block, but some compromise position needs to be found whereby admins are given just a bit more flexibility to hand out short blocks for unambigous trolling, violation of policy, personal attacks and so on. I know, however, that this isn't a view that's shared by everyone, and I do understand the reasons for the opposition to it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:05, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Quickpolls, anyone? I think there should be power for admins to block for policy violations, so long as there is consensus shown of WP:AN. smoddy 12:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks interesting, Sam. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:00, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Page locked

This is temporary, due to page replacement by a few anonymous visitors. Please continue to comment here on the talk page, and I will move relevant comments to the project page while we deal with this. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:42, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Comments on about project page

Refactored

1. Process is a sham; I'll tell others. [17]
2. Cliquish, bad faith refusal to communicate, abuse of power [18]
3. "Enviroknot answered David Gerard who said he didn't care and blocked Enviroknot from Wikien-l as well as blocking me for criticizing Gerard. ... I didn't use my real account.

See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Enviroknot

Rescind mentorship of Netoholic

At the time when I reccomended mentorship for Netoholic, several major problems with him had been resolved. I stand by my words at that time.

However during mentorship, it turns out that there were several other flaws which force me to change my opinion of Netoholic.

I shall not mention them here. Unfortunately, Netoholic also won't talk with his mentors. That wouldn't be a problem, if it wasn't that he's been trying to use us to game the system further.

I can't support this kind of behaviour, and blocking the guy permanently isn't really a solution either, so I'm officially turning in my mentor badge.

Kim Bruning 28 June 2005 23:00 (UTC)