- 1 Charles Darwin
- 2 22.214.171.124 on a rampage
- 3 Charles Darwin & me (Vincent)
- 4 LaRouche Arbitration
- 5 Totals
- 6 Housecleaning
- 7 Cheesedream
- 8 Thank you!
- 9 RK's request for arbitration
- 10 Everyking clarification
- 11 SAIX
- 12 Nagorno-Karabakh: Request for help and/or advice
- 13 IP block
- 14 RE:Arbitration Committee case opening
- 15 Arbitration
- 16 Your question about vandalism
- 17 Strange things happening
- 18 Proposed amendment revote - voting eligibilty requirements
- 19 Proposed amendment revote - personal vs official capacity
- 20 Steak and Blowjob Day
- 21 Wikipedia:The universe does not revolve around you
- 22 About that revote
- 23 Well done!
- 24 DAO
- 25 Your comment in ArbCom evidences
- 26 Thank You
- 27 tkorrovi vs psb777
- 28 Happy Birthday!
126.96.36.199 on a rampage
Since the arbitration ruling against him, 188.8.131.52 has been on a rampage, continuing his pattern of sock puppets, reverts, and insertion of non-neutral material on a variety of pages. He has never shown any willingness to discuss any controversy, communicating only occasionally through his edit comments, which he uses mainly to taunt other users.
Hello Mr. Speaker,
(Please allow me to call you that, since you were the first to voice a decision proposal.)
I must say I find you one of the more interesting arbitration committee members, along with Fred. I'm also a little disappointed (well, obviously) at the soon-to-be-finalized result. Interesting group dynamics experiment for me, but that was a fringe benefit to the whole exercise, as I'm quite sincere in my desire to have the factoid in and in my belief that I was shouted down by a clique.
Anyway, thanks for being the most positive, and my apologies for posting before the case closed. It's likely I won't be able to afterwards.
Cheers, Vincent 00:48, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have never been involved with an arbitration on Wiki, so I'm not sure how to proceed or even if it is acceptable to contact arbitrators. If I'm acting in error, please let me know.
In the LaRouche matter, I see that in the August 2004 arbitration one of the main enforcement remedies adopted was this:
- Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense. Passed with 5 of 6 active arbitrators on 2 August 2004. No votes against and no abstentions
I have provided evidence of numerous cases in which original research originating with the LaRouche movement has been inserted by an editor, and even re-inserted into articles, in apparent violation of the above order. Yet I have not seen this matter brought up. Do I need to file a complaint to give the evidence a purpose? Thanks for your help. -Willmcw 22:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You may make note of this on the talk page of the evidence and/or proposed decision subsections; we'll find your comments there. :) -- Grunt ҈ 22:56, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)
Thanks. The evidence isn't new, but the issue seemed to have been overlooked. I've written it into a formal complaint and listed the evidence to more clearly show the violation. I placed it on the talk page of the proposed decision page, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche Part Deux/Proposed decision. If that is a bad place for it, let me know and I can move it. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Whoops. I missed Mav. Sorry to screw with your totals then. Snowspinner 14:37, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- What can I say, I apparently like to be bold in makin gan ass out of myself. :( Snowspinner 17:48, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
To all those on the ArbCom: Man, you guys cleaned house! Great work. My number one hope for the 2005 ArbCom was that the backlog would shrink due to prompt decisions, and you all surpassed my hopes. My hat's off to you. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 20:47, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
RK's request for arbitration
I am a little unclear on the terminology in regards to my request for arbitration. You wrote "I would like to see RK's current editing behaviour on these articles before determining whether the ban is warranted." Does this mean that there is now a temporary stay on the ban in order to see my edits? I made some edits yesterday, so you can check them out. RK 01:45, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
- The proposed staying of the ban has not yet been passed by the rest of the arbitration committee; I would consider the ban to still be in place for the moment for this reason (even though I've indicated that I would like to see otherwise for the moment). The process of hearing the appeal will take some time and is not something I can do by myself. -- Grunt ҈ 01:48, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
Hi Grunt, since you were one of the arbitrators who accepted the Everyking case I am letting you know that I have requested a clarification on the ruling on the talk page for that arbitration, since it may not be on your watchlist. The link is: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Everyking#Clarification_requested. Thanks, silsor 10:32, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
I have been using wikipedia now for just under a year and I have been blocked once again, this time the block was requested by you. And from what I can work out it was "Robert the Bruce" that was surposed to be blocked. The IP address 184.108.40.206 that was blocked is a SAIX IP which is one of the largest Gateways connecting South Africa to the rest of the world. The user Robert has been blocked for a year but the IPs were blocked for 24hrs. That means alot of South Africans will also be blocked including me. I just checked with my ISP and my IP address is 220.127.116.11 this changes everyday when I login. Is it not possible to pick up this IP address and not a gateway which million of people use? SAIX won't answer my emails when I ask for the range of IP that they use. When a IP is blocked can't you find the vandels correct IP not something in between him and wikipedia? This must get sorted soon because you going to loose alot of South Africans. --Jcw69 16:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nagorno-Karabakh: Request for help and/or advice
I am writing to ask for your help to deal with a protracted dispute between me and User:Rovoam over the content of the Nagorno-Karabakh page. I realize that you may have a very limited time, let alone very limited knowledge about the issue itself, but I nevertheless decided to appeal to you. Today I filed a request for formal mediation to deal with this issue (mediation request is here). Before that I asked User:Davenbelle for third party opinion and he also briefly acted as an informal mediator/facilitator, but this wan't successful either. Frankly, I think mediation will not help either, so I am thinking about appealing to formal arbitration. But before doing that I just wanted to ask you for an advice on what shall I do, how to proceed further in order to stop Rovoam from pushing his nationalistic agenda. Please, have a look at the Nagorno-Karabakh discussion page for details. Hope to hear from you.--Tabib 11:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- We, the Arbitration Committee, do not deal with content disputes. If you feel there is a problem in editing behaviour in the questionable articles, compile some evidence indicating this is so and file a request on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. -- Grunt ҈ 14:31, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
- (comment moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Baku Ibne, et al. -- Grunt ҈ 20:49, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC))
- Hi Grunt. I am addressing similar message to all ArbCom members dealing with my case against Rovoam. I was just wandering if you read my message Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Baku_Ibne,_et_al.#Rovoam_exposes_his_real_face._What_next_for_Tabib.3F. I just want to make sure that you or anybody else from ArbCom did not miss that message before casting his/her vote. I would appreciate any comment on my message. Thanks. --Tabib 15:26, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Normally I do leave the IP blocked in circumstances such as these. It's when I have urgent things I need to do from here that necessiates unblocking in this fashion. -- Grunt ҈ 15:27, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
RE:Arbitration Committee case opening
I don't understand, evidence about what? REX 15:04, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I don't understand the relevance of this comment; you're not a disputant in any case I've opened recently. -- Grunt ҈ 15:30, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
Please excuse me, the above post was meant to be on someone else's talk page. REX 16:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There's absolutely no case to answer. The complainant refused mediation. He clearly doesn't actually want to resolve the issue. I don't want to waste any time on it. Do the witch-ducking without me. Dr Zen 23:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Your question about vandalism
You requested a check on links between two accounts. Please review my recent activities in teh block log and talk page for my findings. Those two accounts did not show links but one of them turned out to have interesting properties. If you'll be kind enough to link to the user page of the one with non-US characters I'll do some further checking after I've slept - been up for way too long at present. I didn't check the current practices for blocking times for page moves and proxy IPs - if one year is currently considered excessive, please adjust the times I used and/or remove the blocks. Jamesday 04:47, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Strange things happening
this edit shows me as reverting you. Except I didn't actually revert you. I just looked at the page! I'd revert it back except people have edited in the meantime, so I shall leave it in your capable hands. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 19:38, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- hmm, it's only been my (major) edits in the meantime, but I've stirred up enough controversy that I should probably just leave it as is. -- Grunt ҈ 19:40, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
Proposed amendment revote - voting eligibilty requirements
Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Proposed amendment revote doesn't state voting eligibility requirements. The previous vote had voting eligibility requirements but the new one doesn't state them. RJFJR 05:50, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Proposed amendment revote - personal vs official capacity
I think you got "personal capacity" and "official capacity" confused at Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Proposed_amendment_revote, so I have edited it. If my edit did not reflect your original intent, then please revert, but please also add new proposals with my wording. —AlanBarrett 12:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I wasn't the person that wrote that part of the proposal. Talk to Jamesday, whom I believe wrote that particular part of the proposal.
- Thanks. —AlanBarrett 16:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't write them and strongly oppose them. I believe it was JamesF who wrote them, after I mentioned that there was more merit in immmunity when acting in an official capacity than in a personal capacity and suggested that they should be split for that reason. Jamesday 13:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Steak and Blowjob Day
Contrary to Chris's claims, this wasn't actually VfDed - the debate was cut off two days prematurely and the article was speedy deleted as a recreation. It was a recreation of another speedied article, which was speedied as vanity. Since vanity isn't a speedy criterion, it should never have gotten speedied as a recreation. The VfD is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Steak and Blowjob Day. Furthermore, the article that you deleted was not a recreation - I started the article from scratch and about a minute before hitting submit noticed that there were deleted edits. I followed up on it, saw that it was deleted out of process, and offered my article. That is to say, this was speedied as a recreation of VfDed content, when in fact it was neither a recreation nor VfDed. Can you please restore? Snowspinner 14:43, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry - I was informed via IRC that it was a restoration of deleted content. It has been restored. -- Grunt ҈ 15:32, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
Wikipedia:The universe does not revolve around you
I thought you might get a laugh out of this proposed policy. Wikipedia:The universe does not revolve around you. Although... it is true. Leave your ego at the door when you edit the Wikipedia. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:21, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
About that revote
You know, given your commitment it almost makes me sorry I can't vote twice. No matter, I shall inform all my friends, relatives and sockpuppets to come!
Just kidding, obviously. But I'm curious: why do you feel so strongly about this? JRM 14:27, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
- Because these policies have been in the works for upwards of one year. Some of them are common sense, and are already common practice. The first vote was a disaster. I really, really, really want to get this over with, and if we don't deal with the niggling quorum the whole fiasco is just going to keep going. -- Grunt ҈ 14:35, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
- Hmm. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: democracy just doesn't work.
Or, more seriously, voting on Wikipedia just doesn't work. If these things are "common sense" and "common practice", it reflects rather poorly on us that we are unable to reach consensus by editing. No, we have to throw a community-wide vote against it and thus practically guarantee that no decision will be reached. Oh well... JRM 11:53, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
- Hmm. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: democracy just doesn't work.
There's been a request privately sent to me to look into the contributions of User:NCdave. I looked, and he looks like an extremist POV pusher, particularly on Terri Schiavo. It doesn't look anywhere near bad enough for RFAr yet, so I figured I'd throw this one to you. Want to look into it and bang up an RFC on NCdave? Thanks. Snowspinner 05:30, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
Your comment in ArbCom evidences
I still hope that you may reconsider your vote in ArbCom in the light of the lack of evidences against me. But I am writing to you for a different reason.
I saw your comment in ArbCom evidences. Responding to David Gerard who opposed putting revert limitation on me saying "I really don't see evidence this is necessary" you wrote "Try FoF 7 above." Could you please tell me what you meant by this, what "FoF" is? Hope to hear from you. Thanks. --Tabib 13:05, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
- FoF is short for finding of fact. -- Grunt ҈ 15:24, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
I still didn't understand what you meant. What "FoF 7" means then? Maybe you refer to this link (it's numbered ), but then I do not understand what relevance it has to me?..--Tabib 10:13, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Grunt, I just realized that by "FoF 7" you meant "Revert warring" section. It's numbered 7 in the text, but in the TOC it has different numbers, that's why I was confused. --Tabib 14:26, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your arbitration decision regarding Xed's disruptive behavior. I thought the decision by the committee was well considered, fair, and very even handed. I'm glad to see the Wikipedia community can police itself, contrary to what others in the academic community have said about it. --Modemx 20:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
tkorrovi vs psb777
You seem to be in an unseemly hurry to start commenting. Please desist until I have had time to craft a response. Thanks. Paul Beardsell 20:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I am merely acknowledging that there is a problem that needs to be looked at; it is traditional arbitration procedure to render an opinion on the opening of a case as soon as there is any evidence to look through, and revise opinions as more evidence becomes available. There is also a typical waiting period of one week between the opening of a case and the rendering of any reasonably well formed opinions by arbitrators. Rest assured you will have an ample opportunity to respond to the charges against you. -- Grunt ҈ 20:52, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)
"traditional" I dispute. No, please withdraw your comment. As the section heading says, arbitrators are to comment upon having heard the matter, not only after having heard one side. I am understandably reluctant to make my case if it is being prejudged. That there is no substantive case to consider will be my argument. You have already judged that there is. Paul Beardsell 20:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No that is not good enough. You leave your opinion in full view, even if it is struck out. Paul Beardsell 21:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- It is common arbitrator practice to strike out an opinion when it is no longer valid and is commonly recognised to mean that the opinion is no longer valid. The opinion can be read even if it is removed from the page merely by going through the page history. -- Grunt ҈ 21:23, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)