Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 1

BD's comment

I'm the "disinterested moderator" CK mentions above (not that I consider this a particularly "official" role, I just happened by), and at this point I think I'm satisfied enough that the talk: page discussion is going nowhere that I'll add my voice to this request. VeryVerily seems to be arguing vigorously against a position that is not actually being taken by those he's arguing against (both the editors on the talk page and the version of the article he was disputing), and I think the version he wants to replace it with is highly POV. I've tried at great length to explain why I think this but it just doesn't seem to be helping and VV has rejected all the other approaches to dealing with this that are suggested on the dispute resolution page. Bryan 01:32, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The conversation is indeed starting to head to nowheresville, because BD is simply not processing what I am saying, whether out of laziness or, whatever. However, he is not an involved party here. VV 04:07, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've brought this comment back into the main page, since I consider this to be me "seconding" the request (as allowed for in the "what belongs in requests for arbitration" list) rather than an outside side-comment. Bryan 20:54, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fred Bauder, why did you restore these comments here? They don't need to be on the project page and in Talk. VV 23:11, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VeriVerily made it to the arbitration page three times in just about one week

Would such a record qualify for the current events section? I do have warned Turrican not to "retaliate", I however point to the fact that VeriVerily did not manage to freak out others for the first time. Get-back-world-respect 05:36, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I initiated the last one, and largely because RfAr was being used so much against me. And readers may note that Gz's was soundly rejected. VV 05:59, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You initiated the last one because you were the guy it took to tango. Get-back-world-respect 06:39, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

True enough, one's user page cannot be vandalized unless one has one. So it's equally my fault. VV 06:46, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am completely sure he did that for no reason at all, just targeting a random user. Get-back-world-respect 06:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily and reversion

Copied here from the main discussion because VeryVerily keeps deleting it. Shorne 22:10, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily and reversion

I would like to add that I have been having a problem with VeryVerily as well. I also know User:Shorne has been having a problem with him as well, he unfortunately has become so unhappy he is discussing leaving Wikipedia. VeryVerily has a great technique for harrassing people - he goes through people's edit history backwards, reverting all of the changes they have made. No user page comments, nothing said on the discussion page, nothing said even on the edit except "rv". Of course, editting a dozen pages make take hours of my time, for VeryVerily it just takes one minute to wreck all of that work.

A look through the edit history[1] of Great Purge might serve as an example. Within 93 minutes (04:01, 11 Oct 2004 to 05:34, 11 Oct 2004), VeryVerily reverted the page six times. This of course is disobeying the Wikipedia:Three revert rule which he certainly knows about since he's been banned before for breaking it.

I think Great Purge is a good example because many editors and admins with different opinions have come together since September 24th to work on the article - me, Fred Bauder, Everyking, Shorne, Mikkalai, Andris, and others. VeryVerily walks into this and just starts a revert war. And not only that, he openly flouts the three revert rule, which he has been banned for before, because I suppose he figures the dispute resolution process will take forever, and perhaps he will succeed in that time in driving away someone like Shorne. I wonder what he will say that with the capable abilities of me, Fred Bauder, Everyking, Shorne, Mikkalai, Andris, and others working out a compromise on the Great Purge page, why he will say it was absolutely necessary for him to break the three revert rule and revert the page six times within 93 minutes. And of course, this is just one example of many for a user who has already been banned in the past for the same thing - breaking the reversion rules. Ruy Lopez 07:32, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I concur wholeheartedly with every word that Ruy Lopez wrote. There is too much for me to repeat here on the subject of VeryVerily, so I would like to incorporate the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation here by reference.

It has become perfectly clear to me that user VeryVerily has no intention whatsoever of working together with anyone. I see no place here for someone who boasts about getting his own way come hell or high water and shows absolutely no regard for the rules, the rights of others, or even common decency. VeryVerily simply must be kept from incessantly reverting others' work and imposing his own POV if the site is not to degenerate into a grotesque propaganda-fest.

Although I do not know the conventions here for disciplinary action, which I had never hoped to invoke, I consider a ban of some sort appropriate. At a minimum, some way to prevent him from making the same change (usually a reversion) twice in a row without discussing it on the talk page is needed. I am going to have to insist because VeryVerily is utterly incorrigible and even prides himself on the fact. Right now I am awaiting VeryVerily's reply to my request for mediation, which I fully expect to be a refusal, since he has sneered at every one of my dozens of requests to discuss matters. If he refuses, I will wish to proceed with arbitration immediately, and I will have to request swift action. Given that VeryVerily is well known to the committee as a troublemaker, I trust that this request will be understood and accepted. I am also willing to combine my case with another one if the committee deems that appropriate. Shorne 08:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I also would like to speak out and point that the reason why I am currently not active at Wikipedia anymore is exactly the fact that VV began reverting all my edits and that I simply decided that while I enjoyed Wikipedia continuously fighting against such people was a bad way to spend my free time.

I think it is time that WP-Admins take position on such issues. There are two people who try to turn Wikipedia into a US-Propaganda-Encyclopedia : VV and TDC. While TDC has a tendency to bring out the worst in people, including me, one can at least work with him - he just doesn't delete thing he doesn't like if one sources them - which is anyways always a good idea, from an academic point of view. But VV is absolutely beyond reason and I think that in this case tolerating him amounts to "collaboration". VV is not willing to work with anyone and while he reverts to vandalism himself if he doesn't like an author - kinda like a bombing run - it is only vandalism if someone reverts his edits. A classic case of Double Standards. If you let such people continue people will read in WP that the Japanese actually wanted to be nuked, that Henry Kissinger was a nice guy, that only the Commies believe that the 73 Coup in Chile was started / backed by the US and that the US has "the best Human Right Records in the world." We are not talking about POVs here, this is plain propaganda.

If you want to ban me for getting freaked out because of VV do so, but please write a warning on the front page that WP has a strong Pro-US Right-Wing Bias and that serious users should look elsewhere for information.

Turrican

I agree. User:VeryVerily, User:TDC, and User:Adam Carr are absolutely impossible to work with. Most other people will at least negotiate; these three are virtually unyielding, and VeryVerily is the worst of the lot.

If VeryVerily is allowed to ride roughshod over the articles, just have the integrity, please, to drop the pretence of NPOV and a three-revert rule and spell out quite plainly that this is a right-wing Web site with rules from which certain users are exempt. Shorne 13:13, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not actually involved in this dispute, but I've been keeping a wary eye on this whole morass. I would like very much to hear your explanation for these edits: [2] and [3], which were made from an anonymous IP and mirror edits which you made before and after to the same articles. I have also noted said IP, along with one other, making edits to Anarchism (see diffs here: [4], [5]). Mackensen 00:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, those edits were made by the same person who is Turrican, not Shorne. VeryVerily 09:26, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Our friend is back, this time as 195.182.127.170. Most of the usual stomping grounds ( Lon Nol, FOX News), and other similar topics, without reference to talk page consensus. He also axed the NPOV tag on Kulak, which means he's been paying attention to recent developments, as Turrican, to my knowledge, never wandered over there. Mackensen 22:55, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of any anonymous IP. I post only from this account. To tell you the truth, I am getting tired of the constant accusations that I am masquerading as this, that, or the other user. Shorne 01:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments on jurisdiction

I have a few questions:

1. Will the committee only site en banc?
2. Is there any provision for having the parties each picking on arbitrator and then have those to arbitrators pick a third out of the committee. This is a standard procedure and is the preferred method at the AAA. JamesDay has pointed out that having the arbitrators just thrust upon one is not very fair.
3. If you don't like that idea will you do what they do in most courts, i.e. the arbitrator will be chosen by some random process so that there is some difference in decision making and people don't feel like they have been railroaded to appear before a commitee chosen by Jimbo.
4. As arbitration is a consensual matter too if both parties want arbitration then can you guys (and I do mean guys) really refuse?
5. Aren't members really guaranteed arbitration by the Bylaws? So how can the committee refuse to arbitrate? Where do those people go? BTW if a court has jurisdiction it is usually required at least to rule if there is a case that can be brought against it, and if not it renders a decision dismissing the case by the plaintiff (or petitioner, or whatever you want to call that person or entity).

Just some random thoughts from someone who does arbitration in the real world. — Alex756 [http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 06:55, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

1) I don't understand the question!

en banc means that you will all rule together. It comes from the time when judges all sat on a bench (Court of Queen's Bench) in the monarch's court.

2-3) That will be discussed when we move onto the "Who takes part?" point on the agenda (see wikipedia:arbitrators, progress report). I'm aware of your comments on this elsewhere, and will bring them to the committee's notice at the appropriate time.

Thanks.

4-5) If you feel that we cannot or should not refuse, for legal or other reasons, we'd be interested to hear your opinion. While discussing the issue, we generally felt that we'd be referring cases to mediation where we felt mediation might help, that we'd be refusing to rule on very trivial matters that should have been addressed by stages 1-3 of wikipedia:conflict resolution, and we'd be referring serious matters to the Wikimedia Board, to the police, or to the courts. Essentially in this cases we would be ruling that we have no jurisdiction over the dispute at the present time.

If the arbitrators are "seized" of a case they may request that the parties try mediation, but if mediation fails, then the arbitrators cannot refuse to rule after they follow their procedures. As far as the "courts" are concerned it would be best that you don't refer anything to the courts. The idea is to keep Wikipedia independent of the courts. Of course if someone has some really serious claim against WP then maybe a reference to the AAA under one of their arbitration rules or to some online arbitration service (there are several) would be appropriate. I mentioned to Jimbo that there might be more than one type of arbitration, i.e. if some user brings some kind of money claim against Wikipedia the arbitrators might better be those trained to decide such disputes, but if there is a general arbitration clause in the Wikipedia:Terms of use then everyone who sees this site we hope will be bound by it and we won't have to worry about people suing people in the courts (who is going to pay for Wikipedia's legal fees!).

Martin 18:47, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Replies by — Alex756 [http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 05:56, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We discussed this, and we generally decided that we'd like to continue to have the option to either dismiss a case quickly, or else refuse to hear it. Being largely untrained there was a feeling that we should be honest when faced with a case that is beyond our abilities to arbitrate. Martin 19:00, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I would like to congratulate the idea of this "court" and the professional way on which it promisses to deal with conflicts. Muriel 15:50, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! --mav

---

Hey, you should not put titles in comments, for it breaks the edit sections. It is unfortunate :-) fr0069

Question for people better informed than I

What happens if an arbitrator accepts to consider a matter against a user with whom he was involved in edit wars? I am concerned about possible bias, despite my confidence that the nominated arbitrators will known how to separate things. Muriel 08:04, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is the Arbitrator's job to recuse him- or her-self in the event of a conflict of interest; if other members of the Committee feel that an Arbitrator has such a conflict, they can have him removed (a vote of 4, IIRC), but failing to note, if not recuse oneself over, a conflict of interest would be considered a serious failing, and might lead to Jimbo removing such a person from the Arbitration Committee. If, however, a majority of the Committee feel that they would have a conflict of interest, the Committee will sit en banc, disregarding such concerns, as otherwise a determined troll could deliberatly seek to reduce the Committee to below-quorum levels. Obviously, Jimbo can disregard one of our decisions handed down, or dismiss or censure or whatever us, if he feels appropriate.

Please note: The above is merely the current state of the Arbitration Policy, and could change (though the rules are and will continue to be published - see Wikipedia:Arbitration Policy.

James F. (talk) 09:47, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Question of organisation

I perhaps have not read well, or not the right pages, but I have not understood whether the committee was actually talking to the disputants during arbitration. Or not at all
When you arbitrate a case, do you talk to those involved, or do you just review evidence.
In the first case, people coming to you should come with an advocate preferably to help them, and should be prepared to vocally defend their steak spinach salad. Perhaps even come with witnesses
In the second case, that means arbitration can occur even though a disputant is missing. All disputants should arrive at arbitration with a prepared case. Cases are usually prepared by lawyers. Perhaps users need recommandations of how they can organise their case, gather links, facts. Because all they will have the right to do is to give a little package that will support the case for them.

Explain to me how you organise yourself, and aside from all that paperwork about quorum and other technical considerations, what does happen exactly ? Do you plan a male only group meeting in a coffee shop tea house to talk this over between all of you, with blood and sweat dedication and duty respect, or is it more like a review of written evidence properly gathered by others ? In this case, who are the others ? Who are the gatherers ? Yous ? One of yous ? Disputants ? Before arbitration ? During arbitration ? If before, how can mediation help ? (so that we do not do twice the same work ?)

FirmLittleFluffyThing 00:53, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In the cases we've dealt with so far, we've set up an /evidence page (see for example Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik/Evidence) where people can post evidence they think the arbitrators should consider. Such evidence can be posted by involved parties, arbitrators themselves, and any other users. If mediators want to post evidence, that could be very useful, as they're likely to have pretty good knowledge of users' history. In the case of Wik, we also had Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik, where Wik made a statement. We've then sifted through all this stuff, and tried to reach conclusions.

We haven't talked directly to the involved parties ourselves in cases so far (not that I can think of, anyway). I wouldn't rule out doing that in the future, however, if we wanted to ask a particular question or clarify a particular point.

That's how things have been so far. It's hard to say how they might work out in the future. Our methods are constantly in flux and likely to change--especially in these early days--as we learn what works best. There's a little bit about the process at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Hearing, but it's quite vague - this is deliberate, really, as we hope to fill out the details as we gain more experience and learn what works well.

Everything I say here is just how I see things, by the way - I'm not claiming to speak for the committee as a whole. And sorry if I'm not very coherent - I'm dropping asleep :) --Camembert

First off, please note that I am speaking for myself here, and not the AC, as I'm a little hazy on the exact details.

Here's an overview of how things have gone for the last few cases:

We get a new case. This is announced on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration (in future, obviously, it will start here) and also on the AC mailing lists.

Those Arbitrators who feel that they are involved will recuse themselves; further, those involved in the case can complain about an Arbitrator that they feel should have recused themself (as is set out in the Policy)

Those involved present information (evidence) and arguments (seperated, so as to avoid confusion as to who is saying what). If people want others to represent them here, I suppose that that's fine, though it does seem a bit overly formal to me. This goes on the specific sub-page for the case.

Others may give accessory information (e.g. someone saying that, in their opinion, user A is a maligned individual who, whilst difficult to work with, is nonetheless zn important part of the Wikipedia)

The Committee discusses the evidence provided on the mailing list, and we suggest possible findings, which we then agree or disagree on, and find specific evidence to support. The evidence, if possible to place in the public gaze, will go on the case's evidence sub-sub-page.

Then, again on the mailing list, we suggest possible decrees (ban, edit throttling, censure, &c.). These will be put up on the case's decision sub-sub-page, along with the agreed-upon findings and a small amount of corroborating evidence.

We vote on the findings and decrees, and, when we have come to a conclusion, we publish this on the main Requests for arbitration page.

So, in review, Arbitration is a combination of a review of evidence given by others, and a finding of evidence ourselves.

I would say that the easiest way that Mediation can help is by letting people settle their differences, so that we don't have to look at it at all. ;-) Of course, that's not always possible; in the case of informatin from Mediation comeing through to the AC, we consider it privileged information, so you would need the consent of all involved. If you have that, a special section on the evidence page is nominally reserved for the products your hard work.

James F. (talk) 02:35, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to jump in and add my experiences in bring Irismeister's case before the AC. I made my request on the page and waited to see if my request to Jimbo would bear fruit. Several other people requested the case be heard, so Jimbo passed it to the committee. Then we suddenly had an evidence page and a vote was opened to see if the members of the committee would accept the case.

I assumed that the AC members would have a glance at the evidence to see if the case seemed worthy of attention (rather than base their vote just on my official request), so I felt I had to hurry to get as much evidence as possible on the page so that AC members wouldn't vote it down without seeing the full picture. Then of course, nothing has happened for weeks as more urgent cases have been dealt with.

At the moment I find it a bit confusing that we don't know when the committee are focusing on each case, or when all evidence should ideally be presented by. People have been adding evidence to pages very late, and we don't know if this is even considered (if it falls in the time when the arbitrators are voting on findings of fact for instance). Perhaps when you've settled into a pattern on how you deal with cases, you could draw up a standard timetable/guide to help users who wish to gather evidence (you could also give an idea of how to best present evidence, should you expound on the evidence page or should you rely just on links with little commentary, etc, etc, because as we can't see the debates, we don't know how useful or persuasive you find different kinds of evidence and how to present it in a useful format). fabiform | talk 04:24, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

All very good ideas, IMO. Thanks for the feedback! --mav 06:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers.
I suppose it is best that each disputant comes with a full description of what he is asking then.
Does the arbitration committee plan to ever accept settlements over article dispute ? Or does it consider it is out of its juridiction ? It is best we know, so that to be clear with disputants mediation is the only way.
Also, I noticed all the currents cases were accusations against one person only, perhaps sometimes with someone playing the role of the community. Do you plan to accept conjoint cases, or should these be presented separately when both disputants have requests ?
How are perceived accusations made between 2 people, not involving the community at all for example ?
Is there any arbitration decision which are not banning or slowing down, or unsysoping people, but more things like apologizing to another person ?
When there are no rules about the case, what do you plan to do ?
What is your feeling with regards to advocates ? If disputants are not really exchanging (words) with AC, what can be their role ? Just providing facts ? FirmLittleFluffyThing 18:16, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We haven't ruled out arbitrating article disputes, but our policy clearly favours taking on user conduct disputes.

A vs B cases are fine. Yes, even if the community at larges is basically uninvolved.

We've had a number of decrees involving warnings or reminders given to one party or the other. I'm not sure about apologies. How would one enforce that? What if the apology is perceived as insincere? <for more info see meatball:DemandApology -- Cyan>

If there are no rules... if there aren't any common practices or consensus-backed policy, then I guess we'd have to reject the claim and suggest that the community come to a consensus over the matter. A case-by-case thing.

Advocates can help by making statements on the arbitration page, by structuring evidence in a helpful and persuasive manner, and by objecting to evidence they consider to be flawed. Same as non-advocates, really. Martin 14:19, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

case of trolls

-> Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/JRR Trollkien

Access to Evidence

Why is access to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mav v. 168/Evidence limited and to whom is it limited? I can only see it or post to it while logged in. 168...

I expect it's a caching issue. Anonymous users retrieve pages from a cache, and this new page has presumably not been cached yet. Try a hard refresh, or edit as a logged in user (who shouldn't hit the cache, but often have similar problems with images). I know of no way to hide the contents of pages from any user, and why would we want to anyway? :) fabiform | talk 06:37, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Proposal: temporary restraining orders

I'd like to propose an additional element to add to the arbitration process. It occurred to me that while the arbitration is ongoing there is nothing in place to stop, or at least deter, the conduct that has prompted the arbitration in the first place. I suggest that Wikipedia should borrow a tool from the legal system and use temporary restraining orders to "freeze" a dispute until the AC has resolved it.

Here's how I see it working.

• If a dispute is essentially about content, relating to a single article or group of articles, both the complainant and complainee should be required to cease editing those articles until the dispute is resolved.

• If the dispute is more about conduct (e.g. posting abuse to user talk pages or repeatedly reverting) the complainee should be required to temporarily cease the complained-of conduct: editing any user talk pages, performing any reversions, etc.

• If the restraint is ignored then the offending user(s) should be given an immediate temporary ban until the arbitration is resolved.

I see this measure as offering a number of advantages:

• If users abided by the TRO, it would avoid the need to protect the article to the general detriment of other users. It would also hopefully reduce the temperature of a conflict between users.

• If they didn't obey the TRO it would provide a fairly instant measure of their good intent and willingness to accept the AC's decisions.

• The limited and temporary nature of the TRO would provide a means of enforcing a "time-out" without prejudging the rights and wrongs of a case. Nobody would be harmed by a temporary restriction on which pages they can edit; they can go and make contributions to something harmless (anyone for Gastropoda?) while the AC deliberates.

I leave open the question of how a TRO could be authorised. Perhaps we could give the complainant the option of requesting a TRO, with the decision being made through time-limited vote among sysops of whom a supermajority and a reasonable number of actual votes cast would required to agree the TRO (e.g. requiring a minimum of 60% in favour with at least six votes in favour).

I recognize that this probably would not be much use in the most complex cases, but for the simpler cases it might be a useful tool to adopt. -- ChrisO 18:41, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think this is an idea worth considering (I hope we could come up with a name other than "temporary restraining order" though, which makes users sound a bit like stalkers or something), but I'd like to hear what other people (arbitrators and not) think. Any thoughts? --Camembert

It is an interesting idea, but executing it may be as difficult as arbitration itself in many situations. When you have two parties in an edit war on a page, whose version of the page would you leave when you ordered the end of hostilities? Wouldn't it encourage sock puppeting? Would you order allies of the parties to also cease? Finally, the arbiters don't hasten to make decisions, but a "TRO" only really helps if it happens early in the process. --Ben Brockert 23:38, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

Since we are unlikely to get 5 arbitrators to quickly issue a TRO, if authorized, as part of arbitration policy, it probably should be issued by one arbitrator and take another arbitrator to overrule it. Fred Bauder 01:03, May 29, 2004 (UTC)

Aw, just go and let the fur fly. Human psychology is such that with potential parental involvement the involved participants will become more extreme since such behavior reinforces the ego's system of rationalization to self support their internal view of the reasonableness of their own position. Having further polarized the behavior the arbitrators will have a clearer view of what is happening and will find it easier to come ot a conclusion. (I'd love to work on Gastropods!) Stephen Holland, M.D. (Gastroenterology) Kd4ttc 19:23, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Meatball:TrialByExile? Martin 00:47, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fred's suggestion looks good. Seems a popular idea, too. Martin 00:47, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I also like Fred's idea. --mav 01:15, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I too; this makes for 5 Arbitrators' votes for, and none against. If an internal measure, is it hence enacted? James F. (talk) 01:34, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Baiting block proposed

-> wikipedia talk:banning policy

Arbitrators don't set policy, just enforce it. Proposals to policy pages, please. :) Martin 23:26, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Original response to MNH 2

-> Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mr-Natural-Health

172/VV

Maybe I'm missing something, but why was the request for arbitration between 172 and VV removed? Snowspinner 16:30, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

I've notified Martin, who apparently was the one who removed it, and I expect he will provide an explanation and/or restore it to the list. --Michael Snow 17:02, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Probably just a technical gremlin (section editing, blanking the edit box, hitting "save page twice", something like that, I guess). Anyway, it's restored now. --Camembert

(it was) Martin 23:38, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, 172, at least, seems to have left Wikipedia... john k 04:20, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, he hasn't. We've been through this before, but I've lost count of how many times he's announced his departure and then come back. --Michael Snow 22:59, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, yeah, he came back immediately after I wrote that. So never mind to that. john k 06:00, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You'd probably have a better idea than I'd have. After all, you seem to be spending more time following me around and going through my user history than writing articles; you seem to be devoting more time to all this fuss and hot air than I am. If you want things to die down, withdraw that noxious "arbitration committee" request, forget about all the nonsense allegations hurled back and forward by angry editors letting off steam, and simply stop blowing things out of proportion. 172 05:58, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Proposed practical measures

1. systematic inclusion of "Wikicreative indices" (WICI) on each editor's personal page;
2. automatic addition of the "Wikipolice tag", when attributed by computed stats to personal signatures;
3. real-time measures of the "Wikicreative index";
4. NEVER delete thispage, even after I'm gone for good. This is essential for newcomers. They absolutely need this warning, so that their would-be, bona fide volunteer contributions would not be exploited.
5. FINAL WARNING In my own half-year assignment I had to deal with aggressive, brutal, ignorant Wikipedia:Wikipolice. There is no doubt in my mind that Wikipedia has become a piratocracy. Basically, you would give time, energy, knowledge away for free, only to be insulted and libelled. That's how piratocracies work: They grab what they can and then they boast and tap each other on their respective shoulders about how democratic they are. They aren't. They are only pathetically brutal pirates, giving themselves a collective treat by pampering their "position" in wolf packing-order. If you want to give it a try at your turn, be ready to lose enormous amounts of time of your life, only because Wikipedia:Wikipolice takes advantage of your life, and try to smear you or your ideals, dragging you into unnecessary babysitting sessions with the incredibly ignorant "peers". Consider yourself warned! - irismeister 12:09, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)

Irismeister violation of injunction

Editing Talk:Alternative medicine after injunction "Temporary injunction: Irismeister cannot edit any page other than his/her user and user talk pages and his/her AC pages": [6] [7] - David Gerard 22:29, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the injunction is only a suggestion, not a ban. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 22:32, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Looks like the suggestion's been taken [8] - David Gerard 22:58, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Looks like you are comparing apples to oranges. You cannot compare a prohibited action of restoring a deleted page to a normal edit of a talk page. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 09:10, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's not a suggestion it's a temporary ruling. Irismeister is banned from editing pages (except his own page and the arbitration pages) until the AC says otherwise. theresa knott 09:48, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Yes, Theresa is correct - it's a temporary ruling, not a suggestion. Martin 23:41, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re:[9]

I am interested in having an arbitration of wikipedia:civility and/or wikiquette violations made by a number of prominent admins. What is most important IMO is that a precedent be formed, and a consequence given, rather than any particular shaming, loss of status, etc... These rules are simply not being enforced, and when on off chance they are given any attention, it is only in opposition to those unpopular w the community. IMO prominent community members aught also to maintain minimum standards of conduct. Things like [this] are not good for anybody. Some of us have academic pretenses, and all of us make claim to being scholars of sorts. Ad hominem attacks, abuse or incivility of any kind really, are simply not acceptable. Sam [Spade] 18:46, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Here’s just a hint of what’s going on among non-admins [10]. I think something needs done about enforcing the violations of the existing wikipedia:No personal attacks / Wikipedia:Civility / wikiquette policies. NPOV in my opinion should be of a lesser focus for your committee, and is likely best solved by polite, well-reasoned intellectual discourse. Foul language and brutish behaviours hurt everyone when our (stated) goal is the compilation and promotion of reliable reference materials. As a volunteer, I simply ask for better; better enforcement of our current (and may I say excellent) policies. Thank you in advance, Sam [Spade] 22:37, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I hardly think it takes a committee to find a problem with Spleeman. Whereas figuring out what NPOV is... that may well take several committees. Snowspinner 22:50, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Sam on this point. Spleeman's behavior is unacceptable. Danny 22:43, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But whats to be done between us danny? What can I do to assure you that I edit in good faith? I think I've offered one soloution, if you choose to accept it... Sam [Spade] 22:59, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Another 142/Entmoots/JRR reincarnation

Could someone more expert in these things please look over User:The Trolls of Navarone's edits and talk page. If he's not a reincarnation, he's doing his best to look like one (a favourite slab of text of 142/Entmoots/JRR) and writes in an almost identical style. Some consider him a reincarnation already [11] but this appears disputed. I'm inclined to say "of course he bloody is", but would like the opinion of someone with more experience of the ex-user in question - David Gerard 13:58, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am an expert on half of this conundrum, and can confirm that I am not the same user as 142/Entmoots/JRR etc. My IP address is on my user page for verification. Your humble servant, The Trolls of Navarone 22:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We don't ban people. We ban on the basis of behavior. This account (Navarone) should be banned on the basis of displaying identical behavior to that which resulted in a ban before (almost certainly deliberately). - Hephaestos|§ 23:57, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry Hephaestos, can you specify what behavior I am displaying that means I should be banned? I can't think of any. The Trolls of Navarone 15:15, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your username, your article edit history, your uncomprehending answers when questioned all virtually match those of JRR Trollkien. The community does not want that user here. Ergo the community does not want you here. - Hephaestos|§ 15:52, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What a lot of hot air. As you know, I am sure:

1. The arbitration committee, Jimbo, and all sane people, have agree that there is nothing wrong with my username. Change yours, it's no better.
2. Ah, a damningly specific charge. "Your edit history". Please, you're embarrasing yourself.
3. My 'uncomprehending answers'? I really don't comprehend you. Perhaps this is a typo?
4. 'The community does not that user here'? Again, I conclude that you think that 'the community does not (want? apreciate? understand?) that user', although how you know, I'm not sure.
5. You don't speak for 'the community', please stop trolling.

The Trolls of Navarone 16:04, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It should be noted, IPs are really something that can only prove in the affirmative. That is, an identical IP proves reincarnation. A different IP does not disprove it. Snowspinner 17:42, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

To be fair, by the same logic, an idntical IP doesn't really prove anything either. Shared ISPs, ownzed boxes etc can give false positives. Mark Richards 19:29, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, of course, though I think by the time we're to the point of checking IPs we've probably already amassed a decent amount of other evidence on the matter. My point was really that, regardless of the IP evidence, I think the case for a ban of this user is strong. Snowspinner 20:14, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

I actually don't see any real evidence - sure, it looks like this user shares the politics of JRRT/EMT etc, but the edit history doesn't seem the same, except, as you note, an interest in some of the same pages. I don't think that we can say that users who agree with each other are the same, especially when there seems to be pretty compelling evidence that they are not the same (IP addresses) and nothing that the user has done that would warrent banning. Mark Richards 20:21, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I think a user springing up shortly after a previous user was banned, with a very similar username, identical approaches to Wikipedia politics, an interest in the same pages is pretty compelling evidence, and the telltale awareness of Wikipedia policy, who runs Wikipedia, and the other various things one tends not to know as a brand new user builds a pretty strong case. An IP match would be a clincher. A lack of IP match would mean Entmoot learned about the wonders of proxies. Snowspinner 20:32, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

I can see how you might reach that conclusion, but its not evidence, its speculation. Mark Richards 20:39, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

under your rules of evidence we would never block anyone ever. this is not useful. Morwen - Talk 20:39, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

seconded. "Don't do that then" is applicable here. Did you read the long note Jwrosenzweig left on your talk page? I don't see how you can read Navarone's user page and continue to assume good faith - David Gerard 20:42, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure Mark did see my note -- it's from weeks ago, and we've had good discussions. I respect Mark, and respectfully disagree with him in this instance. If the user in question is not this banned user, it is someone intentionally mimicing a banned user either to A) have us ban him so he can claim we are horrible and unfair, or B) taunt us about the fact that we are powerless to stop banned users from returning. Whatever they're doing here, they are choosing to operate and portray themselves in a way that is specifically designed to distract the community from the cooperative task of building an encyclopedia. Anyone who comes here with that goal, doesn't belong here. That's my opinion. Mark disagrees, and I respect his reasoning, but I don't think it workable, and I don't share his conclusions. Jwrosenzweig 20:48, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I read the note on my page, and respect your opinion, although I disagree with it. I believe that we should ban people who make attacks on other users, vandalise pages or refuse to discuss edits in reasonable ways. I think this user has provided credible evidence that they are not the same (IP address). Yes - this could be faked, but what more do you want? They have not done anything else to deserve banning except express opinions you don't like on their user page. Don't bait people if they are not causing trouble. Mark Richards 21:13, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You know what Mark Richards? I am becoming more and more convinced that your account is yet another manifestation of Craig Hubley. I don't know of anyone else who throws around the phrase "GFDL corpus" with a straight face or consistently comes to the defense of Hubley or his clones (but not, significantly, other trolls and troublemakers). - Hephaestos|§ 22:42, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You might want to chill out Heph. I am not in favour of troublemakers, and find your particular brand of self righteous abuse increasingly difficult to tollerate. To state that your accusation is baseless slander is to dignify it. I'll ignore it in the spirit of the holiday weekend. Stop looking for trouble, and get some rest. Mark Richards 23:11, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Then it's mutual. I find your brand of self-righteous abuse difficult to tolerate as well. When you're done ignoring it, maybe you'd like to explain what, exactly, you were referring to by "GFDL corpus" in this edit. Try not to crib from Consumerium. - Hephaestos|§ 01:18, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any abuse Heph, I try to be pretty tollerant. I meant the body of text that is accumulated by the Wikipedia project, as distinct from the Wikipedia software and community. Is there a better term for it? I don't believe that the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is a reincarnated banned user is a helpful one. Believe it or not we are on the same team Heph, I simply don't believe that the methods you are espousing are good for the project or reduce the effect of these users. While we're at it, reverting edits without explaining why doesn't help you to win friends and influence people. Take her easy, and have a good weekend, Mark Richards 04:02, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There's probably a better term for it, maybe the "Wikipedia text and images"? (Of course that's what you meant, sure, yeah.) And yes, that's the problem, you're too tolerant. This place is in a sort of crisis if you haven't noticed. Please stop contributing to it. - Hephaestos|§ 06:25, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I guess the reason for not saying 'Wikipedia text and images' is that it isn't really owned by Wikipedia. One could close Wikipedia, or fork it, and keep the text and images, and that would be fine. I'm looking for a term to describe the material placed under the GFDL, not just by Wikipedia either, Internet Encyclopedia, anyone. Re the 'crisis', I actually havn't noticed one. Sure, there's always some drama, but I don't believe the sky is falling, and I believe that the way that you deal with conflict incites more. One only has to look at the edit history of your userpage to see what I mean. I think there are more effective ways to deal with these sorts of things. Best wishes, Mark Richards 22:34, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My userpage gets vandalized, and that makes me a problem? That's an interesting leap of logic. - Hephaestos|§ 00:49, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, the problem is that you seem to involve yourself in almost continuous conflict. Even people who basically like you and are very much trying to find common ground. Trying to pick a user page blanking fight with a user that has done nothing to you except disagree with you is only the latest. I think that there is a word for users who seek out conflict, but it slips my mind right now. That's the problem. Mark Richards 16:43, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Off topic on the GFDL

Mark, I believe it would be helpful if you would show greater respect for the project's history, which is extensive and extends considerably beyond your time of involvement here.

By original intent and choice, as well as ongoing tradition in the minds of many if not most contributors, Wikipedia is the project and the text and images here are Wikipedia (though Wikipedia is many other things as well, not least of all a community). The GFDL is the choice of license, and is a means to an end rather than an end itself. Trivializing Wikipedia by calling it merely as an "access provider" to a purportedly independent "GFDL text corpus" is both factually inaccurate as well as being an affront to the project. In like fashion, referring to Wikipedia as an "accumulator of text" is inaccurate, and an affront.

The GFDL is an imperfect license. Those involved early on chose it with awareness of its flaws. GFDL is widely used and, though it has not received scrutiny in a court of law, is regarded as among the most likely licenses to remain enforcable. Alternative licenses, such as those promulgated by the Creative Commons, were not in widespread use at that time. And the cost and uncertainy of developing a Wikipedia-specific license did not seem worthwhile. Some of these discussions are archived on the meta and on the mailing list, if you should wish to review them.

Wikipedia (the content) is something that has been created by Wikipedia (the community). It is not a mere aggregation of GFDL documents authored elsewhere. The license serves the community, not the other way around. The collaborative authorship model, and the totality of Wikipedia's editorial policies and community culture have a key role in overall authorship.

There are all manner of shortcomings of the GFDL, and I take no position on its interpretation. Many have raised questions about attribution, joint authorship, handling of cover texts and invariant sections, and whatnot. The only opinion that matters on these subjects is that of a court of competent jurisdiction. Such an opinion is likely to come with the passage of years. Until then, we will all have to do the best we can, and each act according to the dictates of our own conscience.

Wikipedia chose GFDL, in awareness of its faults, to allow reuse in other media, to allow forks, and to ensure the availability of the content in perpetuity. The GFDL serves Wikipedia, not the other way around.

UninvitedCompany 00:43, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No dispect was intended UC, but I do feel strongly that the purpose of the Wikipedia community is to build an open content encyclopedia, I don't know what it would mean for it to be the other way around. I thought that the intent of the project was to build a free and open encyclopedia, that would not be 'owned' by anyone in a restrictive sense. The fact that the license allows use by others and forks means that the total amount of free and open encyclopedia that can be built is bigger than Wikipedia itself, also, the GFDL material contributed by Internet Encyclopedia, WikiTravel, WikiQuote and Wiktionary to name but a few are part of the GFDL corpus, but not Wikipedia. I don't think that to point that out is disrespectful at all. Perhaps I was misunderstood.

I don't really understand your points about the relationship between the GFDL text and the community and software. Props are due to the founders, their vision, the contributors and all involved, but the fact is that when someone presses 'submit', they maintain copyright over the material, and grant generous terms of use to anyone who wants to use them under those terms. That includes, but is not exclusive to, Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an effective and good way to build this corpus of open and free content, and it is a great front end to edit and view it, it is also an excellent group of people who do this, but it is not the same thing as the material licensed under the GDFL, which is not licensed exclusively to it (that's what 'free' means). I don't understand how pointing out this fact about the license is disrespectful or an afront. It's there in black and white, and it's not a bad thing. Mark Richards 02:15, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mark Richards 16:39, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No time for a careful essay at the moment, but in short:

• There is much released under GFDL, and a good deal of it is not encyclopedia articles. In particular, documentation and books for FSF-related software are generally released under GFDL. It is a disjoint set of materials authored under widely varying circumstances. Referring to this as a "corpus," which, I believe, is latin for "body," is misleading because it implies a degree of cohesion that is simply not present. In particular, there is no common indexing, no unified means of access, and no uniform standards of authorship and editorial review.
• Wikipedia (the content), on the other hand, is deserving of distinct treatment, because it does have a method of authorship and review that, in practice, provides some degree of uniformity of quality and style. Projects like Fred Bauder's (internet-encyclopedia), though they have some parallel content, diverge from Wikipedia in important ways.
• Those who offer read-only access to a Wikipedia snapshot are not "GFDL text corpus access providers" because they do not provide access to the totality of material released under said license. They are best described as Wikipedia mirrors, because they mirror content from Wikipedia in particular, and not, generally, content from other sources.
• While we cannot and do not wish to force the rest of the world to do so, it is appropriate for us to give due credit to Wikipedia (the project) for producing Wikipedia (the content). The effort by so many hands at building the community and the encyclopedia in ways that mutually reinforce is considerable. The articles are not mere aggregations of individually authored prose.

UninvitedCompany 04:15, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• For sure - I agree with you. We should absolutely give credit to Wikipedia for producing a lot of good content. I really don't think I am suggesting that we don't.
• I agree, using the term to refer to ALL GFDL materials wouldn't be very useful very often, but using 'GFDL encyclopedia/dictionary corpus' to refer to the text and images generated by Internet Encyclopedia, Wikipedia and Wiktionary could be, and it wouldn't be disrespectful to any. There is no common indexing, no unifed means of access, no uniform means of access, but that isn't the point, the point is that one could download all of this material, print it out, and publish it as 'printopedia'. What would you call the text and images? Well, it seems like GFDL encyclopedia corpus would be a useful term, since it isn't Wikipedia (although, of course, it would be appropriate to give credit to Wikipedia for parts of it).
• What you call mirrors are offering access of a kind to some of the GFDL corpus - if they allowed edits on their own dumps then they would be forks. They are mirrors in a sense, because they regularly update, but they are also GFDL text corpus access providers. I agree that they are next to useless, and pretty irritating, but Wikipedia does not give access to the entire GFDL encyclopedia corpus either (Internet Encyclopedia, Wikiquote, Wikitravel etc).
• Using the term GFDL corpus emphasises the freedom of the text, and the ability of people to use it under broad terms, and is inclusive of other projects contributions to this corpus. I'm not belittling the contribution by Wikipedia, I'm not suggesting that you should use the term to refer to the Wikipedia project, just that there are times when one is talking about just the material generated, and not only the material generated by Wikipedia.

Mark Richards 15:59, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Removal of requests - suggested policy change

I'd like to suggest that only arbitrators remove requests from this page. For example - the request to arbitrate in the case of the anon originally editing from 68.36.175.254 has been removed because the user has been hard banned for allegedly making death threats. The user denies that what he said was a death threat, and with the request being removed from here he has no route to challenge this decision (he could e-mail Jimbo, but has said that he does not wish to give his address out to any member of Wikipedia.) While I believe that a ban of this user is fully justified I also think that all users should have access to some process to challenge bans and blocks. If the arbitrators decide not to view a case, then that is in effect a review of the ban. In this case, there were three votes to accept, with the qualification from James F that if the user had made death threats arbitration was not necessary. The request was removed on that basis, but the alleged threats were not assessed by the arbitration committee. Although I've referred to a specific case, I think the principle holds for all cases. I believe we should ensure that no case is removed from this page unless it has been fully rejected by the committee. And to ensure this is so, I feel only the arbitration committee should remove requests. Please let me know if this discussion is posted in the wrong place - I wasn't sure of the best page for it. -- sannse (talk) 18:09, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was advised to remove the request by User:Snowspinner, as it was not a case for arbitration, but a simple application of administrator policy. While I disagree that anonymous (User:68.36.175.254) has any wish of resolution, I also have the same question. Arbitration is listed as the last resort on the Dispute resolution page. Request for arbitration denied, where does one turn to? Anonymous was blocked, but is now back vandalizing my talk page. Hyacinth 04:44, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that is a slightly different situation. If arbitration is denied, then I would say the only route left is a direct appeal to Jimbo (or other solutions such as mediation). In effect the committee is ruling that the situation is either outside their remit, other solutions should be tried, or that the current situation should continue (whatever that is). In the case I've raised, it is not that arbitration was denied, but rather that it was seen to be unnecessary because the situation was dealt with by administrator action. But the anon apparently believes that that administrator action was wrong (I don't, but that's not relevant here I think) - so where should he go? I think the arbitration committee is the right place for him to go, so we need to be sure that this is available to him.

I have been thinking more about this, and I think that saying only the arbitration committee should remove items may be the wrong way to deal with this. Perhaps it should be that the originator of the request can withdraw it. But if the other party then places a counter-request, this should not be removed except by the committee or the new originator. In anon's case, he should be reverted if he replaces the old case, but should be allowed to place a new request. How does that sound? -- sannse (talk) 18:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood me. We are talking about the same request. It sounds like what you are saying is that I have no recourse, but Anon should. I placed and removed the original request, and thus your concern that it was removed by someone else is unecessary. Hyacinth 19:37, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, I'm happy that you removed the request - that seems to me to have been the correct action for the situation, and that you were the correct person to do it (or an arbitration committee member). What concerns me is that Anon replaced it, apparently wanting the case to be heard, and that this has been reverted - effectively removing his only means of challenging the decision to ban him. This is within policy as I understand it, but I'm not sure that it is fair - which is why I'm suggesting a change of policy. I'm certainly not intending for either party to have more rights than the other - sorry if it came across that way.

My initial idea was that we change the policy to state that once a request has been made, neither side can remove it, only the arbitrators can. But I think now that that was a mistake. The originator should be able to remove the request up to the point that it is fully accepted by the committee. So what I'm suggesting is that if Anon wants the case to be heard he should be allowed to place a new request - which those who have been party to the dispute (including you and I) should not remove - just as he would not have been permitted to remove the complaint against him while it was active. Although all this is relevant to this recent case, more important is the general principle and how it will apply to future cases. Like you, I have no illusions about the likelihood of Anon genuinely wanting resolution (my talk and user pages are also a current area of attack). -- sannse (talk) 21:34, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've just realised one of the areas I was unclear in - when I said "I think that is a slightly different situation", I meant the case we are discussing is different from a situation where the arbitration committee have denied a case. With Anon they didn't (because the case was removed for other reasons) - appologies again for being unclear -- sannse (talk) 22:05, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the clear explination! Hyacinth 03:54, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It seems simple to me. Requests can be removed by arbitrators (by rejection/referral), or by the originator (dropping or withdrawing the complaint). If other people have seconded the request, they need to agree to drop it too.

Anon has recourse because he can create a new request. But he can't force someone else to remake a request they've already dropped. So this seems fine to me. Martin 23:19, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hello?

Whats going on here? Am I still in limbo, or is the vote over, or whats going on? A bit of help please. Sam [Spade] 19:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Prospects are dim, looks like a deadlock as currently phrased. Fred Bauder 23:05, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Interesting, yes. The policy as it currently stands means that the case can either remain in limbo or, if the two other active Arbitrators vote to accept, accepted, but cannot be rejected without some votes changing. Perhaps we might need to revise the policy in this area...

James F. (talk) 23:13, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do you think you might be willing to propose such a policy? Clearly being on RfA is kinda embarrassing, and it isn't really very fair to condemn those who are not fit to be arbitrated to an eternity of shame ;) Sam [Spade] 01:07, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I seem to be a bit in limbo as well - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ChrisO_and_Levzur has been ongoing since April but hasn't yet been concluded. Is there any chance of bringing it to a close? -- ChrisO 09:12, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I now have two withdrawn requests. Could somebody please change the policy to accommodate those of us "in limbo"? Thanks for your time, Sam [Spade] 23:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I understand there will be additional arbitrator's elected over the next little bit, which will fix the issue with leaving folks in limbo in requests, I expect, though it won't solve requests being accepted and left in limbo. Martin 23:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind attentions :) Sam [Spade] 03:46, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

172

Is this acceptable? If not, can something be done? Sam [Spade] 18:31, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Evidence

Well, Im sure that Lir and Sam will attempt to provide linked evidence to support their claim, before the committee makes its decision to hear it or not. -SV

Evidence moved here Re: Snowspins advice. Sam [Spade] 22:14, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

While I agree that deletion of evidence is a bad thing, perhaps archiving this in your userspace would be a better idea than archiving it on the talk page? You could then, perhaps, let the arbcom members know on their talk page that the evidence is there and that you're concerned about it being removed? Snowspinner 21:36, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

discussion re: evidence

Well, Im sure that Lir and Sam will attempt to provide linked evidence to support their claim, before the committee makes its decision to hear it or not. -SV

• • I am removing links to an already settled dispute with VeryVerily and long-delisted request for comment pages reinserted by Lir. A resolved dispute with VV and delisted pages are irrelevant to Lir's bogus request on this page. (Indeed members of the arbitration committee are fully aware that this dispute has been settled, and they should stop Lir if he reinserts these links once again.) 172 18:16, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I am reverting yet another attempt by Sam Spade to reactivate disputes that have already been resolved. 172 18:52, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • You are free to dispute evidence; but, it is unacceptable that you delete the evidence. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I agree that it looks bad for 172 to be removing "evidence" from this page, but it's worth noting that he's not deleting evidence (the distinction is important, given that 172 is an administrator). Really, he's not just disputing the evidence, but disputing that it's appropriate to put on this page. I would suggest that people requesting arbitration may certainly start collecting any evidence they wish on subpages of their own user pages. It can then be presented formally should the Arbitration Committee actually choose to hear this case.

As the primary proponent of the earlier request involving 172 and VeryVerily, I believe that matter should not be considered by the Arbitration Committee at this time. The parties seem to have reached a workable solution and I see no indication that the dispute has resumed. In examining the situation at New Imperialism, I do not find enough similarities to warrant dredging up those issues again.

Incidentally, I believe it would be very helpful if the arbitrators voting below could indicate which of the requests above, or what aspects thereof, they are accepting or rejecting. This would make more clear what evidence is actually relevant. --Michael Snow 20:24, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) (amended, stricken text rendered meaningless when content was copied to this page)

see "Well, Im sure that Lir and Sam will attempt to provide linked evidence to support their claim, before the committee makes its decision to hear it or not. -SV". We simply responded to that request. Sam [Spade] 20:28, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It reads to me more like a prediction than a request, and even if it is a request, Stevertigo (SV) is a mediator and not an arbitrator, so it wasn't necessarily desired by the Arbitration Committee. I think it would have been better to let the arbitrators speak for themselves if they wanted to see evidence in support of a request for arbitration. --Michael Snow 20:42, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, regardless of bizzare edit wars, I've read it now. Still need to decide how to vote, of course. Martin 21:29, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually removing it from the talk page too. *sigh*. Martin 17:49, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Its worth noting that not all of the links 172 removed had to do with Verily Verily; regardless of whether or not Verily Verily evidence should be mentioned here...172 is still deleting relevant evidence. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Sam_Spade_and_172

Small talk from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Sam_Spade_and_172

172 has attempted to indicate that Mr. Spade is a pro-Nazi gay-basher. I really don't think its appropriate; and I hope the arbitration committee takes this propagandic twisting of truth into account, as it deliberates the arbitration requests against myself and 172. Lirath Q. Pynnor

It doesn't make it invalid... just slightly dodgy. The arbitration commitee is not required to only take cases that went through other forms of dispute resolution. It's just noted that they'll glower at you. Snowspinner 02:03, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

"The arbitrators reserve the right to hear or not hear any dispute, at their discretion." and "Where a dispute has not gone through mediation, the arbitrators may refer the dispute to the mediation committee if it believes mediation is likely to help." Snowspinner 03:40, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, I would also like to note that mediation has not been attempted in regards to my case. I am more than happy to accept mediation, and have been trying to get 172 to discuss his problems for quite some time. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I think your case falls under that clause about "if it believes mediation is likely to help." Or, at least, that was my feeling. Snowspinner 03:42, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm willing to accept mediation if anybody wants to reccomend it, but 172 seems pretty intractable (review our convo if your interested @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#172). My point is that he didn't go thru the required process in order to be requesting arbitration. Of course the arbitrators can arbitrate whatever they want to, but he simply does not meet the minimum requirements (according to the guideline at the top of the page) to be making this request. Sam [Spade] 05:52, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would point out that the arbitration policy also suggests that most cases will be referred via mediation or Jimbo, so I wouldn't take it as a rule that's too strictly followed. If nothing else, there's always Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Snowspinner 13:51, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, I disaprove of your attitude, and of your involvement here. What exactly is your intent, or are you just "playing in the mud", so to speak? Sam [Spade] 18:42, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner's aid in explaining and helping along the arbitration process is very welcome. Martin 22:27, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, I find his interjections with links like Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and general playing of devils advocate to be unhelpful. Fortunately this sort of thing should be officially condemned by the policy suggested below at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Some_propositions_regarding_content_of_Requests_for_Arbitration. Sam [Spade] 23:30, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not playing devil's advocate here. I'm noting that the rule you're citing hasn't, in practice, been a guiding principle for some time on RfAr, nor could it be - if it were, it would go against the arbitration policy, which explicitly notes that the arbcom will hear cases where mediation is seen as unhelpful. This would be difficult to do if no such cases could be listed at RfAr. The link to ignore all rules was mostly a reminder that rigidly following the rules is not entirely consistent with said rules. :) Snowspinner 14:12, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Merger

Would it be acceptable to merge the two cases involving both myself and 172?

Sam [Spade] 03:37, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Some propositions regarding content of Requests for Arbitration

I suggest the following guidelines for content of Requests for Arbitration and regarding titles for requests. Fred Bauder 14:09, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

What belongs in Requests for Arbitration

• The complaint including enough links to evidence that an arbitrator considering the matter can without a lot of work find an example of what is being complained of. It is good if there are links to any policy which is claimed to apply.
• The Answer which should address the matters raised by the complaint explaining why the complaint is ill-founded. Again, links to evidence showing how what you say is so are useful.

It should be emphasized that this rebuttle should address the specific claims, regarding either (a) whether the events in question did or did not occur, or (b) whether the events cited constitute a violation of policy. The user should avoid rhetorical or deferrential ranting, and avoid ad hominem attacks on the plaintiff(s). Kevin Baas | talk 19:30, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

• Any Complaint by the "defendant" against the user who made the original complaint as well as against other users who have seconded the complaint or were intimately involved in the events complained of.

I don't think this should be on here. It obscures the issue. Two wrongs don't make a right. If the defendant has a complaint, it should be filed separately. Kevin Baas | talk 19:30, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

• Information regarding what steps of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedures were followed. Not the details, especially not what happened during any mediation.
• Users may join in the Complaint by seconding the complaint or elaborating on it, but by doing so they implicitly respresent that they wish to be a party to the case and are thus subject to counterclaims which they should be expected to have to respond to.

They should not be expected to have to respond to it. each side makes a statement, and that statement should not be interfered with. The defendant should not attack the plaintiff(s), but should address the specific allegations on factual grounds. If this is done, there is no need for the plantiff to post a response. this is not a dialogue, and definitely not a fight. Kevin Baas | talk 19:30, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

What doesn't belong in Requests for Arbitration

• Comments regarding the viability of the complaint especially by persons not involved in the matter.
• Comments regarding how the matter is to be titled or the effect of choosing one title or another.
• Essentially any posting by anyone who is not involved in the case. These are welcome on the talk page.

• violations of policy/etiquette, such as personal attacks.
• counter-claims - they are irrelevant. if the defendant is really concerned, and not simply trying to defame/discredit the plaintiff(s), they should file a separate complaint. Kevin Baas | talk 19:30, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

Titles of Requests for Arbitration

In the first instance the title of an arbitration request derives from the initial request made by the first person who makes the request. This person may or may not be a prinicipal participant in the matter depending on who else joins in the complaint and how much they participate. However if they are a principal participant and especially if a counterclaim is made either against them or an other important participant in the matter it is reasonable that the title may be changed to reflect the major participants in the matter, not just the name of the original defendant.

Deletion of evidence by participants

Each party may present the evidence that they regard as relevant. The other party should not remove the assertions of the opposing party or the links they suggest are relevant.

Changing of titles of requests

Arbitrators may change the title of requests to reflect both the general nature of the matter as well as the identity of the main participants. If the complaint is generally the work of one user or a counter-claim have been filed against a user as a part of the case they may be identified in the title. The participants in the matters should not be involved in struggles to change or revert the title of a matter in order to suit them.

These seem a good codification of the current unwritten rules; I like them.

James F. (talk) 12:10, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The unwritten rules work well enough, but I've no objection to Fred writing them down... :) Martin 22:21, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Déjà vu?

Almost all the comments in the arbitration requests page seem to be repeated twice.

Someone should merge both copies.

cesarb 12:29, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Counts

Why were the (0/0/0/0) counts removed from each of the ===Comments and votes by arbitrators=== subsections? These were very useful since it shows, at a glance, what the progress of accepting each case is. I spent a good deal of time putting them in. --mav 01:23, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with mav - these were quite useful. Ambi 03:28, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I removed them because I had no idea who added them, or why, and there wasn't any discussion on it that I could see or recall - didn't even know if it was an arbitrator. Such counts imply that when I vote I should be updating them, and this takes up a good deal of time that I don't want to spend. Things that take up my time for no discernable purpose "piss me off". Given that there've been lots of similar debates about whether or not such counts are a good or bad thing, the addition of these counts without discussion "pissed me off".

However, if someone else wants to spend their time keeping such counts up to date, and doesn't care if I just ignore them, that's fine by me. Heck, I'll even make it up to mav by putting the inaccurate counts I removed back in. Martin 17:29, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. You can ignore the counts if you like and others will fix them. Such is the wiki way. --mav

JRR Trollkien

This case has been languishing for a long time, as has UninvitedCompany's (still-open?) request. Since JRR Trollkien is now blocked indefinitely, and nobody seems to be disputing the block anymore, can we please just close the case and the request to reduce the clutter? --Michael Snow 21:56, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Angela and I have requested that the JRR Trollkien case be closed - see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/JRR Trollkien. I'm sure the non-recused arbitrators will pick that up sooner or later. JamesF has already, but he needs seconding.

We can close UninvitedCompany's request when and if three more arbitrators vote to reject it. That two arbitrators are apparently still voting to accept it is a matter of some bemusement to me. Martin 00:04, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Refactoring Requests for arbitration Page

My god! The requests for arbitration page is COMPLETELY incomprehensible. I'd like to do some arbitration but I can't for the life of me understand what's going on. Does anyone have any refactoring suggestions? --The Cunctator

I don't see any problems with it as is, except that old cases, such as JRR Trollkien's, really, really need archiving, in order to stop page lag. Ambi 21:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, we don't archive requests so much as reject them, in which case their content merely gets deleted, or accepted, when it is moved to the case pages; the current request against JRR Trollkien cannot be "archived" because it's still active, by the rules of the policy, until a fourth Arbitrator votes to reject (or four vote to accept, of course).

James F. (talk) 18:47, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We should have a auto-reject clause after a month. --mav 03:59, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That does seem sensible. Perhaps a round of tweaks to the Arbitration policy is in order? Others possible ideas would be setting quorates to hard limits rather than proportions of Arbitrators (so as to avoid hold-ups quite so much), &c.. Thoughts?

James F. (talk) 05:12, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Two months makes more sense to me. Martin 23:27, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

172 discussion

I believe Muriel G would also agree with this request, the following exchange is from her talkpage:

• As you have learned, by arguing with 172, the cabal is real. They are a group of petty tyrants with no respect for common decency -- their goal is not to make the wikipedia better, but to make the wikipedia theirs. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  • Thats why i moved to wiki.pt :) Muriel G 10:25, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No she would not. I never dealt with 172 (except in VfD) so i couldnt have an opinion on the matter. And i apreciate if people refrain from putting words into my mouth, especially when they are grossely out of context. Muriel G 18:34, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nobody put any words in your mouth; in the above exchange, you clearly stated that 172s actions were "why i moved to wiki.pt". If you mispoke -- that is your fault. I would guess the real problem here, is not that Muriel objects to 172s behaviour; but that she is afraid of being labeled a "troll" and facing future punitive actions by the cabal. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I don't think Muriel needs her mind read, her motivation intuited, or her opinions stated for her. Nor is she in any danger of being labelled or punished on the basis of a label. - Nunh-huh 02:48, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But she apparently needs you to speak for her... Lirath Q. Pynnor

---

• I'm speaking for myself. - Nunh-huh 03:52, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

VerilyVerily discussion

I'd like to note that I don't think VV's conduct can be reasonably looked at without looking at the larger issue of his treatment by the community at large, and, specifically, by people who are supposed to be in the position of settling disputes. I refer here to [12], which I think probably had the effect of making both requests for comment and mediation ineffective options for VeryVerily. I'm not asking for sanction against Danny (Or against Mirv or Hephestos, both of whom later signed this summary), but I think that this action and the consequences it probably had for dispute resolution with VV need to be taken into account. Snowspinner 16:45, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Material added to VerilyVerily's response

Yes, the second poll is currently at 5-1, but you were already reverting when it stood at 5-0. I don't know how you can accuse others of turning this into a revert-fest, when no one reverts as much as you. If polling is no substitute for discussion, reverting isn't either. The issue here is not about the content of the article (I have no problem with your version of the popularity section myself, I just don't think it should be pushed against consensus), but about your behaviour, which only results in the page being protected half the time. If a poll goes 20-3 against you, you can't just say everyone is biased or uncommunicative. It's up to you to make your case on the talk page and try to convince people to change their vote. Gzornenplatz 22:16, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

I object to the basis of this complaint against VV as being unfounded and fraudulent. As another editor who has been recently active on the George_W._Bush page, I have been watching and measuring the activity on the talk page there. I can tell you that the comments and questions I raise, do not garner full participation from the same various editors who now complain about VV. Suffice it to say, because these various editors refuse to deliberate, they ought not to be allowed to complain about VV at this time. I recently ran into revert war trouble at John Kerry and found the same symptom there: A few loosely aligned pro-Democrat edtitors reach a partial consensus among themselves, and then close their minds to even the most well reasoned and fact-supported rebuttals. Rex071404 07:22, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What belongs in Requests for Arbitration

Should the last section:

• The Plaintiff(s) and the Defendent(s) should limit their posts to their own section, the Complaint and the Response to it; this is not the place for debate.

be included in this policy? It has certainly caused enough trouble... Fred Bauder 21:28, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

• The Complaint including enough links to evidence that an arbitrator considering the matter can find examples of what is being complained of. Include links to any policy which applies.
• The Response which should address the matters raised by the Complaint. Again, links to edits or other evidence are useful.
• Any Complaint by the defendant against the user who made the original Complaint as well as against other users who have seconded the Complaint or were intimately involved in the events complained of.
• Information regarding what steps of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedures were followed. Not the details, especially not what happened during any mediation.
• Users may join in the Complaint by seconding the Complaint or elaborating on it, but by doing so they implicitly respresent that they wish to be a party to the case and are thus subject to counterclaims which they may have to respond to.
• The Plaintiff(s) and the Defendent(s) should limit their posts to their own section, the Complaint and the Response to it; this is not the place for debate.

I think that the suggested policy, in a perfect world, is a good idea. However, as policies stand, the defendant may distort the truth and add confusion. in such a case it is jurisprudent for the plantiff to counter this as directly as possible, i.e. in subsequent dialogue in the same section. However, I agree that this is not the place for debate. This is not the place for a lot of things, including ad hominem attacks and counter-claims. (2 wrongs dont make a right) I think that the stated policy would be jurisprudential if other protections were in place, such as the suggestions i recently made in the proposition section of this talk page. Kevin Baas | talk 21:45, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

My thought is that when people are already upset it is probably not cool to try to ride herd on them. I think we can still set guidelines but if they are not followed, it's probably not a good idea to jump in and start deleting things or moving stuff around. Fred Bauder 22:58, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

There should be some place for formal debate between the involved parties. I don't think just one complaint and one response is very useful, as the respondent will typically make counter-complaints or comments that the original plaintiff considers to be in need of correction. But I can see that the page can get too long that way, so perhaps every request should get its separate page. Gzornenplatz 21:49, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

In this case I think debate is very much in order, negotiation and mediation in fact. That may be part of what is happening here. You folks may be trying to communicate with each other more than you are with us. Fred Bauder 22:58, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

No, I have already spent weeks trying to negotiate, and my exchanges with VeryVerily have been reasonable enough (in the sense of not being hampered by particular personal animosities) so that the involvement of a mediator would not have made a difference. His view remains that he is right on the content in question and that he therefore can endlessly revert. I'm asking for a decision on whether that is acceptable. By refusing to even consider the case, you seem to say it is acceptable, which may prompt others to behave in the same way, which would finally result in the Bush page being permanently protected. Gzornenplatz 23:16, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Just give it a try, our mediators need some hard cases to get good on. Fred Bauder 00:40, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

I can atest to what Gzornenplatz has said. I have also done the same. Other contributors have done the same. We have been trying to work this out with VV for over a month now, and we have all been very reasonable in holding back our personal animosities, in spite of repeated instigations. We have seen, now, a page protectection every week with no sign of slowing. VV is responsible for more reverts in the past five weeks or so than all of the other contributors to the page put together. (in fact, the numbers add up pretty squarely). Each of these reverts was a violation of consensus that was reached on the talk page, from both contributors to the page and the general community, in response to an article RfC. And yet we continue our completely ineffective moderative discussion. In fact, you can check out the last discussion i've had w/vv on his talk page, which took place right before the page got protected for the fifth time. I've tried to reason with him many times, and each time he has been unremitting in his belief that he is manifestly right on the content in question, and therefore is justified in indefinite reversion to get his way. This is exactly how the user has been conducting himself through a total of five consecutive page protections and the exhausted objection of the other contributors. As soon as the page is unprotected, he continues his relentless revert war with everyone as if nothing had ever happened. He completely ignores our reasoned objections. What would mediation do? Firstly what would be it's title? VV versus everyone else. VV would probably expect to "win" because, well, he is "right" and everyone else is "wrong". If he loses, well that's because the mediator was "wrong". What would happen after mediation? The same thing that has always happened after reasoned discussion and objections, page protections, even threats from administrators - nothing. Discussion has been attempted by multiple users to the exhaustion of all of them. I am very very skeptical that further discussion - even in the form of mediation - would be of any benefit. Your mediators get some pretty tough cases as it is. I have sat through mediation before with much more reasonable people, and it often results in a stand off. The only weapon used by some of the users is stubborness. VV has thouroghly demonstrated that that is his favorite weapon. This page is going to be protected once again after it is unprotected, and it will probably become permanently protected if policy is not enforced. In this case, everyone will be effectively banned from the page. Every week we are all effectively banned. Wouldn't it make more sense if just one of us was banned, even temporarily, than to ban everyone? Kevin Baas | talk 01:29, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

Absent from this analysis is any inkling of the actual issues. First, as for "he continues his relentless revert war", please see Tango. Second, I contend discussion has been notably absent, as you refused it repeatedly; "trying to work this out" has consisted of almost everything but discussion. Third, despite your portrayal of it as "VV vs. the world", it is not. Fourth, I am unimpressed by you "holding back... personal animosities, in spite of repeated instigations", as I have too. Finally, I do not agree with your assertions of consensus, for reasons I have stated clearly, and if you provide that as a sole reason to erase edits I have made, I will revert; if this is stubbornness, so be it. VV 03:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It might be helpful during mediation to contemplate Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Proposed decision. It remains to be seen if the Arbitration committee as a whole will endose the proposed remedies, but in my opinion they represent the best solution to disputes of this nature. Fred Bauder 12:11, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

What do those proposed remedies have to do with mediation? They can only be enforced by arbitration, and I agree that Rex should be prohibited from editing the Kerry article, and VeryVerily from editing the Bush article. If you think that's the best solution, why do you reject the request for arbitration? Gzornenplatz 12:17, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

They show what you might expect if the case eventually proceeds to arbitration. They are not enforced by arbitration but by users and administrators. The proposed decision does not include prohibiting Rex071404 from editing John Kerry except as a temporary measure. I don't think that is the best solution, I think a solution you yourselves agree to is the best solution which is why I request you try mediation. Fred Bauder 13:36, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

However things might go the other way, Rex071404 might be banned from editing and perhaps others too. It could even happen that the arbitration committee is unable to reach a decision. The main point to take is that it will not be your decision while what you agree to during mediation will be. Fred Bauder 14:04, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Except that VeryVerily has to agree to it too. He needs to stop reverting, and he already made it clear he's not doing it voluntarily, so there's nothing to mediate. Gzornenplatz 14:16, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Resolution of whether VeryVerily will mediate is accomplished by making a request on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and on User talk:VeryVerily. Fred Bauder 15:26, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

"Resolution of whether VeryVerily will mediate" is a response not to what gzornenplatz said, but a response to a convolution of what he said. He did not say that it was resolved that VV will not accept mediation. He said that, regardless of whether VV accepts mediation or not, it is resolved that he will not voluntarily stop reverting. Kevin Baas | talk 20:31, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

Note of grievance re. VeryVerily

[Placed here, as the case is being refused very shortly after the comment was posted]. James F. (talk) 00:09, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I accept the decision of the arbitrators, as I respect the imperative to preserve the due process of justice. Yet, I would like to note my grievance. I do not feel that I have done anything to deserve being temporarily banned from the George W. Bush page. Nor do I feel that Neutrality, Gzornenplatz, Get Back World Respect, Rex, Cecropia, Wolfman, or Pedant, or any other contributors for that matter, deserve this tacit sanction, which we will now be recieving for the sixth consecutive time. Kevin Baas | talk 23:29, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)

Speed

Shouldn't it be of some concern that of all the cases being heard at present, all but two have had no action taken in the last week? As far as I can see, there's no reason for the delay, so what's the holdup? Ambi 02:18, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but one problem is folks not putting clear links to the evidence they want to present. Fred Bauder 03:43, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Define clear links. Ambi 03:54, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Clear links defined

It is extremely important in order that your submitted evidence be considered by the Arbitrators that when you cite evidence to provide a link to the exact edit which displays the transaction, links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=0&oldid=5584644] [13].

Update on rejected case, VV

After arbitration was rejected, Gzornenplatz immediately requested mediation. VV has not expressed any desire for mediation, but, to the contrary, has pleaded that Gzornenplatz's desire to resolve the dispute is ingenuine and tainted, and thus the case should be dismissed. Mediation has not yet begun.

The GWB article has been protected, as predicted, for the 6th time. It was unprotected, and protected again, for the 7th time, this time indefinitely. Contributors to the GWB page are now discussing the issue of the page protection on Talk:George W. Bush. Kevin Baas | talk 00:40, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

A compromise page for the GWB article was made to develop consensus so that the GWB article could be unprotected. I have recused myself from said page. A message on that page explicitly states: "This is a temporary page created to find a compromise on the content of George W. Bush. If the same edit war continues on this page, and no progress is made, it may be deleted." In spite of this explicit warning, VV has continued the same revert war against everyone on the compromise page [14], causing the compromise page to be "pseudoprotected", with the message "This page is presently the subject of an editing dispute. Please see the discussion page for details and avoid making edits related to this dispute until it is resolved." Kevin Baas | talk 21:37, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

VeriVerily has fought edit wars in numerous articles, amongst others Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Anti-American sentiment, George W. Bush, and Project for a New American Century. He completely refuses to accept consensus and often does not even discuss until several others protest. Although numerous pages had to be protected because of him he often started to fight about the same points again just after unprotection. I see no way to deal with such behaviour other than ban him, cf. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/VeryVerily2 Get-back-world-respect 01:36, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

At least he needs to be put on a revert parole. But the arbitration committee is not only not doing that, it's not even considering the case in the first place. In my view it's totally discredited. Gzornenplatz 01:57, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

As two arbitrators expressed, you seemed to have done something wrong yorself as well. I have not looked into it, but it would certainly be helpful if you did not do anything that can be used against you. Get-back-world-respect 02:15, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have done nothing wrong. I made an edit which I explained on the talk page. VeryVerily reverted (10 times) without explanation. That's all there is to it. Gzornenplatz 04:15, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

So what did the two arbitors complain about? Get-back-world-respect 12:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

They attacked me for my position in the content dispute (which isn't the issue at all), simply taking VeryVerily's side. Just see Fred Bauder below. Gzornenplatz 14:23, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

It is simply wrong to remove the link to a sister wiki, In Memoriam Wiki. No one should have to explain this to you and having been informed of it you should accept it. Fred Bauder 13:37, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Simply wrong? Then point me to the rule please that says no links whatsoever to sister wikis can ever be removed for whatever reason. If this doesn't exist, then you have nothing to "inform" me about. Gzornenplatz 14:23, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Kenneth Alan

When is there likely to be any update in the matter of Kenneth Alan? Mintguy (T) 21:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry I only pop up every once in a while, being quite busy. This must disappoint you because there's no more mob scene. I'm not interested in these games you play. If you've got a problem with each offhand instance that my screen name appears, I suggest you consult a therapist. This is the best advice I can give, for I will never fit your ideal of perfection. Just look at you, probably after having seen a few minor adjustments in my edits, automatically fixated on exterminating me once again. I disagree with your editing style, but you don't see me following you around on those things. I have better things to do, unless you get really anal like this and I feel compelled to show up again in my own defense. Get it right; do not talk about me, do not talk to me, and do not think about me. Leave your monomanic stalking behind, and you'll be happier! Thanks:) Kenneth Alanson 12:07, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The arbitrators, whose caseload has never been larger, I think, admittedly moved more slowly than is usual in considering Kenneth Alan's case. The decision is in the works, however, and several updates have been made today, which I hope is an indication that the case will soon be successfully closed. Jwrosenzweig 20:04, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Multiple proceedings concerning Rex071404

In response to the comments and votes thus far from →Raul654 and Fred Bauder, I'm writing to explain why I proposed starting a new proceeding.

The main pending proceeding involving Rex is quite extensive. A major problem is the constant flood of new issues that arise, most of which we just haven't added to the proceeding. I'm partway through a writeup of his misconduct that resulted in the first protection of the Texans for Truth page, but it's just so unrewarding to deal with such things; I admit I've been slack about it. The problem with Rex isn't an occasional unfortunate incident. It's a constant pattern of improper conduct. Scarcely a day goes by when he doesn't do something that, in my personal opinion, merits some penalty.

Are we to add all of these things to the existing proceeding? For comparison purposes, I checked the "Evidence" pages of the five other arbitrations that are currently listed, along with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404, as being in the Voting stage. The Evidence pages weigh in as follows: Lance6wins, 31kb; RK, 57kb; Avala, Kenneth Alan, and RickK vs. Guanaco - too small for a size to be reported in the edit window. By contrast, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence is already at 183kb. It's larger than all the others combined. It's larger than the committee can reasonably be expected to deal with. (I assume you all knew that being on the committee would involve some unreasonable demands on you, but the fewer the better.) If, every few days, that page is further augmented by the chronicling of the most egregious of Rex's latest misdeeds, plus of course his responses, how will the proceeding be manageable? It will turn into a blog about Rex and will never be ready for decision.

There's certainly a logical relationship between this complaint and the earlier one. In beginning a new proceeding, I was trying to be practical. My thought was that Rex's abuse of the Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress page could conveniently be separated out from his improper edits of articles. I deliberately kept the focus of this complaint narrow so that all the evidence from both sides could be presented succinctly and the matter decided quickly. The remedy sought is quite mild. My hope was that a 24-hour block imposed by the committee would convey the message to Rex that he needs to clean up his act. I admit that the previous 24-hour block and the committee's continuing temporary injunction haven't had that effect, but I thought it was at least worth a shot.

From the point of view of the committee members, and from the point of view of those of us trying to deal with Rex's constant disruptions, I respectfully submit that this complaint should be accepted as a separate proceeding. JamesMLane 14:58, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My answer to JamesMLane's most recent attempt at advancing his admitted agenda of getting me hard banned can be read here [15]. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 16:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, see this [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 16:49, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, indeed we do want to add all of these things to the existing proceeding. Whether this a minor problem related to partisan fervor during an election or a general problem that affects all of his edits will determine the scope of suggested remedies. Speaking of which, do either of you have suggested remedies you might propose? Fred Bauder 17:49, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

To put it simply - we don't want the unabridged version of every edit Rex has made to Wikipedia. We don't have all the time in the world to pour over the evidence, so I recommend that you digest it down to something a little more concise and managable than 183 kb. See User:Raul654/Plautus for an example of a good evidence page. →Raul654 19:54, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that much of the 183 kb is debate. While Rex certainly has a right to answer charges, and those countercharged by Rex should be able to answer his charges, there are so many individual charges, each accompanied by lengthy and sometimes irrelevant chunks of quoted text. Participants cannot remove any of this without objections from the people who added in the first place. How would you suggest this situation be handled? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 22:36, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to the Plautus timeline. Not being too familiar with the Plautus case myself, was that just the very worst of it? I think this is the way we're going to have to go here, as the evidence page has turned into an utter mess. If we went down that road (preferably creating it in the user namespace), and made sure to move any discussion to the talk page, then hopefully it'd stay readable. Ambi 22:43, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another thing that is holding this up: all of you, despite efforts at explaining what's happening, have provided very few links to actual edits. For example here is a link to Raul654's edit above [16] This is what a person needs to actually look at an edit without having to look all over. It does not work to simply quote an edit; we want to look at it and view it in its context. Fred Bauder 22:30, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that's awfully fair, Fred. We've all got articles to write, and the huge amount of time it takes to dig up diffs for the huge number of edits is simply not worth it if it can be at all avoided. If we had gone and found diffs for simply the evidence when we started here, it would have required more than two hundred diffs. If you doubt the context, then do a "find" in your browser on the appropriate page, and voila. For the John Kerry pages (where most of the evidence comes from), this should be easy, as all the archives are assorted by date, and with the timestamps, you should be able to find the relevant quote. Same goes for any other pages, as I believe the specific page involved was highlighted on the evidence page for each one. Ambi 22:43, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've felt the problem that Ambi notes. The way I've tried to deal with it has been to pick a narrow area over a short time frame and give a comprehensive treatment of the material thus limited, with edit links as suggested by Fred. For example, by my count, this Request for Arbitration has 16 links to actual edits by Rex and others. There were 14 such links in the section I wrote in the first proceeding about one specific instance of Rex's violation of the NPOV policy (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence#POV inclusions, deletions and modifications).

Now, when I look at the example that Raul provided (User:Raul654/Plautus), I see it taking the opposite tack. Many points there are covered with a link to one edit, followed by summary language like "This provokes an edit war".

My impression is that Plautus was more inclined to big, substantive, problematic edits. Rex does some of those, but a lot of my objection to him is that it's like being nibbled to death by ducks. His tireless edit warring over a barrage of smaller points doesn't lend itself to the kind of "top-level" summary that Raul put together about Plautus. Instead, the case is made more appropriately with multiple links to specific diffs. But that's partly how the first proceeding's Evidence page got to 183kb. I certainly understand why Raul wants it digested down. Still, if Rex, as compared with Plautus, has a larger number of smaller offenses, the digesting is harder to do. If we cover each dispute, with specific links as urged by Fred, then the page grows instead of shrinking.

I hope the foregoing doesn't come across as too whiny. Having unburdened myself of these observations, I'll contemplate the subject and try to figure out how best to present it to the committee, without letting it consume my life or yours. JamesMLane 23:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex's responses to the Request for Arbitration

The RfAr asserts that changes to Stolen Honor were not vandalism but were instead being made in the course of an edit dispute. Rex responds by defending his position in the edit dispute, thus helping to establish that there was one, and by lashing out at me and other Wikipedians. Because his response in no way undercuts the RfAr, I see no need to reply to him here. JamesMLane 17:04, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There was indeed vandalism in that the (POV) edit which kept getting re-inserted was indeed also oddly defective punctuation wise, with the word "Kerry?s" instead of "Kerry's" in several palces, The perp(s) who kept inserting that, seemed to have no interest in correcting it, just re-inserting it. Also, a normal response would have been to dialog on talk page. The perps(s) did not do that. So as I see it:

• a) POV edit
• b) multiply inserted
• c) with odd "?" marks where they don't belong
• d) no talk page dialog,

makes a strong case for vandalism. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:53, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)