• See above. I request clarification of the ruling on revert limitation in the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking. Specifically, should Everyking's recent reverts of Ashlee Simpson-related material on the articles October 24 and History of SNL:2000-2010 be considered breaches of the limitation? -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 11:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Revert limitation

2.2) For a period of one year, Everyking is prohibited from reverting articles relating to Ashlee Simpson except in cases of clear and obvious vandalism (as per definition at Wikipedia:Vandalism), with penalties as per the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. What constitutes a revert shall be left up to adminstrators' discretion.

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Everyking/Proposed_decision#Revert_limitation_2 for the alternative proposals which were considered and votes on them.

Response by arbitrators

• It is my opinion that any article which contains a link to Ashlee Simpson or mentioning Ashlee Simpson, see (what links to Ashlee Simpson) is an article "relating to Ashlee Simpson"; therefore falling within the articles covered by the revert limitation, if Everyking is editing with respect to that portion of an article which is concerned with Ashlee Simpson and in the opinion of an administrator reverting the article. Fred Bauder 13:44, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• If Ashlee Simpson-related material is put into an article, it is to that extent related to Ashlee Simpson. That's the standard a rough consensus (with some queries) of the admins applied to CheeseDreams and Jesus/Christianity-related material - David Gerard 14:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• We should not narrowly define "related to Ashlee Simpson," and it should be broadly interpreted by administrators. Everyking should be made nervous about getting anywhere near anything that could be considered Ashlee-related. The intent is to restrict him, not give him a change to win the game. ➥the Epopt 15:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That's precisely my thinking. This is an attempt to game the spirit of the ruling with an interpretation that I would think was beyond reasonable doubt - David Gerard 17:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with David's, Epopts, and Fred's intrepretations, although I think Fred's explanation is the most clear. →Raul654 19:53, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• The intent of the ruling, in my view, is to prevent the overzealous reversion of material relating to Ashlee Simpson. Administrators should be capable of determining when such an action is taking place and act appropriately. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 20:05, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
• I concur with the above comments. Neutrality ^talk 01:37, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

(CC to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Iasson)

There is currently an injunction in place against User:Iasson forbidding him from editing any deletion-related article.

Does this injunction also apply to User:Faethon and his sockpuppets? Faethon is still claiming to be a separate entity from Iasson. User:Aeropus II of Macedon (A Faethon sockpuppet) made an anonymous vote on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Tetragrammaton in the Bible [1], and is apparently using, as his defense, the fact that he is not User:Iasson to get around the injunction. history

For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar behavior they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets. Although I contend that Faethon et al display similar behaviour to Iasson, I would like to ask for arbitrator clarification to see if the injunction also applies to the Faethon accounts, and to the Acestorides & the List of Greeks accounts. -- Death phoenix 20:19, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This may be a moot point now because User:Aeropus II of Macedon is blocked for being a public account. -- Death phoenix 23:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments by arbitrators

• I see it's currently in play on WP:AN/I. If it's not seriously disputed, common sense (the identical behaviour, the public account status) would be enough for shooting on sight to be reasonable action in good faith IMO - David Gerard 17:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• What David said is true, but the public accounts can be shot on sight anyway. Ambi 11:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Non-issue - you have licence to shoot public accounts on sight. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 21:00, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

The ArbCom recently decided upon the case of Robert Blair.

Since that time, there has been a significant number of edits by anonymous users on pages that Blair regularly edited. Many of these edits resemble Blair's editing style, though I have not yet amassed firm evidence for ban evasion.

Please would the AC a) advise on what actions should be taken if ban evasion is suspected, and b) make any changes or additions to the final decision, as they see fit? Jakew 14:13, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Comments by Arbitrators

• If a ban is evaded through use of a sockpuppet, the appropriate action is to indefinitely block the sockpuppet account and notify the arbcom such that the ban timer is reset. If such actions continue for an extended period of time, file a request with us. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 15:15, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
• Concur with Grunt. Could we get a sockpuppet check from David? Ambi 23:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Probably not - I can only check back a week. Would need dev assistance. In the meantime, shoot the sock - David Gerard 21:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Agree, admins should block socks as soon as they are sure about them. Non admins should post any evidence they have (such as editing styles) on WP:AN/I so that an admin can take the necessary action. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Shoot the socks on sight, sanity-check with WP:AN/I. Robert Blair's editing style is, uh, pretty distinctive - David Gerard 10:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Based on my previous interactions with banned users User:Reithy and User:Libertas/ User:Ollieplatt (same person), I have a strong suspicion that one of them is behind the current attempts to insert POV on Oliver North. For background see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reithy/Evidence and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Libertas/Evidence. See this edit by Libertas/Ollieplatt for instance [2], and this example of Reithy's typical POV editing [3]. Compare with the current version of Oliver North which is being inserted by Ger6, Nulla, and many other sockpuppets: [4]. I'm requesting arbitrator/developer assistance in determining whether these users are sockpuppets of either Reithy or Libertas/Ollieplatt (some have already been banned for obvious violations of the username policy):

• User:Britannicarocks
• User:Hairamerica
• User:Ulyssess
• User:Ger6
• User:Chucky45
• User:Winston88
• User:Tnuctnurgemetib - read backwards
• User:Kcocymkcusesaelp - read backwards
• User:Sllabymkciletibohr - read backwards
• User:Kcocymkcus - read backwards
• User:Lennywilliams
• User:Nulla
• User:Franklincomman
• User:Seabiscuits
• User:Sandleroneill - this one has a user page
• User:Rtapuarvf
• User:Slimers
• User:Fearfacter
• User:Marquisbaux
• User:Tytytytyt

Thanks. Rhobite 23:18, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Being entirely too familiar with Libertas's M.O., I share Rhobite's suspicions. RadicalSubversiv E 05:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would like to extend Rhobite's request to cover User:StanleyBirch, User:Arnold4Prez, User:Tacosmell, User:Gmyu, who have been engaging in POV edits to Laura Bush, George W. Bush, and Soviet Union. See WP:AN/I#Sockpuppetry at Laura Bush. RadicalSubversiv E 19:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would like to further extend that to User:Fearfacter for Oliver North buggering (see [5]). TIMBO (T A L K) 05:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've added to the list six more accounts apparently being operated by the same person (all making the same edits to Oliver North), the most recent of which, User:Sandleroneill contribs has a user page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:39, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Comments by Arbitrators

• I doubt we have technical evidence stretching far enough back to determine exactly whose sockpuppets these accounts are. If they're simulating behaviour of a banned user, shoot on sight and report the incidents somewhere such that the current ban tally (in the case of Libertas/Ollieplatt - Reithy is hardbanned per action of Jimbo) can be updated to reflect attempts at sockpuppetry. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 19:17, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Since GRider is banned from deletion-related pages, does it follow that he is "revert on sight" on deletion pages, and that his votes should be removed? Snowspinner 19:33, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I ask the Arbitrators to consider wisely. The ruling did not specify that his edits are "revert on sight", as other decision have specified. Even if it had, or even if there is some unwritten rule, then votes should specifically not be removed (unless they are disruptive in other ways). If he wants to vote, incurring a one week block and resetting his timer, let him. Removing votes just feels very wrong. -- Netoholic @ 05:24, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Banned users are generally revert-on-sight. And if GRider is banned from deletion-related pages, I really don't see how he's entitled to a say on them - David Gerard 12:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is this "generally" word? Either you've specifically said he is, or he isn't. The banning policy ("Reverts") gives a little guidance, but talks about the issue more from an article edit perspective. Considering that this is a vote, and not some biased article insertion, it should certainly stand. This user was banned for making frivolous nominations, not for disruptive voting. I ask the Arbitrators to make a change to the enforcement to specifically allow voting. I think this was a mistake on the Arbitrators part, and should be corrected. -- Netoholic @ 15:50, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

"Votes" For Deletion is of course misnamed - it's attempts to gather consensus, not a mere numerical count. GRider is banned from the pages, so doesn't get to put an opinion on them. Banned from the pages is banned. Your rules-lawyering makes no sense. See Sannse's clarification below - David Gerard 21:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's leave "vote" out of it then. GRider was banned for making distruptive nominations, not for adding disruptive comments to a VfD discussion (vote, whatever). Let him comment (vote, whatever) since VfD discussions are really more like Talk pages anyway. Limit him from not nominating anything. -- Netoholic @ 16:36, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Probably the time to suggest this would have been when the case was being looked at and voted on - David Gerard 16:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking it's a good idea to strike out the vote (instead of deleting) and include a comment below stating why the vote is being struck out. It's clear to the vote closer that the vote may be an invalid one, and the vote closer can choose to consider GRider's vote if desired (but probably won't, due to the strikeout). -- Death phoenix 16:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's a very good idea, actually - David Gerard 21:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments from arbitrators

• I'd surely think so. Remove, but leave this diff there the first time you do so, so that others on the page know why - David Gerard 22:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• My first thought was to say "leave them, but the admin doing the deletion may wish to ignore his vote." - but the norm for bans is to remove edits so I would agree with David that this is also a valid response to him ignoring the ruling. -- sannse (talk) 22:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • To firm up my reply in response to Netoholic's comments - the banning policy is clear: "All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion." GRider is banned from these pages - if any contributor chooses to enforce this with a reversion that is within the terms of the ban. If a contributor decides to comment on the authorisation to edit, or to strike out the vote, as a way of making the situation more understandable to other editors, then that's fine. But the fact remains - GRider is no longer authorised to edit these pages. -- sannse (talk) 20:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I am clear on what the page says, it also says such edits may be reinstated if someone is so inclined. Please respond to the second part of my last post, asking that the ArbCom re-evaluate the enforcement such that voting be allowed, since I think it was an area that perhaps the Arbitrators didn't forsee. Reading the enforcement, voting should have really been specifically addressed, positively or negatively. -- Netoholic @ 21:41, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
      • Clarified above. You have misunderstood Votes For Deletion (they aren't actually "votes" at all), so you come across here as pointlessly querulous - David Gerard 21:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Reinstating an edit from a banned user is taking responsibility for it - which makes no sense in the context of VfD. I didn't vote on this one, but the ruling is clear: GRider is banned from editing these pages - that is inclusive of editing to vote -- sannse (talk) 12:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This is up to whatever deletionists care to look through the pages. As far as I'm concerned what we are saying is that anything contributed to GRider to deletion pages should at least be ignored and at most be removed entirely unless someone else wants to take responsibility for his nominations. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 20:58, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

What is the status of this RfA? It was apparently shelved in the mistaken belief that Rex had left Wikipedia, but he has not. Are there any outstanding paroles or decisions? Rick K 05:42, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Comments from arbitrators

• I'd be inclined to believe that this case is obsolete and defunct; the purposes that would be served by reopening it and attempting to clean up the mess that is the old style of arbitration that it represents would be better served by pursuing an entirely new case, as has been done. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 20:57, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

Is the decision against me intended to prohibit me from reverting simple vandalism? Furthermore, may I make minor edits such as typo fixes that do not affect the actual nature of the content? Everyking 12:27, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would hope that, considering the degree to which Everyking tried to game the rules on his revert prohibition, leading to his second case, the arbcom will simply say "No Ashlee edits means no Ashlee edits" and leave it at that. There are plenty of other people who can revert vandalism to those pages, and Everyking's inability to follow the spirit of past arbcom rulings makes me feel as though this one should be left with no wiggle room. Snowspinner 13:16, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who looks at the evidence can plainly see that I strictly adhered to the first ArbCom ruling, despite Snowspinner's (largely successful) attempts to make it appear that I did not. But in any case, that's beside the point. Everyking 13:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since I'm sure most of the vandalism to these articles would be to goad Everyking into making a response, making it clear that Everyking is barred from reverting them seems like a very good idea. As Snowspinner notes, there are plenty of other people who can revert vandalism to these pages. I for one am not concerned that it might take 10 minutes longer, say, to revert some vandalism if EK can't revert it, jguk 15:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My only "response" to vandalism is to hit rollback. Everyking 18:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess the arbitrators are leaning towards letting me rollback vandalism, but it's awfully ambiguous; I don't know if I'd want to try it with Snowspinner watching my every move and eagerly waiting for an excuse to shoot me down. Something more clear might be helpful. Also, I had an idea just now. What if I was allowed to edit Ashlee articles, but I have to comment out everything I add? And then, if someone agrees with the addition, they can make it appear in the text. Everyking 21:58, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That achieves nothing that wouldn't be achieved by making your additions to the talk page for consideration - David Gerard 10:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be more obvious. Right now I've had information about "La La" that needs to be added to the article, an update about it being certified gold and some other things, on the talk page for several days, but no one has done anything about it. Everyking 11:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You've got my email - send me what you want added and I'll add it. I do wish you'd stayed away from reverting (or partial reverting, or mini-reverting, or three-line reverting) though, as it's meant that you end up being stopped from doing this sort of thing - which you're very good at - yourself. Ambi 11:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Replies from arbitrators

• The ruling says you can in fact revert clear simple vandalism as per the definition. As for typos, the ruling says not and so that's what it means. There are many other administrators keeping a close eye on the articles in question; it's certainly not the case that you are uniquely needed for the job. If a typo is really bugging you, mention it on the relevant talk page and someone else will almost certainly do it. You can in fact still participate fully on the talk pages of Ashlee-related articles, and as you are an expert in the field the sensible contributors would do well to at least consider your concerns - but you can't revert on the articles - David Gerard 14:51, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The first ruling did mention an exception for vandalism, but the second one didn't. Snowspinner says he'll block me for any edit, unconditionally. That's why I'd like the clarification, to see if I can at least revert simple vandalism. Everyking 14:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Your definition of vandalism seems to be anything about Ashlee which isn't praise. I wouldn't trust you to touch an Ashlee article. Let others deal with "vandalism". Rick K 08:25, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • So point to an example where I've reverted something as vandalism and provoked any controversy. By simple vandalism I mean "ASHLEE SUX", etc. Everyking 12:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I concur with David. Neutrality ^talk 16:47, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • That means you think I can revert vandalism, but can't fix typos? Everyking 17:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irate says that Irate is blocked from making personal attacks. Does this parole apply to the mailing list? He has been known to continue his attacks there. Rick K 23:17, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Comments from arbitrators

We don't have jurisdiction over the mailing list, in the same way that we don't over other language versions - in one case we made a ruling that personal attacks on the mailing list could be penalised with bans here, but I was against that decision and suspect it will be argued about furiously if it is ever actioned in the future. With respect to Irate - in my opinion, this is a matter for the mailing list contributors and administrators, and not this committee -- sannse (talk) 11:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The administrators of the mailing list should use their judgment, in this case; I agree with sannse in saying that we shouldn't have jurisdiction over the mailing list. This issue should now be irrelevant, however, with the closing of the case. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 20:54, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

For the purposes of the injunction against GRider ( Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/GRider), is User:GRider/Schoolwatch a "deletion related page"?

See also WP:AN/I#User:GRider.

Thryduulf 08:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments from arbitrators

• I've been considering this carefully, and I'm afraid I have to say that I believe we need to pass this back to the community. This hinges on the question of how much autonomy users are given in their user space - something that we have traditionally been quite flexible about. As an contributor and admin my opinion is that we should not worry about this page - unless the use of the page is actively causing a problem, then we should allow GRider to edit it as he likes. The page is not related to our deletion process, even if it refers to deletion pages - it can be easily ignored in all respects. As an arbitrator, I say that this is an administrator and community decision - as the ruling says: "Determining what is "deletion-related" is left to the discretion of the blocking administrator". -- sannse (talk) 10:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I fear I have to agree with Sannse: it's for administrators to decide, though I'm glad to see it's being actively discussed on WP:AN/I and a block/unblock war hasn't ensued. The wording could be reasonably interpreted to include such, though as an editor and an admin I'd really not worry about it. Probably we should have made it clear at the time and we'll have to clarify this in future - David Gerard 11:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I'd personally prioritise user space over the concept of a deletion-related page; after all, we never said he can't edit discussion pages related to deletion - just the pages themselves. Since this user space page isn't a page that directly impacts deletion decisions, I would say leave it. However, as DG and sannse have said, this is best a decision for the community. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 20:45, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
• Personally, I would lean towards saying yes, as while it is in the userspace, it is directly attempting to affect the outcomes of deletion-related votes. The other arbitrators do make some quite valid points, however. Ambi 02:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I am farther out on the "let him go" end of the spectrum than the previously commenting arbiters. I would give a user much more liberty in his own name-space than in public areas. ➥the Epopt 00:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other comments

• I don't think it is reasonable for the arbitration committee to make an insufficiently precise ruling and then duck responsibility by saying "you guys figure it out". I think the committee has an obligation to clarify rulings when it becomes necessary. The fact that there is a long discussion on this point proves that it is necessary now. -- Zero 13:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, yeah. At least I admit I haven't a clue as yet. My Magic 8 Ball is still saying "Reply hazy, ask again later." The AC is not supposed to make rulings that outrage the interpretation of community norms, so the question is whether this one has done so in the case of user pages. I must admit the question of user space had not occurred to me during the vote. I swear to God we're still trying to find a sensible way to resolve this one and aren't just punting it back to the sensible, sober and reasoned discussion forum of WP:AN/I ... - David Gerard 15:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe the problem here is that Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch is a public and neutral project aimed at improving school articles, whereas User:GRider/Schoolwatch is self-admittedly POV and primarily used for vote spamming - in other words for the kind of VfD disruption that the ArbCom case was about. R adiant _* 09:57, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • A lot of those edits are from when I was maintaining SWG, while GRider was banned. He reverted alot of those changes to make SWG somewhat more professional and non partisan. I favor an SWG that is openly proinclusionist, GRider (and it;s his page) wants it to be NPOV, and I respect that. Don't conflate me and my views with GRider and his views. Klonimus 03:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I have to respectfully Disagree with Radiant!. User:GRider/Schoolwatch (SWG) is a project devoted to highlighting school's on VfD so that they can be improved to save them from VfD. If the Arb's will look carefully, listing a page on Schoolwatch typically results in a flurry of edits to the school article to bring up to point where it will be saved, or there will be no-consensus keep. This is not a negative outcome from the perspective of creating a truly great encyclopedia. Most of the time what was a concensus delete of a stub, becomes a split or a keep of a decent article by the close of VfD.

As is there are about 6-10 hard core inclusionists (Myself being one of them) who will almost always vote keep on a school. Ther are about 8-12 hard core deletionists (IMHO Radiant! is one of them) who will almost always vote Delete on a school. So the goal of any "VfD fight" is to convince the random non ideological readers of VfD that the school is worth saving. That can only be done by mobilizing a rapid improvment team that will improve an article before the VfD is closed. I might add that SWG also helps to mobilize the deletionists as well as it is open to all. I'd like to think that the admins ignore the votes of the hard core folks on both sides, and focus on the merits of each case individually.

Since the general impact of SWG is improved articles, what GRider does in his own Userspace should not concern Arbcom. The only deletion related page, is VfD it's self. I personally think the proposed injunction should be modified to say that GRider can't nominate pages for VfD (since at times, he proposels could have been constured as disruptive), but his voting is not IMHO objectionable. Klonimus 04:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• You are seeing the issue far too black-and-white. I am neither a hardcore deletionist, nor do I always vote 'delete' on schools. I do object to the POV'ness of GRider's schoolwatch, and would prefer it merged to the neutral version in main namespace. R adiant _* 08:52, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

From what I've seen, GRider is not voting on the articles he lists on his page. And I think that we should have more respect for our fellow editors than to call people who watch his page his proxy votes. GRider's page is about more than deletion; it also includes schools that need improvement. If you look at GRider's contributions, he's been hard at work improving the school articles listed there and others in need of expansion. The tools on the page for improving articles are basically the list of articles needing improvement themselves.

Having said that, I believe that this would be cleared up if people just moved to Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch, which is not hosted by any one user and also isn't a deletion-related page, in my opinion. Also, moving lists of schools needing improvement to Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools would also put the actions above reproach, as well as providing a better working environment.-- BaronLarf 05:47, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

• I wholeheartedly agree. R adiant _* 08:50, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

• On the subject of User:GRider/Schoolwatch, I have a page at User:Carnildo/Schoolwatch where I've been tracking the progress of schools listed on the "Marked for improvement" section of GRider's Schoolwatch. Two things I've noticed: 1) Schools on the list tend to only get non-minor edits if they are listed on VfD. 2) The last addition to the list was on April 11, and the last addition to the list that wasn't a school that had just survived VfD was on March 28. All schools added to the Schoolwatch page since then have been added in reference to a VfD debate. -- Carnildo 06:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I stopped using the GRider/Schoolwatch page several weeks ago in favor of the Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch page, but back when I did use it, my first priority was to improve the schools that were up for deletion. I only have so many hours of the day for Wikipedia, and I don't want to spend them all on the schools. In my opinion, I'd have more time to edit those other schools listed as needing improvement if new schools didn't keep popping up on the VfD pages. -- BaronLarf 07:16, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

• With the utmost restraint, it saddens me to say how much I strongly disapprove of some of the recent actions taken by Radiant & co. against GRider and those of us who hold the belief that schools are inherently notable, feeling that some of their recent actions and comments closely border on the side of harassment. IMHO, SWG belongs in user space because it is a user initiated project. No one is being forced to participate in his project if they don't want to, and those who disagree with how it is ran can create their own or join WP:W. From what I've observed, the same people who're complaining that SWG is a POV tool of mass disruption are the same ones who consistently vote to delete schools, and a few have even made disruptive edits to the project themselves. If you disagree with the notion that all schools are inherently notable, then you have plenty of options— you can vote to delete down the line as I've witnessed some folks do, you could cautiously hold out a while and see if it improves, or you can move along to another corner of Wikipedia to an area you're more interested in and focus your efforts there. The bottom line— the improvement of any article, school-related or not, is a Good Thing (tm). This has nothing to do with deletion-related pages— AFAIK it's about improving the overall quality of Wikipedia. Now if someone can explain to me how raising the quality of an article of any sort is bad, please, speak now. — RaD Man ( talk) 07:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Again, I must state that you're polarizing the issue. My aim is not to get schools deleted - indeed I find schools not important enough to warrant the daily fuss on VfD. My aim, rather, is to get people working together towards concensus in a civilized and NPOV way. Please answer me this... I believe SWG to be POV, and Klonimus seems to concur. I also believe NPOV to be absolute and non-negotionable (since that is one of Jimbo's founding principles, on WP:NPOV). I finally believe that a NPOV schoolwatch exists in mainspace. So my question is, how can you, in good faith, oppose merging the two? R adiant _* 08:50, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreee with Radman. Klonimus 18:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem is when it's being done by users who are forbidden to do it. Neither you nor Klonimus are restricted from a project of this sort. GRider is. Snowspinner 18:21, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • So moving SWG to User:Klonimus/Schoolwatch (SWK) would solve your objections? Because it would be the same content, contributors and attitude. Klonimus 03:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, if GRider is taken out of the equation, then we have no business intervening whatsoever. Ambi 03:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • So if the hosting the project is moved out of GRider's userspace into somone elses Userspace that would be ok to you? SWG fills a need for a project where school inclusionists can meet to improve schools on VfD. If it's in my userspace, then it would still be maintained under inclusionist auspices.
      • Assuming that GRider also stopped editing it, and that you did not subsequently become subject to an arbcom restriction, yes, that would be fine. Snowspinner 03:34, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • I can't agree to that. GRider should be allowed to edit SWG/SWK as his contributions further the goals of the projects. SWG is deletion related in a very remote sense, since it is a collection of articles on VfD. However GRider in no way directly influences the VfD of any article, since he can't vote. Klonimus 05:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • Then you probably shouldn't move it, because the only reason there's any as to whether he is allowed edit the page at all is because it's in his userspace. Ambi 06:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • If the only issue is it being in his user space, then move it to mine (with GRider's consent). Klonimus 06:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • Just so we're clear, what I understand Ambi to be sayingis that the only reason he *is* allowed to edit the page is the fact that it's in his userspace. Moving it into yours would therefore mean he could no longer edit it. Slac speak up! 01:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• IMHO, GRider should be allowed to edit it. I have no opinion one way or another about schools, but I do have an opinion on Grider's sentence. The findings of fact in the case were frivolous deletion requests and ignoring consensus--neither of which GRider is doing by editing this page. Therefore, I feel we should use a light touch in this gray area and let GRider continue to edit this page. When I supported the arbitration requests, I wasn't complaining about his policy on schools. Meelar (talk) 06:18, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • See my comment above. I would have no objection to GRider editing WP:W. The difference simply is that that one is NPOV. R adiant _* 08:50, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • GRider's opinions on schools are his own and he is perfectly entitled to have them. It would be desirable from the perspective of reducing VfD-associated tensions if he would contribute to the WP:W project rather than the one in his userspace. A collaborative project should not have unilaterally-set terms of reference. Slac speak up! 01:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Radiant! and Slac, your obsesiveness about what GRider does in his own userspace is disturbing, leave him alone. Klonimus 06:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Klonimus, you should give a good answer to our concerns rather than calling them 'obsessive'. Consider that an issue won't go away simply because you ignore it. R adiant _* 08:14, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
        • But, your concerns are obsessive. SWG is User space, It is inculsion related, not deletion related. It has an active community of users. It's is good and does good. WP:W is not as functional, nice, or well maintained. Perhasp you should see the Irish Language article for an example of what happens when you try and force things on people. Klonimus 04:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2#Meta-templates issue referred to developers, it was decided that the page would be referred to the developer committee, who woould presumably decide if we need a guideline to this effect. Please tell me what steps have been taken by the ArbCom to satisfy this ruling. A link to a Meta page or mailing list post would be appreciated. -- Netoholic @ 03:19, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

• The developers have made it clear to my satisfaction that template:sisterproject is harmful. Move the contents to the other templates and delete template:sisterproject. →Raul654 21:08, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you show the rest of us this so we can make informed decisions? The only examples I have seen deal with editing popular templates. So it was my understanding that preventing editing on popular templates (meta or not - it makes little difference) would solve the major issue (flushing the cache of every page the template is used on). The only remaining issue is the per template query each time a page those templates are displayed on (again, meta or not) is saved. That is not a big issue, as far as I can tell, and the same issue applies to any page that has multiple templates (once again, meta or not). -- mav 18:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I expect that's why it says "avoid" rather than "verboten" - David Gerard 14:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• It does appear Netoholic was 100% technically correct. Jamesday's opinion on metatemplates was pretty clear: at least in MediaWiki 1.4, they create noticeable server load all by themselves. WP:VFD was recently switched from templates-in-templates format because that page alone, generating one and a half megabytes of uncacheable HTML every time the page was accessed by a logged-in user, was creating noticeable load on the server. See Tim Starling's mailing list post on the subject, and most of Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/May 2005 Part One. The real technical solution, of course, is to stop templates in templates from working at all; I'm now asking if there's any reason not to make this so - David Gerard 19:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Granted, this will make some templates stop working, but really, calling templates within templates was always a kludge and more "clever" than helpful. Most instances are easily solved by creating one or more additional similar templates and splitting the workload. It's usually trivial to keep "look and feel" from drifting after a split. -- Netoholic @ 19:32, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
    • Discussion appears to be in progress on wikitech-l; see thread asking about this on wikitech-l - David Gerard 20:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
• If Tim and Jamesday are agreed, then that's close enough to "the developer committee" for me. -- sannse (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep. I mean, this isn't something the arbcom can actually rule on per se - it's one of those things where if the devs say it's a serious problem, sensible people should act accordingly and minimise the use of templates-in-templates. We can't really declare it's now policy, because it's really in the class of good sense. Perhaps a rewrite of Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates emphasising their statements on the matter. And noting that if people really love their metatemplates (which they do), then the really effective course of action would be to hack on MediaWiki so as to make them less of a horrible performance hit. I can see why they're a really neat idea, but ... - David Gerard 22:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I've now amended Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates to emphasise the technical angle, and added a note on the talk page to the effect that technical realities aren't really amenable to votes. But they might be amenable to thought, design and MediaWiki coding - David Gerard 23:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I've added a link from WP:TFD, since it would be relevant there. R adiant _* 10:05, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

It has been suggested [6], [7] that User:The Rev of Bru is yet another sockpuppet of User:CheeseDreams which seems to have reactivated (they both have the same POV and act in similar ways). Would it be possible for this to be confirmed please? -- G Rutter 14:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• I'd already received email on this from someone whose judgement I basically trust, and if they can substantiate it enough that a third party would go "yup" I'll block the offender myself. CheckUser doesn't show anything positive - they use the same ISP, but it's one of the largest broadband ISPs in Britain and changes people's IPs regularly, so that really says nothing at all. But we're aware of this one and keeping an eye on it - David Gerard 19:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Whilst they share some points of view, there are some subtle differences. I do not think they are the same person. See also the comments CheeseDreams left on User talk:The Rev of Bru. There are also areas where there have been differences, which I would not expect of sockpuppets (such as The Rev of Bru's insistence on the CE/BCE notation system compared with CheeseDreams having to explain it - even to the extent of putting at the top of a page what CE/BCE notation was for those unfamiliar with it). I'm afraid Mr Rubenstein edits in a controversial area, and sorry that he has to put up with a rump of editors who are not prepared to discuss points in a proper academic way - The Rev of Bru and CheeseDreams are two such editors. Kind regards, jguk 19:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Look to yourself before you judge others. Vanity is a sin. - 81.156.177.21 (presumably the user under discussion, last few edits spell "Cheese" "Dreams" "Signing" "Off")

For what it's worth, here is a page I started, explaining why I felt they were the same people: User:Jayjg/Rev of Bru - CheeseDreams My enthusiasm for the project waned when I realized Rev of Bru was gone, and I found it very time consuming trying to comb through links of the various sockpuppets, especially when the User contributions button was rarely willing to go back more than 500 edits. In any event, the fact that one talked to the other on a Talk: page means little in my opinion; any reasonably intelligent person trying to maintain two sockpuppets would do the same. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the inactive user Dr Zen is (was) also a sockpuppet of CheeseDreams; similarly to 81.156.177.21's "Cheese" "Dreams" "Signing" "Off" edits, Dr Zen's last few edits were Fuck Off Cunt Bye. ral315 17:33, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Dr Zen was quite definitely not CheeseDreams; CD is Swedish living in the UK, Dr Zen is Australian; and they write completely differently. - David Gerard 20:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I concur; Zen and Cheese are completely different - different interests, different writing styles, etc. Cheese might have learned that trick from Zen, but that doesn't make them the same person. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I missed that. What?. TIA. El_C 10:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The case was closed - Wareware hadn't edited since before the case had started, and there wasn't much point then banning him when there was a whole bunch of new, more important cases to deal with. Ambi 22:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right, but we knew he wasn't coming back at the time of issuing the request. I suppose I expected some sort of statement to go along with the unexpected closure which followed the evidence submission (i.e it serving some purpose). Any thoughts? El_C 00:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was obvious that he was a nasty piece of work, and he was dealt with accordingly. When we got that onslaught of new cases concerning ongoing issues with potential problem users, it was the lowest priority of our cases, and seeing as there was no issue with stopping anything from happening, there seemed to be no point continuing on with the case. Ambi 16:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The case, then, wasn't "closed following Wareware's departure from Wikipedia," that happned the month before (following the RFC), the case was closed due to the "onslaught of new cases." *** Now, I realize that legalism is cold & techncial, still, a sentence qualifying this, taking 20 seconds to formulate, might have been prudent; and perhaps a brief statement as a precedence. Am I just too sensitive to persecution (my pov) ? Certainly, I still feel very uneasy that it could happen right under my nose. Thanks for reading. 70.28.160.144 20:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This can be removed, I suppose. Since DC is not particularly upset with the unexpected closure, I see no reason why I should be. El_C 00:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear ArbCom,

I am sorry for appealing to you once again, but, apparently, you are the only authority, which can effectively stop this sockpuppet farce.

As you perhaps remember, massive attacks against me by various sockpuppets took place before. Thus, for example in March 2005 only in one talkpage ( Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh), there emerged at least seven "mock users" (Osmanoglou; Baku Ibne; LIGerasimova; Twinkletoes; StuffedTurkey; Kiramtu Kunettabib; Wikirili – which eventually turned out to be one person) all of which advanced various spurious comments and attacks against me.

Now, same old story is indeed repeating itself: various banned vandals create sockpuppets and wage malicious and spurious attacks against me.

These sockpuppets are: Twinckletoes ( talk · contribs) (definitely same as Twinkletoes/LIGerasimova/Baku Ibne etc); LastExitToBrooklin ( talk · contribs) (definitely sock, but not sure if Rovoam's or LIGerasimova's; see spurious post and personal attack against me [8]) ;

Popgoestheweasle ( talk · contribs), Dudummesstückscheisse ( talk · contribs) (scheisse – curse in German; recall previous sock, Dubistdas LetzteArschloch [9]?.. aka Baku Ibne/LIGerasimova) and Benito Juares ( talk · contribs). From behavior pattern, I'm almost certain, all of them are same as LIGerasimova/Baku Ibne etc.; see fox ex. "Benito Juares'" spurious and implicitly abusive post [10], identical spurious attacks in Talk:Moses Kalankaytuk ( [11]) and in Talk:Caucasus ( [12]).

Now, the most important and most spurious sockpuppet is Rovoam's new sock WikiAdm ( talk · contribs). When I see such behavior, I really become convinced that this person is full of hatred and lies and indeed has absolutely no morale and ethical boundaries…

This "user", which was created in Feb 28 but stayed inactive till June 24, until suddenly re-emerged in Talk:Moses Kalankaytuk and claimed that he was "the original author" of the article and "If Tabib requests that I cannot participate in this discussion, I will claim my copyrights for this material". ( [13]). Then, following User:Francs2000's unconsidered question (see same link), he quickly saw a window of opportunity for himself, and claimed that allegedly User: 64.136.2.254 (Rovoam) who created the entry is different from him and he just happened to coincidentally share his IP.

Pls, read Talk:Moses_Kalankaytuk#Copyright_Warning, where Rovoam literally fools other users, and Talk:Moses_Kalankaytuk#.22Copyright_Warning.22_-_Farce_by_Rovoam where I tried to expose his lies and cheatings (followed by spurious posts by Rovoam/WikiAdm and another sock Twinckletoes…)

Btw, pls, see following diff links for additional details: Rovoam (anon 72.25.94.43, future "WikiAdm") posted this message then I deleted this spurious post (explaining the reasons [14]) and placed notification on RFC [15], then Rovoam restored this spurious post again, this time signed as "WikiAdm" [16].

You all know that Rovoam's real name is Andrey Kirsanov (btw, he also signed his address to ArbCom by this name [17]). I also informed you before that Rovoam owns a Russian web-site http://www.vehi.net (btw, this was earlier than this "WikiAdm" appeared and claimed ownership to this web-site, so, I couldn't predict this). By claiming ownership to this web-site and moreover putting spurious "copyright violation" notice in his web-site ( [18]) Rovoam exposed himself once again. Btw, if you pay attention to this "user's" contrib. log, you would see, that he actively contributed to other entries such as Icon, thus trying to create an impression that he is in fact just an 'ordinary innocent and good-faith user'… Another spurious trick of this unprecedented vandal…

And here is another solid evidence which proves my argument that Rovoam, aka Andrey Kirsanov, is also the owner of www.vehi.net, hence WikiAdm is his sockpuppet. Pls, see, Rovoam's post on Feb 5 in Russian Wikipedia.

Rovoam wrote (Russian)

"До недавнего времени я, являясь тогда еще незарегистрированным участником, помещал здесь статьи, касающиеся русской религиозной философии (Соловьев, Бердяев, Булгаков и т.д. со ссылками на оригинальные полные тексты сочинений этих писателей, опубликованными мною в моей электронной библиотеке "Вехи". См.: Библиотека «Вехи» ( http://www.vehi.net) … С уважением, Rovoam (в миру Андрей Кирсанов)".

Translation:

"Until recently I being an unregistered user placed articles related to Russian religious philosophy (Soloviyev, Berdyayev, Bulgakov, etc with links to original full texts of the works of these writers, published by me in my electronic library "Vehi" Look "Vehi Library ( http://www.vehi.net)... Best regards, Rovoam, (in real life Andrey Kirsanov)"

Considering the fact that this person is banned from Wikipedia by the WP community ( [19]) for his systematic and unprecedented vandalisms and dishonest and spurious actions, I ask you to immediately block this person, as well as other sockpuppets of LIGerasimova/Baku Ibne, I have pointed out above. Alternatively, if you think that not ArbCom but admins should block this sock (since Rovoam is banned not by ArbCom but by the WP community [20]), then I ask you to affirm the real identity of this sockpuppet, so that he wouldn't so easily deceive other users, and so that I would turn to admins to proceed my request regarding blocking of this person.

Furthermore, considering the fact that Rovoam himself by his own will placed the content of Moses Kalankaytuk to Wikipedia, I also ask you to recognize that there indeed was no "copyright violation" contrary to spurious claims by Rovoam. Rovoam when submitting this material, should have known (and knew) that by submitting the material he agrees to release it under GNU Free Documentation License. Therefore, I believe, the content should be restored, and after some important editions and corrections, which would neutralize the propaganda contained in the text, Wikipedia can acquire a good entry about Moses Kalankaytuk.

Please, treat this unprecedented sockpuppets' abuse with utmost seriousness and urgency. I hope for your support.

p.s. I also ask you to watch over disclaimer on Rovoam in his userpage. This sockpuppet "Deli Eshek" is vandalizing the disclaimer and advancing spurious attacks against me there.-- Tabib June 28, 2005 05:22 (UTC)

First of all, I don't know who are users Rovoam, Deli Eshek, Twinckletoe, LIGerasimova, Baku Ibne, LastExitToBrooklin et al. Second, I don't know who posted my article without my permission. If this was User:Tabib, he has obviously violated my copyrights. Finally, if Tabib does not like my article so much, he is welcomed to write his own. So far he wrote no articles, except for numerous complains and petition to the arbitration. He has spent a lot of time, envolving other editors into distructive conflicts and fruitless discussions, so they too have stopped contributing to WP as they now have to spend all their valuable time reviewing numerous Tabib's complains.-- WikiAdm 29 June 2005 08:12 (UTC)

The evidence about this "WikiAdm" (Rovoam) is cristall clear. As I have shown in my message above, Rovoam himself wrote yet several months ago what his real name and his real-life affiliation are, so his "message" above, is yet another blatant example on how dishonest and fraudulent this person is. It is also an indicator of how much he underestimates the intelligence of the users who would read his spurious post.

I want to inform about two more sockpuppets Azer Zadnizy ( talk · contribs) "born" yesterday, June 28 and Tony_Sidaway_train ( talk · contribs) "born" today June 29. Btw, from "Azer Zadnizy" I can discern similar pattern of abuse used previously by Baku Ibne/LIGerasimova. The guy (most probably a Kurd/Persian who resides in Germany) deliberately uses abusive names to refer to me. zadnizy (or "задница") means a curseword in Russian (i can specify the meaning, if you want). Similarly, the guy had username "Baku Ibne", which means a "Baku homosexual" (or "Dubistdas Letzearscholoch" another curse word in German). He attacked me personally in the past calling me "homosexual" ("YOU ARE 100 percent "IBNE", Tabib!" [21]). Now he attacked me similarly calling me an "Azeri ..." ("I think you are Azer Zadnizy" ( [22]repeated in here: [23]) As you see, this guy, which is different from Rovoam, has some rudimentary knowledge of Russian and some Turkish (e.g. see, spurious post with Russian address "Strazd vu'it ye tavarish" (Hello comrade) [24]).

I call you not to hesitate. Your hesitation may encourage further such abuses against me whereas your quick and effective response may significantly discourage any such future behavior.-- Tabib June 29, 2005 15:41 (UTC)

I thank ArbCom members and especially Fred for considering my request and blocking the spurious sockpuppets, including the most spurious ones, i.e. "WikiAdm" (Rovoam) [25] and "Deli-Eshek" (LIGerasimova/Baku ibne etc) [26]. There are some new socks, but I will turn now to individual ArbCom members and/or admins to proceed with my request to block them, it's not a big deal now. Thank you once again.-- Tabib June 30, 2005 05:04 (UTC)

Dear ArbCom,

Following my brief communication with Fred ( [27]), I ask you to immediately block and ban two sockpuppet accounts of previously banned anon 84.154.xx.xx. aka Baku Ibne/LIGreasimova/Osmanoglou etc. ( Baku Ibne et al. Case). These sockpuppets are Twinkletoes ( talk · contribs) and, as I just found out to my surprise, Deli-Eshek ( talk · contribs).

I was aware about Twinkletoes being a sockpuppet long ago (e.g. see, my post in [[Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh, or RFA/Baku Ibne talkpage). The anon 84.154.xx.xx (Baku Ibne et al anon IP) when vandalizing Safavids page constantly added nonsense to the entry and one of the words that he often referred to was "Twinkletoes". (see, e.g. [28], [29].) Moreover, the similar behavior and edit pattern of this vandal, leaves no question that this "user" is indeed a sock. Pls, review his contrib log for details: everything, from edited pages, to time of edits, and lengths and volume of activity points to the fact that this is indeed a vandal sock, which was overlooked.

The most surprising discovery I just made concerns User:Deli-Eshek's real identity. I was rather surprised that this guy is also actually a sockpuppet of Baku Ibne (I was similarly surprised in the past to learn out from Tony that LIGerasimova, whom I thought to be different person, was actually the same person as 84.154.xx/Baku Ibne/Osmanoglou [30]).

Here is the proof of Deli-Eshek being a sockpuppet: [31]. You can see that this person is actually the same as 84.154.xx.xx (see, [32]) aka Baku Ibne/LIGerasimova/Osmanoglou etc etc. Actually, similarly User:Tony Sidaway has found in the past that LIGerasimova was in fact same person as Baku/Ibne/Osmanoglou ( [33], fixed in evidences presented by Tony [34])).

This "user" has in the past actually "supported" me in Talk:Safavids. He pretended to be an "ethnic Turk" who "agrees" with me on my argument that Safavids were a Turkic-speaking dynasty of Iran, but he was kind of dark horse whose actions did not correspond to his deeds. Thus for example, I couldn't understand his actions, when he attacked various Azeri users (e.g. [35] (in which he allegedly "supports" me) (or this post, which provoked me to carefully approach him and ask him not to wage personal discussions. Then I thought that this guy is realy an ordinary good-faith editor, and all I cared is to advise him not to play into hands of my opponents in Talk:Safavids by waging unnecessary personal discussions).

Besides these two sockpuppets, there are some more e.g. Luba-Gerasimova ( talk · contribs) (which as seen from the name, is same as LIGerasimova (pretending to be a Russian female Luba Ivanovna Gerasimova). The other socks are Kiramtu_Kunettabib ( talk · contribs) and StuffedTurkey ( talk · contribs). I dont have solid evidences against the last two, but I am sure you can easily clarify the issue with those "mock users" as well.-- Tabib 14:23, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Votes and comments by arbitrators

• Accept Fred Bauder 21:26, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a request for clarification, not a new case - there's nothing to accept. Ambi 16:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• This evidence seems acceptable to me - as far as I'm concerned, they can be banned as sockpuppets and the ban reset. Ambi 16:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I concur with Ambi. →Raul654 16:14, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

The Njyoder personal attack parole specifies blocking for Njyoder, not banning. The parole listed in precedents is a ban parole. Is this discrepency deliberate? Should we, for all practical purposes, treat the two as equivalent for the purposes of Njyoder? Remembering in particular that, if it is a block, Njyoder would be justified in editing under another account while blocked so long as he was not flagrant about it? Snowspinner July 1, 2005 16:56 (UTC)

• Jamesday brought up this point *LONG* ago. We made it clear then that all arbcom rulings, unless they specify otherwise, refer not to the account but to the person behind the account. (Regardless of nitpicking our use of ban/block terminology and the fact that we refer to the person by his username rather than his real name) So if we ban user:AAA, and he comes back as User:BBB, then he is in violation of our ruling and he may be blocked and the ban timer reset. →Raul654 July 1, 2005 18:48 (UTC)

So all arbcom rulings that contain the word "block" should be read as issuing bans? Snowspinner July 3, 2005 00:27 (UTC)

Unless we explicitly state that it applies only to the account and not the person, yes, that is a very safe assumption. →Raul654 July 3, 2005 01:01 (UTC)

Yep - David Gerard 3 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)

Snowspinner, you're right, that should have been "ban"; perhaps the Committee will correct its ruling?

Blocks are technical measues that are account-specific, temporary, and can be administered by any sysop.

Bans are community decrees that are user-specific, can be indefinite ("hard ban"), and can only be applied by Jimbo or his deputy, the Arbitration Committee.

In fact, the Arbitration Committee doesn't have the ability or authority to issue blocks (though all of its current members have the ability, as they are all sysops).

James F. (talk) 1 July 2005 19:00 (UTC)

• AC rulings apply per person, not per account name. Anything else would be ridiculous. If someone wants to try to wikilawyer the precise meanings of "block" versus "ban" in this context, I'd be sorely tempted to give them 24 hours just for being a complete dick. As is, this sort of thing is why Mr Yoder is on an exceedingly short leash, as we hope that B. F. Skinner and Professor Cattleprod will work where sweet reason has failed. He has already stated on wikien-l that he can't see how Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility can apply because he doesn't understand them; that's the sort of circumstance in which we apply exceedingly short leash personal attack paroles in the hope that the subject will be able to discern a pattern as to what provokes a *ZAP* and what doesn't. Admins should feel free to apply loving instruction to anything that even smells like a personal attack - David Gerard 3 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)

Kim Bruning has resigned from mentoring Netoholic (he explained his reasoning on RFAr talk). Since that possibility wasn't covered under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2, what should be done in this case? R adiant _>|< July 2, 2005 08:30 (UTC)

I'd like to point the Arbitrators to the conversation on the Talk page. In short, I think that mentorship is still working, though Kim may have had a different idea of what this was supposed to be. -- Netoholic @ July 2, 2005 17:16 (UTC)

• Kim resigned about a week ago. Since neither User:Grunt nor User:Raul654 has responded to the matter during that week, it seems to me that the mentorship is not particularly active at the moment (unless, of course, it's being conducted over IRC). If the mentors are still active, I would like to have their response to the recent issues that were also mentioned on their talk pages. If the mentors are not active, I believe the ArbCom should decide whether this means that 1) new mentors should be found; 2) Netoholic's restrictions should be lifted entirely since they're not enforced; or 3) Netoholic should be blocked from editing Wikispace as suggested in his Arbcom case. In other words, please clarify. R adiant _>|< July 4, 2005 12:47 (UTC)

Netoholic is now moving Wikipedia-space pages around in what looks like an attempt to remove a couple of new proposals from the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal vote. This would be annoying behavior, but with Netoholic's past history of warring over stuff it's downright worrying. Is the mentorship dead? If so should I just list stuff like this on WP:ANI? -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 7 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)

Mentorship is fine, and one mentor agrees that it is inappropriate to add items to an open vote - see User talk:Raul654#Netoholic revert of CSD proposal page. HTH HAND. -- Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 21:26 (UTC)

I owe you an apology for misjudging you here. See here. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 9 July 2005 12:46 (UTC)

Could you please clarify how one should read the sanction imposed here?

There are three parts each of which seem to have garnered the requisite 5 votes to pass but seem to be mutually exclusive. 2.1 & 2.3 are identical except for the length of the block and the length of time before being allowed to apply for lifting the sanction. 2.2 seems to be more an official warning than a sanction at all, and it recieved 6 votes rather than 5, so is it the standard to be applied?

Is WMC actually subject to a revert parole or not, and what are it's conditions?

Thanks. Dragons flight 02:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Look at the final decision, not the proposed decision. →Raul654 02:09, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Out of curiousity, shouldn't some of the ArbCom members have indicated that they no longer approved of 2.1/2.2, if 2.3 is the adopted standard? I would assume that since 2.3 was the remedy adopted then it ultimately had the greatest degree of support even if it was never indicated as such in the proposed decision. Dragons flight 02:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

They do when they indicate 'first choice, second choice, 'etc. If an option passes based solely on first choices, then 2nd choice (etc) votes are discounted. If it passes based on second choice votes (which 2.3 did) then 3rd (etc) votes are discounted. →Raul654 02:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, well that seems a fairly slim margin then. If all 1st and 2nd choice votes are counted then both 2.1 & 2.3 seem to have enough votes to pass, though neither has enough 1st choice votes by itself. However, 2.3 does seem to have 1 more 1st choice vote than 2.1. Maybe that broke the tie? Or maybe there were additional rankings known to you, but not indicated there. Regardless, thank you for the clarification. My real interest was WMC's revert status and you have answered that. Dragons flight 02:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

What is the current date of expiration on the ban for Irate? It should have expired today, nominally, but [36] and [37] should have reset it in May to expire in August, if I count right. Am I right on this? Snowspinner 16:45, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

May I, as one of the aggrieved parties in the dispute, say that I would prefer the ArbComm to be lenient, as the edits were minor and one was requesting clarification. I don't see the need for petty rules-lawyering. smoddy 17:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

If the arbcom wants to overturn its own ban, that's fine - I do kind of object to administrators doing it, just because we don't get to make the decision to overturn an arbcom ban. As for leniency, it's probably worth pointing out that Irate returned and immediately began reverting the same edits he'd been reverting in May, calling them vandalism. So, you know, not exactly giving me confidence. Snowspinner 17:20, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I quite agree. I would also prefer the ArbComm to decide. But I was just requesting leniency! I wouldn't overturn the ban myself... smoddy 17:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I would also like some ArbComm input on this. Irate has come back, but he is still accompanied by his provocative style ("revert vandalism" to valid edits by those he has a grudge with). Moreover, while he's been banned from the English Wikipedia, he's been carrying on his personal attacks on Meta instead (peruse meta:User talk:Irate, for example). I don't think Irate is willing to change his ways, and whether we let him back now or in a month, my guess is that we're probably going to have to deal with his behaviour again at some point :( — Matt Crypto 17:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it is very clear that you destroyed valid data simply because you did not like the poster. That seems like vandlism to me. You objections have nothing to do with the content.-- Jirate 18:42, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

No, I reverted your edits last month because you were only two months through a three month ban. It isn't unusual to revert the edits of a banned user. — Matt Crypto 22:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I unbanned him because there were only two edits - he shouldn't have been able to do either (because of the block) but didn't continue beyond the two. One was a question regarding his RFAr and one was a revert of a previous argument. Yes, he's showing borderline personal attacks (use of the word "vandlism" (sic)) and the continuation of revert wars, but we should go along with the ruling of the arbcomm. He will very quickly be banned if anything like that carries on, so I have no worries about looking forward to his positive contributions. violet/riga (t) 18:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• As said above, one of the edits was a request for clarification in itself, the other could be regarded as a test. Irate may have been confused by the account being inadvertently unblocked. I'm happy for the ban to end on schedule (that is, for Irate to be unblocked as from now.) That said - Irate, your reaction to this, and your editing style so far does not give me much hope of a happy return. I strongly suggest you calm down and try editing more collaboratively. -- sannse (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• I concur with Sannse. →Raul654 17:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• I do, too. James F. (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Iasson is currently subject to a ban of 1 year or 1 year and 3 months following an arbitration case, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iasson. At WP:AN/I it has apparently been confirmed that User:Bank of Wikipedia and associated reincarnations are Iasson, if this is true then it is clearly in violation of the ban.

There is no mention in the arbitration pages of whether the ban should be reset (as it does in other arbcom judgments) if it is violated. It is also unclear whether the two bans imposed were to run consecutively or concurrently. Please could you therefore answer the following questions:

• What is the length of Iasson's ban? 12 months (bans run concurrently) or 15 months (bans run consecutively).
• If it is proven that he is in violation of the ban, can it be reset or should some other action be taken?

Thanks, Thryduulf 19:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• One year is our usual maximum ban. In this case I would say the bans run concurrently to the maximum year. If Iasson is evading the ban by editing under another account the ban is reset. I don't think we have a specific page for noting this, I would suggest doing so on his user page. -- sannse (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Actually, in this case, I very much disagree with sannse. In the past (in a Lir case, and the Shorne-et-al case) we established precedent that bans run consecutively. →Raul654 07:32, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I need to know about when my most recent Arb sentence expires, the one that regulates my expression of views. Everyking 04:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• There wasn't a time limit on it. Basically, if you decide it no longer applies, the case would start up again, I think - David Gerard 22:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If there's no time limit then I don't want any part of it. Why would I agree to anything that's infinite? My understanding was that it's a year. Everyking 03:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• This was a voluntary agreement was it not? It lasts until you no longer agree to it. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Precisely. It's making a case go away by agreeing to play nice, which is the AC's very favourite remedy ever when it works. If you're finding it untenable, the first thing to do is to see what else you can do to resolve the problem short of an AC case. You don't have to like Snowspinner, but you're both admins, you should be able to work together - David Gerard 22:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It wasn't voluntary, unless we have different definitions of voluntary. My definition implies "under no duress". Everyking 03:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
      • It's "or the case may well go forward." That's "duress" we can hardly block the existence of - David Gerard 07:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Are you kidding? You're arbitrators. You can decide to accept or not accept any case. It seems as though you do have some control. Everyking 09:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• I concur with both David and Theresa. EK agreed to stop pestering Snowspinner, and Snowspinner dropped his harassment complaint. If EK wants to go back on his word, then I see no reason why Snowspinner's complaint should not go forward. →Raul654 21:58, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Isn't that a neutral way to put it: "pestering". Everyking 03:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I thought the word "pestering" had fewer negative connotations than calling your actions "harassment", which would have been equally accurate. →Raul654 19:34, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • I would define it as raising objections in cases of fairly clear abuses. Everyking 06:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Another EK-related request for clarification: Are the remedies from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking still applicable? One of the remedies in that case prevented EK from reverting Ashlee Simpson related articles. Everyking claims that this remedy no longer applies, because "old cases are supplanted by new cases". To his credit, he hasn't actually reverted the article yet, and is participating in discussion. But he did say that he was going to revert Ashlee Simpson in the future. Rhobite 20:48, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Er, yes. They don't supersede old ones unless we say so - David Gerard 22:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You did say so. The ArbCom told me that months ago. Do I have to dig it up? it was on the RfAr talk page. I asked this same question and got an entirely different answer. You guys need to at least look a little more fair and consistent. Everyking 03:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, please "dig it up". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Archive_4#Question
        • "If two rulings on the same user contradict". There is no second ruling, and in any event the agreement regarding the Snowspinner case has nothing to do with the Ashlee Simpson case, much less "contradicting" it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
          • You're confusing two entirely different cases. Everyking 22:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• I concur with David Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• I would like to note that I agree with David and Theresa on both points; the temporary suspension of EK3 is indefinite unless EK wants it restarted, and it in no way removed the former restrictions. EK is welcome to request that the suspension be lifted, if he so wishes. James F. (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • While I have no particular desire to go against the actual terms of the deal, I do object to being straightjacketed indefinitely, so in that case I reject the deal in principle. Everyking 18:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Our decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking said In six months, if Everyking can demonstrate good behavior on Ashlee Simpson related articles, he may apply to the arbitration committee to have the revert parole(s) lifted. - Everyking successfully applied to have them removed. Thus, I feel that Everyking is under no restrictions with regard to editing Ashley Simpson related articles, outside of his mentorship. →Raul654 21:58, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that the ArbCom just closed the case against Ed Poor. I had barely created my "evidence" section, and I was just in the process of adding to it when I discovered the case had been closed. It now seems like something of a wasted effort. In the motion to close section, it says that "24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close", but while the first motion to close occurred at 18:30 today (september 13th as I write this), the fourth support occurred at 22:59, and the case was closed one minute later. This all seems a bit rushed to me. Did anyone even had time to read and consider my evidence? What kind of time frame is usually allowed, for the gathering and the presentation of evidence? And for the consideration of that evidence? Did other users specifically UninvitedCompany who brought the case or Fvw who had expressed an interest in taking over the case, had ample time to add evidence of their own? Have all the arbitrators had a chance to weight in? Was there a need to proceed so quickly? In my view this can only add to certain negative perceptions already exacerbated by these events. Paul August ☎ 00:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

About not waiting the 24 hours - mea culpa, that was my mistake (it had the 4 votes to close but I forgot about the 24 hour wait). However, in terms of the issues involved, they were discussed at length several weeks ago (before I went on vacation), at which point 3 of the 4 original requestors had dropped out of the case and UC said he was unsure about continuing. Discussion continued on the mailing list since [where most/all active arbitrators had expressed approval at the idea of Ed resigning and the case being dropped]. The rest was considered moot since all of the misconduct allegations (to which Ed had already pled guilty) centered on his misues of developer/bureacrat powers. →Raul654 00:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I haven't been privy to the mailing list discussions. But I didn't see anywhere that UC had dropped the case, and I also saw that Fvw was willing to take the case over if UC did decide to drop it. I might have been willing to take on the case as well. I don't remember seeing any allegations of abuse of developer/bureacrat powers, in for example the lengthy evidence I provided (did you get a chance to read it by the way?). All the allegations of abuse that I saw had to do with his misuse of admin power i.e. deleting VfD. Are we talking about the same case? Paul August ☎ 00:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

UC did not drop the case, however when asked (in an IRC discussion between him, Ed Poor, and several arbitrators) he was unsure about whether or not it should proceed.

As to the allegations against Ed - the primary complaints against Ed were (1) that he had misused his Op powers in deleting the RFC for VFD (2) and in deleting the RFC on himself (note - his deletion of VFD was specifically excluded from the complaint in underlined text- It is our opinion that, in his attempt to delete VfD, he nonetheless had a genuine belief that his actions were for the benefit of the community - however, it is not this particular action that we take issue with - [38]) (3) his threatening to "veto" lucky's request for adminship, and (4) the use of his (now removed) developer access some months back to desysop 4 or so admins with whom he was in a disagreement. Since then, he also (5) forcibly renamed another user against policy.

I personally consider 1 & 2 as "small fries" compared to 3, 4, and 5 (3 and 5 are, incidentally, related to his bureacrat powers). As such, (and while I don't want to presume to speak for the others on the committee, I'm fairly sure they'll agree with me) we felt our solution addressed the most compelling problems in the complaint. And while some people are sure to claim that we are being too light on him, I'd like to point out that this is quite a bit heavier punishment that we give others during their first arbcom cases. →Raul654 01:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Did you read my evidence section? Paul August ☎ 01:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have read your evidence (and as I side note, I think it is remarkably well written, which is very rare for arbcom evidence). With that said, while I think what Ed was a very bad idea that led to a lot of unnecessary bickering and recrimination, I also happen to agree with UninvitedCompany/NicholasT/et al in that Ed's VFD-deletion was a situation where Be-Bold and ignore-all-rules applied [his subsequent actions not withstanding]. Therefore, I don't think it was an abuse of power. And, as I said above, it was spefifically excluded from the arbcom complaint, which frankly means we shouldn't be commenting on it. →Raul654 01:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I hoped the case would close, but am a little disappointed that it has closed so suddenly, as I wanted to write a statement in support of Ed with regard to his mediation in the Terri Schiavo case. One of the editors from that article, who had been blocked by Ed for personal attacks, maintained that Ed had failed to show neutrality. There was absolutely no occasion on which Ed tried to protect the page in his preferred version, or on which he blocked people whose POV was different from his – actually, I don't know what his POV was – while overlooking similar behaviour from editors who shared his POV. I could add a lot more, but since the case has closed, I suppose I shouldn't. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 08:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Raul wrote: UC did not drop the case, however when asked (in an IRC discussion between him, Ed Poor, and several arbitrators) he was unsure about whether or not it should proceed. While this may be true, it is not a complete summary of the carefully nuanced view I hold. If I recall correctly, I was asked in IRC whether I was going forward with the case. My answer was that (a) it wasn't solely my decision whether the case should go forward or not, but rather a decision belonging to the AC and the community, (b) that I recognized that my judgement was badly clouded in trying to figure out the best way to handle this matter overall, and (c) in light of a&b, I neither wished to withdraw the case nor make an affirmative effort to move it forward. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor has offered to resign as a Wikipedia Bureaucrat. He remains a Wikipedia Administrator in good standing and a valued member of the Wikipedia community. The case is closed without further comment. To actually rule on whether Ed broke policy would be too controversial, I suppose. That he could have broken policy and still be considered a "valued member" is apparently not possible. The impression given seems to be that admins and others given power at wikipedia must maintain a facade of perfection, rather than be human, admit mistakes were made, deal with it, and move on. The mentality would seem to boil down to "you're in, or you're out" and there is no inbetween, which would reflect similar attitudes in a "club" that evolved from thirteen year olds more than a cabal that has been designed. "Lord of the Flies" rather than "1984". Well, at least now we know. FuelWagon 17:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

What we have communicated to Ed Poor is that he is not an exception who will be permitted, based on bureaucrat status, to break rules with impunity. Fred Bauder 19:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Telling Ed "you're not above policy" is good, but the "without further comment" basically means no one's going to make a determination as to whether or not Ed actually broke policy. I'm not entirely familiar with the case history of arbcom, but the few arbitration rulings I've skimmed through were pretty thorough on arbcom declaring what did and did not happen as far as they were concerned. FuelWagon 20:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It is implied that Ed broke policy in a number of instances, despite absence of specific findings. We simply don't want to paint him as a disreputable scoundrel just to bring him down a notch. In other words we don't want to overdo it. The evidence you folks added contributed significantly to our decisions despite the absence of findings of fact. Ed knew he had gotten carried away and responded appropriately. Fred Bauder 20:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to label Ed as a "disreputable scoundrel". I wanted a fair and neutral resolution over actions I believe Ed took that broke policy. Either a "no, Ed didn't break policy" or a "yes, Ed broke policy here and here but not here and this is what we're going to do as a result". The "paint him as a disreputable scoundrel" idea sounds like the very "you're either in, or you're out, and there's no in between" attitude I was talking about above. All or nothing. It should be possible to acknowledge someone broke policy, have them make appropriate ammends, bring them back into wikipedia, and consider them a "valued member". Otherwise, the alternative is to require perfect, rather than human, editors, which is only a setup for failure. FuelWagon 05:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Fualwagon - Please tell us why we need an FOF when there aren't any facts that are under dispute, seeing as how Ed pled "guilty as charged". →Raul654 22:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Then maybe this plea should be noted in the final decision area. It wasn't clear to me that that is what happened. FuelWagon 06:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You are correct on one point: Ed Poor ( talk · contribs) is IN. We are not in the habit of running off people who have contributed substantially to Wikipedia over a period of years. Fred Bauder 14:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, saying someone broke policy is not the same as "running off" the person. And whether or not an editor has "contributed substantially" or "been around for a long time" should have nothing to do with whether or not he broke policy. As far as I know, Ed offered to plead guilty on a talk page a while ago and arbcom never commented on it either way. If arbcom accepted that, then it should be noted in the "final decision" section. Did arbcom accept Ed's guilty plea? Or was the point to close the case as quickly as possible "without further comment". FuelWagon 15:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon, please! Can you not just drop it now. This is just getting embarrassing. Ed broke policy. He's now no longer a bureaucrat. Surely we don't have to keep going after him now. After you were unblocked, you started posting things on your user and talk pages about how if someone bumps you, you keep moving, and you expect others to do the same. Everyone reading this page can see that Ed did not get away with what he did. Why is it so necessary for you that there should be an formal statement of how naughty he was. You were welcomed back, as a member in good standing, after you had filled the talk page with the most revolting and aggressive language. It was the end of the matter. Nobody demanded a formal statement about your behaviour. You remained a Wikipedia editor "in good standing and a valued member of the Wikipedia community. The case [was] closed without further comment." Why shouldn't it be the same for Ed. Let go and move on. Please. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 16:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

"Everyone reading this page can see that Ed did not get away with what he did." What did he do? What policies did he violate? Why must that remain unspoken? This is starting to feel like the "Emporer's New Clothes", where no one can state what "everyone can see". I broke NPA policy, and there's an entry in the block log that says so. Why must there be no record of what policies Ed violated or pleaded guilty to violating? FuelWagon 16:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

This dead horse is being beaten so severely that it is in danger of turning into a horse smoothie. android 79 17:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who is not foolish and unworthy [39] will clearly see that the horse is dead and should not be beaten. FuelWagon 17:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The reason we list FOfs on the desicion pages is as a justification for the measures we impose. In this case we didn't impose any measures. Ed offered to resign and we accepted the offer. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 17:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

So if Ed offered to plea "guilty as charged" and arbcom accepted that plea, then why can't that be explained in the "final ruling"? FuelWagon 19:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

As the person who started this "Request for clarification", I plead guilty to the charge of "not dropping this" and take full responsibility for the consequences. And while I want to distance myself from FuelWagon's inflammatory rhetoric, I think, respectfully, he has a point. Paul August ☎ 18:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Formally requesting repeal of my mentor arrangement after four months. Everyking 22:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Support ending the mentorship -- other issues aside, all indiciations are that Everyking's problematic editing on Ashlee Simpson related articles is a thing of the past. →Raul654 02:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

From asking around, and what I've heard generally, the arrangement is no longer necessary. I support not renewing the arrangement.

James F. (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Support ending mentorship. Fred_Bauder ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

As one of the appointed mentors, I support this application. -- Tony Sidaway ^Talk 14:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Support ending the mentorship. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Also support. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason why this should not be allowed to end at this point. Kelly Martin ( talk) 15:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

As a mentor, I don't see a reason to continue this arrangement. Rhobite 15:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

As another mentor - yes, definitely. silsor 16:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The ArbCom has [ [40]] previously ruled on date notation:

When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable.

There is a dispute as to whether this, for an article that is stable and which consistently uses BC/AD or consistently uses BCE/CE noation, means that the style should not be changed under any circumstances, or whether there could be a "substantial reason" permitting a change - together with, if the latter is the case, what such a substantial reason could be. (Community-wide discussions on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate and Wikipedia:Eras/Compromise proposal/Voting may be in point if the ArbCom did mean that there could be reasons for a change.)

A clear statement from ArbCom as to whether they really did mean for articles that are stable and consistent on date notation to never change their date notation, or alternatively a statement as to when, in the light of the existing community-wide discussions, they believe changes are appropriate, would be welcome.

Thanks, jguk 07:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to ask ArbCom for a clarification regarding the above clause. Considering that British vs. American spelling is a "substantial reason for the change", is it fair to assume that if in a certain article a number (a majority?) of editors, supported by a conclusive evidence, consider a particular date notation inappropriate, that would also constitute a "substantial reason"? For example, in Talk:Hebrew calendar, the consensus is to keep BCE/CE, despite Jguk's pressure. As ArnoldReinhold wrote: "...the abbreviation AD is more than a epochal convention; it can be taken as a profession of Christian faith. I think that is a substantial enough reason for avoiding the abbreviation in articles about Jewish topics. Given that an alternative notation is acceptable per WP:MoS and we are talking about only a small set of articles deeply related to Jewish religion and history (practically all of which already use Common Era anyway) to be dealt with on one-by-one basis, I share this sentiment. I'd like to emphasize that I do recognize the sensitivity of the issue and do not advocate wholesale changes or hurting anyone's feelings. Thanks. ← Humus sapiens ←ну? 10:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Our wording was perfectly clear. Changing BC/AD to CE/BCE, or CE/BCE to BC/AD, should essentially be never done unless there is a very good reason to do so (personally, I have yet to be convinced that such a reason could ever exist, but nomatter). The various numbers of proponents of each "side" that one manages to bring to any particular article to continue this pointless discussion are absolutely irrelevent. Wikipedia is not an exercise in democracy. I would also prefer if people would stop trying to change this from a stylistic point into one of religion; "it can be taken as a profession of Christian faith" my foot. About as much as "bloody timewasting fools" (to pick an example at random) can be considered so ('bloody' being a contraction of "By our Lady").

James F. (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• I don't believe its up to you, Jguk, or the Arbcom to unilaterally decide the content of an article, especially where there is a clear consensus of the article's editors to go in another direction, as long as it is in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and the Manual of Style.
• It seems a rather convenient way to make Jguk's hundreds of date style changes "stick".
• Why is there no changes for date styles, but it is acceptable to make spelling styles change to fit the subject? Again, it seems like a rather convenient way, in one instance to allow for articles to be converted to British English, while in the other case to force people to stick with BC/AD.
• Just because it's not a point of religion for you doesn't mean that its not a point of religion for others.
• This request has more to do with Jguk's incredibly disruptive behavior, rather than just a matter of style. I do find it rather "ridiculous" that some wold go to such lengths to find excuses for his behavior. Sortan 17:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Changing from AD-BC to Common Era notation is justified in situations which predate or are unrelated to Christian matters or Western civilization. Such considerations are a substantial reason. Jguk was warned to comply with Wikipedia policy and has continued to violate it. Fred Bauder 14:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Fred, what you propose was discussed and voted on and rejected in Wikipedia:Eras/Compromise proposal/Voting, so the community has already rejected the notion that that is a substantial reason (not to mention that the wording of the original decision implies that there is no substantial reason for a change anyway), jguk 18:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, you are missing out on this official Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:No_binding_decisions. The fact that a decision was made before does not at all mean that it cannot be revisited. Jdavidb (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

James and Fred, I haven't been involved in the BCE/CE debate before, and only recently became involved when I saw the very high number of stable articles Jguk was changing from BCE to BC (hundreds, I believe, since the arbcom case closed). The arbcom makes written decisions, and these are the decisions that editors have to abide by, regardless of what anyone thinks of them, until they're updated. The arbcom decision in this case reads:

When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable (my emphasis).

This clearly implies that there are situations that the arbcom regards as constituting "some substantial reason for change." The only question is: what are those situations? The decision gives an example: when an article is about a British-English subject, the style may be changed from American-English to British. This is something that Jguk fought very hard to establish at the MoS. He's a strong supporter of the style-according-to-subject principle. However, in this case, because it doesn't suit him, he rejects it as inappropriate, and now wants to stick to the first-contributor rule, regardless of subject matter, for BCE/CE, as though this style issue, of all the hundreds of style issues we deal with every day, is a special case.

The point is that Jguk has not adhered to the arbcom ruling that specifically asked him to stop edit warring around this issue, and the reverting is causing a lot of bad feeling, regardless of who's in the right. He's also using misleading edit summaries, such as "this change is mandated by the MoS," which he knows is not correct — first, the MoS isn't policy and mandates nothing, and secondly, it says either style is acceptable.

It would therefore be appreciated if the committee could clarify its ruling, and would ask Jguk not to change articles that are stable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Slim - I believe I have made it clear with my edits that, although I would have preferred a different decision, I am quite happy to adhere to the decision - which I understand to be "no change, full stop". It's far from ideal, but probably the best compromise we're going to get, so I'm not surprised ArbCom went for it. As you are aware, when others questioned whether this was ArbCom's intention, I sought and received confirmation from one of the Arbitrators who heard the original case (Mark Pellegrini) that that was the intention. Indeed, I have strongly encouraged others to adhere to that decision. This means that I have refrained from changing articles that are consistent and stable on BCE notation to BC notation, and I have reverted those who have changes articles that are consistent and stable on BC notation to BCE notation. I fully accept the earlier ruling, and continue to encourage all other users to accept it too - indeed, this is why this has blown up again, because other users (and I'm afraid this includes you) are unwilling to accept the earlier ruling. If on some articles I have erred, and it has been pointed out, and I accept, that I erred on the Jerusalem article - I apologise. Like anyone, I make mistakes from time to time, and when I do, I can only express my regret and avoid that article in future - as I have done in that case. I have been subject to many personal attacks, and have been stalked by an abusive sockpuppet, which makes me naturally defensive here - but that is an explanation, not an excuse. However, I do believe that the earlier ArbCom ruling should apply to everyone - and that ruling is "no changes" (and given the clear lack of community consensus for any other rule that has ever been proposed, I'm not surprised that that, as confirmed by James above, was the rule). As noted above, I continue to urge all other editors to abide by that ruling, jguk 19:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

But the decision doesn't say "no change, full stop." That's the problem. If it did, there would be no dispute. It says there are circumstances in which the change may be made, namely when there is "some substantial reason." So I repeat: the question now is what is to count as a substantial reason. And Jguk, you have been changing articles that were stable for a long time on BCE by going back into their histories and looking to see what the very first contributor did, and changing it to BC even if it was a couple of years ago. That surely violates the "no change, full stop" policy that you say applies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to ask what portion of the arbitrators' ruling could so be construed as to indicate that consensus on the talk page of an article cannot change it. I believe the problem here is Jguk thinks a policy has been instituted which overrides the chance of editors of an article ever collectively deciding that they will change it. If ninety editors to an article all posted "change it from AD to CE" on the talk page, I believe Jguk would still be insistently reverting them and claiming he has policy on his side. I also believe that if the opposite situation occurred we would not see Jguk standing up and saying, "Well, according to policy it can never change, and so I will revert it back to CE, since that was where this article started."

I think it should be clear to all that nobody ever intended to make a rule that all existing choices of AD/CE were set in stone. The way this should be handled, in absence of a site-wide policy, is proposal, discussion, and consensus on each article's talk page as to what is best for that article. Jdavidb (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

To sum up and clarify, I think it's evident that consensus of editors satisfies "some substantial reason for the change" as worded in the arbitrators' ruling. Arbitrators rule on but do not make policy. If every editor on Wikipedia but Jguk wants to change an article to CE, then that is sufficient reason. Jdavidb (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The suggestion that this should be decided on an article by article basis was rejected on Wikipedia:Eras/Compromise proposal/Voting, and I think with good reason - no-one really wants this dispute to widen to encompass every article with some form of date notation. I also have no doubt that a community-wide consensus on something would change the current approach - but like James F., I really can't see it happening on this issue any time soon - absolutely every proposal on this issue (including those that are suggested again here) has failed to gain even a majority, let alone consensus, jguk 21:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're linking to that compromise proposal, since what I described is the means by which all articles are edited. We don't need a compromise proposal to follow standard Wikipedia policy. Nothing in any Wikipedia policy nor in any arbitration ruling changes the fact that changes, particularly controversial changes, are made on articles via consensus on their talk pages.

It also doesn't change the fact that you were enjoined against engaging in revert warring on this subject yet you have persisted in doing it, claiming you are not violating any policies since you haven't violated 3RR. 3RR is just the definition of a hard limit where a user can be banned, not a definition of revert war. Jdavidb (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a complete fallacy. A) There is no such vote on that page, and B) The default state for all issues related to an article is that they be decided by consensus on the talk page. You are claiming that if a vote is held on issue A, and it fails to pass, then NOT A is the consensus. This is a logical fallacy called denying the antecedent, and this is the second time that you have attempted to use this faulty logic, the first being when User:Slrubenstein's proposal to switch completely to BCE/CE notation failed, which you interpreted as "there shall be no changes to BCE/CE whatsoever". Sortan 21:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

None of the votes showed a consensus for anything. Therefore, Jguk, please stop mentioning votes. What we have is the arbcom decision, and the normal Wikipedia editing process. We have nothing else to fall back on here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The article that has brought this to a head is Hebrew calendar. This is primarily a matter of Jewish interest, though not of course exclusively so (I am a Methodist but have made several edits of it). I am bewildered by the argument that Jewish attitudes to the meaning of BC/AD are not relevant. To me, and surely to many other people, these attitudes are an extremely good and valid reason for a change to BCE/CE. Equally, I would hope that there would be no controvers over changing from BCE/CE to BC/AD on an article specifically about a matter of Christian interest.
RachelBrown 21:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

If I may make an observation; I was involved in the Hebrew calendar, and looking at its history, it first had AD dating only. Then User:Joe Kress performed a substantial rewrite, and his input had CE dating. Later, User:Kaisershatner did quite a bit of copyediting, unwittingly re-entering some AD dates. Some anonymous user noticed this (assuming good faith) and changed some other dates, but leaving some inconsistency [41]. User:RachelBrown and myself then cleaned up after this, leaving the AD dates for the sake of consistency. All editors on this article preferred going back to CE dating, and that's what happened.

The problem is that an article may not have a clear preference for either style at some point (this is unavoidable), and saying "no change to dating style" and "be consistent within an article" are conflicting and ambiguous in such situations. I thought it in the spirit of WP that in cases like these the editors reach consensus and do what must be done, and WP policy is only to prevent individuals from single handedly going into edit wars over it. squell 19:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Is Jarlaxle Artemis blocked indefinitely by an admin, or banned by the ArbCom (the ArbCom doesn't usually ban indefinitely)? I ask because he is strongly suspected of still creating articles: if he is banned, they are speedies, if he is merely blocked, they are not. The text of the final decision signed by Raul654 uses the word banned, but the case was closed. - Splash ^talk 01:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, Jarlaxle Artemis has been banned by the community. Such bans are rare but not unknown.

James F. (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur with James - they are speedies. →Raul654 20:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Banned by the community? Huh? Was there a vote? How was this done? Everyking 22:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

People who are banned by the community have historically not been voted on - note Willy on Wheels and Mr. Treason. Snowspinner 22:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

But Jarlaxle wasn't a vandal...anyway, how can somebody be banned by the community if the community has no way to express its wish? Surely there was some way that the community gave its opinion? Everyking 22:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You'll want to go unblock Mr. Treason then, who was not a vandal, but a personal attack making asshole. The usual method of this getting done is a lack of hue and cry when someone tries to ban the user. Snowspinner 22:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, in my book that's not banned by the community, or even close. Banned by the community would mean community discussion/consensus/vote. It seems misleading to call it that, like a way to claim wider approval of actions when we don't know if that approval actually exists. Everyking 23:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

"in my book that's not banned by the community" - I think you just answered your own question. →Raul654 23:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

What? Everyking 23:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Errr... he's being kind of dismissive or something :). Anyway I think what they mean is that when admins know about a person and one of them blocks them indefinately for something really bad (vandalism etc.) and no one unblocks the person, then its sort of considered "banned by the community" I guess. I could be wrong though - I imagine its something like that. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the problems with that are A) how many people would even know about the block? B) admins with any kind of sense don't go unblocking when certain other admins made the blocks. That can be very dangerous to your future at Wikipedia—hell, with Snowspinner I have virtually never countered any of his blocks (I can think of one time, and after he reblocked I didn't unblock again), only questioned the need for them or the manner in which they were done, and look at all the trouble I'm in. C) how do non-admins, the large majority of the community, feel about it? So to call it "banned by the community" I maintain you have to actually present the issue to the community for its approval or rejection. Everyking 00:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, as for (A) by the time some admin musters up the guts to block someone indefinately its probably been mentioned several times on WP:AN/I and other venues. As for (B) AFAIK admins arn't supposed to reblock generally (thus getting into a rather unfortunate "block war") - and well, *sigh* I don't know the exact specifics of the SS vs. EK debate with the blocks, but I know that for people who arn't used to constant criticism it can seem rather annoying and seem frivolous (I.E. maybe he just got sick of it and cracked, but I don't really have enough info to judge here...). And (C), I'm assuming that by "the community" they mean that admins represent the community in situations like these. These are all assumptions and I could very well be wrong though. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi everyking! I think they are talking about Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis_2, namely User:Linuxbeak/Admin_stuff/JarlaxleArtemis Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

If someone makes so much trouble that they are blocked indefinitely by an administrator and no other administrator sees fit to unblock them (including all the Arbitration Committee who generally are administrators) the arbitration committee may chose to not unblock them merely to render a decision regarding their behavior. Obviously if they return as a sockpuppet the case may be either reopened or the sockpuppets also blocked depending on how much general uproar ensues. Fred Bauder 22:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Allow me, the administrator who more or less saw to it that Jarlaxle was booted from Wikipedia for good, clarify once and for all...

JarlaxleArtemis is BANNED from Wikipedia. He is listed at Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users, and after he swore his head off at a steward, he was banned from all MediaWiki projects. Jarlaxle is not by any means welcome on Wikipedia, Wikimedia, Wikiquote, Commons, Wikitionary, etc. etc. etc. To this day he is STILL harrassing users by impersonation and defamation. Need any more be said? JarlaxleArtemis is permenantly banned from Wikipedia and all Wikimedia projects. </rant> Linuxbeak | Talk 20:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

That's as I recall it too. As JaraxleArtemis is just an annoying idiot kid (if a persistent one), it is possible he may grow up to become embarrassed at his earlier actions. So it is possible he may be fit to participate in Wikimedia again as he grows up a bit. Not soon, but maybe later - David Gerard 12:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

On 5 October, after the expiration of his one-month ban, Gabrielsimon ( arb case) returned as Gimmiet ( talk · contribs · block log). Gimmiet was barely an improvement on the old Gabrielsimon, violating his 1RR three times in as many days (on Otherkin and Clinical lycanthropy).

On the 9th, 69.195.126.149 ( talk · contribs · block log) reverted Otherkin twice. This IP was verified to be GS from email headers sent to SlimVirgin and myself. As per the "repeated violations" clause of the case, GS was blocked for a week. The same day, Sg'te'gmuj ( talk · contribs · block log) reverted Otherkin once, and left an edit on Talk:Otherkin in classic GS style. There was no sock check, but the circumstancial evidence was so strong that the new account was blocked indefinitely, and GS was banned for another month (plus six days remaining on his 3RR block), per the judgment of SlimVirgin, myself, android79, and Bryan Derksen.

After this, he attempted to remove the block from his talk page (leading to its protection), and sent an email to SlimVirgin (under the Sg'te'gmuj name) claiming not to be GS (while using the same IP that had reverted). GS sent SlimVirgin an email as well, suggesting that the IP was DreamGuy. Again - same IP in the headers.

On 20 October, the same IP made one reversion on Otherkin, which unfortunately was not noticed. On 22 October, the IP made 11 reversions on Otherkin and 2 on Clinical lycanthropy. The ban was extended to 2 months from that date (expiring 22 December).

Gimmiet sent me the following email that day:

I have not post4d at all since i was blocked.  Today, i was reading along about dot hack and
sudeenly i get mail  on wiki, which is suprising, becaseu i have a protected tlak page.
aparently slimvirgin hates me, because she thinks someone new is me.  could SOMEONE make that
bitch leave me alone?  Im already reblocked once becasue of her, i dont need more horseshit....

pardon my language, but im really getting sick of this.

I forwarded this to SlimVirgin, and she said:

It's definitely him, yet he's sent me several e-mails denying it; one
e-mail saying it's DreamGuy and that we should ask the developers to
confirm it; and then an e-mail yesterday saying the only reason he
realized he'd been blocked was that he got an e-mail about it through
Wikipedia. But I didn't e-mail him, yet he knew immediately, because
he e-mailed me about it within minutes of the block being applied.

This repeated pattern of behavior indicates that Gabriel/Gimmiet has poor self-control, is immature and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future, and is an overall detriment to Wikipedia. SlimVirgin and I have agreed that we would like to petition the ArbCom for tighter restrictions on Gabriel. The main problem is clearly his inability to not revert other users' contributions that he disagrees with. We therefore think that, when he returns in two months, he should not be allowed to revert other users at all, or delete content. We also suggest that longer bans (up to a week) be enabled for even non-repeated violations of his restrictions.

Sorry for the long-winded exposition, and this is just a suggestion. However, I strongly believe that to reduce disruption and unpleasantness, tighter restrictions on this editor's actions are justified. ~~ N ( t/ c) 17:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Response

If you will look at the votes for acceptance of Gabrielsimon you will see there was some reluctance to even accept the case as he was viewed a newbie, perhaps a younger user, who should be cut some slack. This orientation is reflected in the decision which presumes he is capable of improvement. As a practical matter since he seemingly cannot resist sockpuppeting, provided his ban is periodically extended as provided for in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gabrielsimon#Enforcement, he will be indefinitely banned. Fred Bauder 13:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Fred. His ban has been extended once, I'd like to see it extended a number of times before being willing to ban indefinately, but if it comes to it then that's what will happen. I don't believe tightening the restrictions will cure the problem. if he's willing to break a 1RR why would he be unwilling to break a 0RR? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Gavin the Chosen was blocked for a month as part of a recent arbitration decision, but I'm concerned that this hasn't stopped him from continuing his harassment against me. One of the findings in that case was that he followed me around, posting insulting comments, and doing things to try to interfere with my normal editing here (such as jumping onto articles he had never touched before specifically to undo whatever I had done or to egg fights on).

Even though he is blocked I am still getting harassing emails from him through the WIikipedia email link, which I hesitate to disable as it is a way for people to contact me directly about issues related to the encyclopedia. Furthermore I have run across a number of editors recently who after a single disagreement have escalated into very mean-spirited attacks, claiming that they had been privately emailed and "warned" about my behavior by an editor who wished to give them all the details of my supposed campaigns to destroy articles, etc. which is all the same nonsense Gabriel/Gavin would try to tell people. These editors then pick up the campaign of insults on various talk pages.

The month block was intended to be a way for Gabriel to take a break and think about his actions here, but instead his harassment still continues. He apparently still watches all the articles he was involved in emotional disputes with earlier, as he mentions what has happened recently on them in his emails.

I would request that his account be disabled outright so he cannopt access emails (and since the RfA finding said he should come back under a different name after his block expired, there's no reason for his current one to be active) or that his month long block be reset so that his activities here are completely stopped for the agreed upon month. DreamGuy 21:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It only says he may choose another username, but this is very disturbing and I agree that the block should be reset in addition to disabling his account or something of that sort. I haven't received any emails yet; want to send me one now, Gavin? ~~ N ( t/ c) 14:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you filter his emails with your email software and complain to his mail provider about harrassment? User:Zoe| ^(talk) 05:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

He has sent me the following three messages. ~~ N ( t/ c) 22:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

the requested response

Unfortunatly, it would seem to me that dreamGuy's accusation revenge for the arbitration process that he is undergoing. I have kept my word , as for the end of the baqrgain that is my arbitration. I have sent him nothing, larghely becaseu i wish him to have no contact with me ( frankly hes aggravating) It is my beleif that this unfounded accusaton prooves the accusation i have placed against him in the matter of his methods and bad faitrh in his operating style here on wikipedia. I ame accross this message to s end ytou a message becase u my watchlist contains the RFAr page, (along with many others)

and as for the detaqils about mean spirited attacks, it se ems that the attacks were perpatrated by dfreamGuy, just look at the edit history of his talk page...

Also it would stand to reason if I have been gone for a month and others, some of whoim ive had zero contact with are saying what i was saying about how dreamguy opwerates on wikipedia, then it cant be a coincidance. perhaps this is farther proof of his defamitory adgenda on some articles such as Otherklin and Therianthropy, and his general, totally incurable lack of civillity towards other users in general.

This is the reason why i grew tired of him, and his wayhs of acusations and atte mpting to play the system and fiegn victim status.

in the light that i have done nothing that he accuses me of, i would ask you to disregard his lies, and possibly add attampting to file a false RFAr against me as a revenbge tactic to the eviance page of his RFAr IN that mnatter, my hands are tied, but i w ould appreciate it greatly if you and the other arbitreators would be so kind as to disregard his accusations against me, because they are fabrications.

(i find it intersting how hes trying to have my account destoryed... interesting way of going about it, making false accusations and suich, isnt it?) sorry if i got a little long woinded or a little repetative, but this is being written as the first trhing after i got here from work.

thanks, and feel free to send this message to other arbitrators, or to contact me for conversation at gagb@gabrielsimon.com on MSN or filmbuff42 on YIM.

thanks for listening.

For some little reason, I'm inclined to believe DreamGuy here. Do the developers have any way of logging/checking use of Special:Emailuser? I have asked him what a false RfAr is - does he mean this request for clarification? ~~ N ( t/ c) 22:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply: "sorry, i thought it was an RFAr. in any case, the reast of it apllies, i think,. his accusations are totoaly false. i beleive this attempt at deception on his part to be typical of his rather childish behaviour and overall lack of maturity and civillity on this site."

addendum

hew also said that the find9ing of the case was that i followed him around. this is blatently false. its the complete op[posite in fact. but im not trying to be vindictive, only accurate.

thanks for listening again

Um, no, Gabe. I just checked the RfAr, and I didn't see the arbitrators say anything about anyone following anyone around. ~~ N ( t/ c) 22:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

afterthoughts

i do not see the harm in looking at pages and ar ticles while im gone... i already he some changes i plan to make when im back...

i cant see the harm...

No, there's no harm, just don't email people harassing things! ~~ N ( t/ c) 22:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

...

(after I had posted the above)

i still maintain the truith of the matter. i have not and shall not email iuser dreamguym simply because hes not worth my time. his antics have gone on a long, long time, and ecasue he hides behind police, and then goes and beats other people with them, as would a cave dweller bludgeon prey.

it does puzzell me w hy you posted my response though.

Because it's your word against DreamGuy's, and while you both have had civility problems in the past I consider him to be far more trustworthy. DreamGuy, it might help if you posted some evidence, like links to the attacks from users you think Gabriel had been emailing. ~~ N ( t/ c) 22:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, was mostly gone for the weekend. I no longer have he emails in question, as I deleted them in disgust (and now that I think of it, I thought I had blocked his email address because of other harassing emails previously, so I don't know if something about the forward process doesn't work with my filter or if it came from another similar account/email that happened to use Gabriel's language style and so forth, which is pretty distinct). Talk:Urban legend is full of the tirades of an editor claiming that an editor emailed him to "warn" him about me. I believe User:Khaosinfire was the other main one talking about "email warnings" on his/my talk page. There was someone else too, but there are a variety of editors who like to play the same style game of troll accusations so that they hope to prevail ( User:Lightbringer maybe? I know he's gone off the deep end lately) but keeping track of which ones claim they got email warnings and which ones are just bad editors in general without that claim can be rough.

I think I'll just not worry about it anymore at this point, as if he does it again (or there are similar accusations from others) there should be plenty enough evidence to hang him, and if he doesn't do it again he's learned that he'll be caught doing this too. like he was caught with all his other nonsense (sockpuppets, anon IP to try to get around 3RR, etc.). And of course his responses above show absolutely no improvement, so I suspect that when he comes back he'll just continue on with his nonsense and get blocked for multiple months, and knowing his history will cntinue to do so until it becomes effectively permanent. DreamGuy 23:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy you need not even bring up my name about this for one I do not send people email on Wikipedia. I may have had multiple disputes with you, but like I said before I am not going to debate you anymore because it's not even worth my time, I am rarely even here anymore because I found Wikinfo. Furthermore if your going to even try to accuse me of being involved, you better have some evidence..........So put your evidence were your mouth is........that is all Khaosinfire 01:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

He didn't say you emailed anybody, he said Gabrielsimon emailed you. In fact... did he? ~~ N ( t/ c) 14:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

=+==Again===+

Now Gabriel has started up the harassing emails yet again from the same email address as before (even though he has a new user name ( User:Gimmiet), and magically there is also other problem editors yet again trying to justify their policy-violating edits because they were "warned" that I was a problem editor (see Anti-Mason editor User:Lightbringer's comments here.

Gabriel's actions repeatedly egg other editors on into doing bad behavior, and his claims above that he wouldn't email me to harass me or email other people to cause more mischief are false, specifically because I have more mail sitting right here. I was willig to drop it above if he stopped, but he's escalating his mischief. This editor has never contributed anything of any value to thisproject that I can see, and quite to the opposite has caused an exceedingl large number of problems. DreamGuy 23:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

After seeing this notice he has yet again emailed to toss out insults (and yet claims it's not harassment, because of course nothing he ever does he considers harassment) and admits to contacting multiple editors to "warn" them about me, leading to more disputes and here. He is on yet another 24-hour block, his second since his one month block ended just a couple of days ago. DreamGuy 04:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

And it continues with a third... I'm saving them this time in case somebody wants them as proof. DreamGuy 02:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if it's even possible to get an account disabled like this. Even if it were whats to stop him from creating a new account and email from that. My advice is to ignore his emails, or better yet, get your filters working. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

This user has emailed me and requested that his block be lifted, claiming that there are no legal proceedings between himself and either Meelar or Firebug. The AC decision appears to conclude that there is at least the appearance of a legal threat. Therefore, I have asked Mlorrey to affirm on his talk page that no legal action is underway, and to clarify the meaning of the purported "injunction" on the RFC page, as preconditions for removing the block. I invite AC members and the Wikipedia community in general to review this action and comment or amend as they see fit. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I have repeatedly stated that I never initiated any legal proceedings in any court against Meelar or Firebug, despite their clear abuse of accepted standards of arbitration process. I initiated my injunction just as they were making things up and railroading me through a process without seeking to negotiate or discuss anything, all the while making me look like the bad guy. This episode is a clear example of how NPOV ISN'T, when people act in bad faith and learn to write with NPOV language while pursuing a biased agenda in attempting to suppress facts they dislike. I do not plan on initiating proceedings against anybody provided my own rights begin to be respected, which they have not. The wiki arbitration process violates so many commonly accepted principles of arbitration and jurisprudence I don't know even where to start, but I can start with this ban you put on me: your groups action in banning me for exercising my human rights to legal process is itself a violation of my rights under international legal conventions. Your flawed process allows a small cadre of insiders to suppress individuals they disagree with or whose statements they do not like, and THAT is most definitely, not NPOV, and violates the spirit of wikipedia.Mlorrey 21:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The above does not make me confident that this user can be civil and will not continue legal threats if unblocked so I must say that I am against the unblocking of this user due to the fact that his attitude does not seem to have changed at all. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

From above: I do not plan on initiating proceedings against anybody provided my own rights begin to be respected, which they have not. My reading of this is that it is a renewed threat of legal action, albeit one with a rather hollow ring to it. The difficulty with legal threats on Wikipedia is that they poison the working environment even when they are baseless, and cartooney, and even when there is a transparent lack of willingness and/or ability to follow through with actual litigation. In light of this, I conclude that Mlorrey is continuing the behavior for which he was banned, and I therefore decline to lift the block at this time. As always, I welcome comments from others. In particular, I think I'll leave a note for Meelar and Firebug to see if they believe that any legal action is now resolved. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

As the legal dispute has been resolved, by the terms of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mlorrey#Editing_ban the ban ought to be lifted. In retrospect perhaps it was just a misunderstanding caused by an unhappy choice of language. In response to Jtkiefer, problems may remain, but the hope is that the experience has been productive in terms of encouraging Mlorrey to do better. Fred Bauder 14:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, perhaps this legal dispute: "The wiki arbitration process violates so many commonly accepted principles of arbitration and jurisprudence I don't know even where to start, but I can start with this ban you put on me: your groups action in banning me for exercising my human rights to legal process is itself a violation of my rights under international legal conventions." ought to be resolved first before the ban is lifted. Fred Bauder 18:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Fred; we'd want that to be looked at that first.

James F. (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I have gotten several emails from this user requesting an unblocking and my replies have been the same as what pretty much everyone else is saying which is that he has shown that he will continue to threaten and make personal attacks against other users if unblocked and even his recent comments on his talk page. At this point I would be extremely uncomfortable with him being unblocked. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 20:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Taking on board the comments from the community. I propose we remove his RFA and deal with the matter ourselves. Do any of my fellow arbitrators agree? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• At a guess, and not meant sarcastically or disrespectfully, I would venture that ArbCom will move too slowly, as a whole, to remove the RfA. It will close before there is concensus to remove it. That's why I suggested a member of ArbCom take the initiative to stay the decision and discuss an alternate decision. -- Durin 18:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not looking for the whole of the AC to agree, I will move on this myself, but I would prefer not to do it completely unilaterally. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 19:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I think by now the outcome is fairly clear. →Raul654 19:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
      • OK I'll do it now. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
        • A heartfelt THANK YOU. -- Durin 22:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

(Older material removed)

Clarification on Davenbelle and CoolCat?

Davenbelle ( talk · contribs), Stereotek ( talk · contribs), and Fadix ( talk · contribs) are counseled to let other editors and administrators take the lead in monitoring Cool Cat ( talk · contribs). If subsequent proceedings which involve Cool Cat show that he has been hounded by them, substantial penalties may be imposed.

To me it would seem like opposing an RFA for Cool Cat within ten minutes of its creation and notice on Cool Cat's page, is ... well, somewhat hounding behavior. I think it would be obvious to most that Cool Cat would turn down the RFA, and that if he didn't he wouldn't come near passing at this time. The impression Davenbelle's action gave me is that he was just looking for a chance to give Cool Cat another kick. Regardless of his intentions I think he should avoid giving such an impression. Is this acceptable behavior in light of the Arbcom decision? -- Gmaxwell 17:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

May I state though that Fadix never opposed, but Davenbelle and Karl Meier (a.k.a. Stereotek) did, and pretty damn fast too. R e dwolf24 ( talk) 22:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I have already commented on this. ( also) —  Davenbelle 11:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Davenbelle and Karl Meier need to realise it's a really, really big wide Wikipedia out there and spend time on the bits that don't have Cool Cat on them. I realise it's difficult to let go of a long-standing obsession, but doing so is necessary to not ending up at RFAr over the matter again. It's not clear what part of "let off with a caution" is ambiguous to them - David Gerard 10:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy for details.

It is unacceptable that this request has been closed. I am told that no action has been taken; indeed, with the exception of Fred Bauder, the Arbitration Committee appears to have taken no action at all with regard to the request. It is inconsiderate to move to close without participating to any degree; it is unreasonable that the votes of Committee members who made no effort should have weight against the member who did. I ask that the Arbitration Committee do the work expected of them. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ ᑐ 23:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You had ample time to submit evidence and make a case for sanctions; you did not. ArbCom cannot leave cases open forever waiting for parties to get around to submitting evidence. If you file a request for arbitration, it is your obligation to assist the ArbCom in pursuing a solution; you can't just dump the case in our lap and expect us to do all the work. Kelly Martin ( talk) 12:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

That's an incredibly callous position when you know quite well one of the involved parties ( Gavin the Chosen) has been blocked from editing and cannot edit the request pages. There had also been a wealth of evidence presented before the case was accepted. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ ᑐ 12:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocked users may submit evidence and/or argument by email to any Arbitrator; this is clearly stated in Arbitration policy. Kelly Martin ( talk) 13:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Gabrielsimon is the reason Gabrielsimon is blocked. He had every opportunity to submit additional evidence, but chose to use sockpuppets and get into edit wars instead. a ndroid 79 13:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The characterization that Gabriel was not allowed to submit evidence is false, as he did, and quite extensively. He even wrote up his own long page of accusations and linked to it. The admins declared that his comments and those of the other people complaining were "utterly unpersuasive". Apparently Eequor here is still majorly in denial about what NPOV is all about, as the edits of mine she was complaining about were discussed there as being the ones that made things more in line with the NPOV policy instead of less. Frankly, the situation never should have gone to arbitration in the first place, as the claims were spurious from the very beginning. The complainants had their chance, and the admins overwhelmingly agreed that they had no case. Instead of complaining, those who presented evidence should learn from this experience and stop harassing other editors out of misplaced personal vendettas. DreamGuy 17:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

To which I'll add - not only did the participants have ample time to present evidence, but the motion to close was made two weeks ago, with nary a whisper from any participant in the case. →Raul654 19:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't see everything that happens. I had also expected that the request would not be closed until Gavin the Chosen was allowed to edit again. A brief notice of the motion to close would have been the polite thing to do. The Arbitration Committee has failed to communicate. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ ᑐ 14:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

"I can't see everything that happens. " - that's what a watchlist is for. I suggest in the future you put it to use.

"I had also expected that the request would not be closed until Gavin the Chosen was allowed to edit again." - you made an assumption which turned out to be wrong.

"A brief notice of the motion to close would have been the polite thing to do." - we (voluntarily) conduct all our proceedings in plain view on the workshop and proposed decision pages. We are overworked enough as it is without adding needless jobs, like reminding you to pay attention to cases you start.

"The Arbitration Committee has failed to communicate." - no, you failed to pay even a modicum of attention to the decision as it unfolded. If you had spent half as much time supplying evidence as you have here complaining the case was closed for lack of evidence, it would never have been closed in the first place. →Raul654 20:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the assumption turned out to be wrong, but it's strange you would make that statement. It was a very reasonable assumption, and one would be persuaded to believe it correct in light of the committee's total inaction over the weeks that followed the opening of the case. Any of the five arbitrators who voted to close could easily have explained that more information was needed.

This is volunteer work, but you knew you were volunteering for particularly demanding work with great responsibilities and obligations, such as actually conducting proceedings on the /Workshop page, which you did not do. If the minimum is too much work for you to carry out, you should not get involved, and should avoid interfering. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ ᑐ 00:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the issue was a little too subtle Fred Bauder 18:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I noticed in your edits to the Workshop page that you seemed to be inventing up news issues yourself to try to rule on that were not the ones under discussion. I don't think that it's that the issue was "subtle" but that you were intending to try to enforce your own viewpoint on the articles in question. That's what the editors on those articles work on consensus for. The complaints that the accusers in this proceeding had were overwhelmingly rejected by consensus of editors on the articles the disputes started on as well as the admins who looked at their accusations. Further, the complainers were the ones actively trying to violate NPOV and other policies. So, rather than complaining about subtleties, perhaps you should have been concentrating on the actual policies. DreamGuy 19:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I also noticed that you more than once linked to talk page edits where I explained an example of what pushing POV would have been, and you presented them as if I were trying to force that view onto the article itself. My edits to the pages in question consistently were for NPOV purposes, and the fact that I could come up with hypothetical examples of what I could have been doing if the accusations against me were true in no way should have been presented as what I was actually trying' to do on the articles themselves. I will assume good faith and chalk that up to not following he conversation instead of purposefully misrepresenting my words, in which case you shouldn't be talking about other people allegedly missing subtleties when you missed the boat completely. DreamGuy 19:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hang on, DG. I don't know what happened in this case, but if no action has been taken against you, that's the end of it, and you should be pleased. You've been very, very rude to a fairly large number of people: sometimes under extreme provocation, having to contend with Gabrielsimon and Enviroknot, but sometimes for no reason at all. In your shoes, I'd thank the arbitrators and be on my way, and try not to be so aggressive in future. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I am pleased no action was taken, but then the case shouldn't have even been opened as it was, as the arbitrators overwhelmingly agreed. I would, however, take your claims of rudeness more seriously if you hadn't been inappropriately rude and aggressive towards me for so long. I appreciate that we have not had any conflicts in months, and that you stepped up to defend me when another admin blocked me inappropriately by mistakenly reading evidence on a 3RR complaint. On the other hand, I have to wonder why you wouldn't chastise Eeguor and Fred for insinuating above that five different arbitrators weren't doing their jobs just because they ruled against what they wanted if your aim is to point out when someone is being inappropriately aggressive? DreamGuy 20:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You misconstrue my position. Actually, the arbitrators in question didn't rule at all, if you look at the request pages. The only one who attempted to draft a resolution and rule on its merit was Fred Bauder. That's the problem. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ ᑐ 14:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

No, they DID rule. They ruled against you. Apparently you are unwilling to accept that. You need to wake up and realize that your complaints were, as they clearly stated, "utterly unpersuasive". They rejected your claims as nonsense. You should learn from your mistakes and readjust your actions accordingly. DreamGuy 19:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm amazed this has been removed already. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, since it was Raul654, who moved to close in the first place, but this indicates the Arbitration Committee is not interested in fairness. Below is an email that I'm relaying from Gavin the Chosen, since he has not been given an opportunity to comment. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ ᑐ 14:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

i am sorry but i cannot make comments as i cannot do anything just now. if i could i would say that i think [DreamGuy's] responses on the arbcom page are a fairly good example of his hyper agression.

i'd also point out that his behaviour continues, even without me (who was supposed to be the abuse)

Further:

in a message, one of the involved arbitrators said they discussed dreamguy's RfAr, but i can see NO evidence of that anywhere on the server. i've looked.... are they just playing favourites with their pet?

Communication in secret really undermines the validity and usefulness of arbitration. There is no record that any discussion took place, which is vital to a fair and complete decision. The committee appears unscrupulous. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ ᑐ 20:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm amazed this has been removed already. - don't be. If you'll notice the top of this section, it says "Requests for clarification"; it does not say "Lodge complaints about the arbcom here". This is not a request for clarification, so it was removed. Also notice the top of this page - "This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment". →Raul654 20:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I had initially placed this in the Current requests section, as I was seeking a reopening of the case, but Kelly Martin moved it here. Shall I move it back, then?

Oh, and a minor note... I presume you have this page on your watchlist. Did you not see Kelly Martin's edit? ‣ᓛᖁ♀ ᑐ 00:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom is interested in fairness. They fairly looked at your ridiculous claims and dismissed them. And Gabriel of course is not an objective judge on what proper Wikipedia behavior is, considering that he has been banned for several months now and is still blocked for another month. The ruling clarified the point that you and Gabriel have nothing to stand on in your accusations. You lost. Accusing ArbCom of improper or biased conduct only goes to further prove my point that you two were just acting out of personal malice and that your POV-pushing was something that needed to be stopped, even if you were upset about it and tried to paint NPOV language as "bad faith". Please learn from this incident and stop making false accusations. DreamGuy 19:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy, the RfAr against you was closed without prejudice because the complaintants failed to pursue the case, not because we found your arguments compelling or the arguments of the other side "ridiculous". No ruling was entered; your conduct has not been vindicated. You are strongly advised not to assume that the matter has been resolved; should the complaintants or any other parties seek to file against you again, our lack of a ruling in this matter will in no way preclude us from investigating your conduct anew. Do not tempt fate. Kelly Martin ( talk) 19:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree fully with Kelly Martin. →Raul654 20:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thirded. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

They had offered lots of supposed evidence and accusations, and you called their arguments "utterly unpursuasive". How exactly anyone can now say that they "failed to pursue the case" (?!?!?) and that "ridiculous" is not a reasonable synonym for "utterly unpursuasive" I fail to understand, but by all means characterize it however you see fit. Investigate my conduct all you want, there's nothing there for anyone to complain about. It would have been nice if someone here actually unequivocally stood up for me against the harassment of these editors, especially since they are now harassing you in the same way with their spurious complaints, but then if you don't feel ready to do that yet, that's fine by me. I do have to wonder, however, just how far they need to go before you do decide to take a side. The main complainant being blocked for extremely long periods for just the sort of actions I was pointing out to everyone more than 6 months ago would seem to be a pretty good clue that his side shouldn't be trusted, but oh well... It's unfortunate then that you didn't rule and that you now make statements implying that I should have something to fear from you. I guess this place never changes. DreamGuy 23:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Am I correct to assume that, when an ArbCom member voices an opinion on an issue not currently under arbitration and not related to arbitration procedure, that ArbCom member is speaking for him- or herself, that his or her opinion does not necessarily match that of the rest of the ArbCom, and that his or her opinion should be given the same weight as that of any other editor in good standing?

I believe this to be obvious, since the alternative seems be to disallow ArbCom members from voicing their opinion on anything before consulting their peers, which is kind of silly. To be absolutely clear, I am not accusing anybody of anything. I just noticed that some people mistook the opinion of some arbitrator to be more official than the opinion of anybody else, when it was not intended as such. So I thought some clarification might be in order. In particular, I would like to see a short statement along these lines added somewhere on our Arbitration Policy pages. R adiant _>|< 13:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It would help if you were more explicit about what you are talking about. You are correct, in general, that statements by users who are arbitrators made outside the context of arbitration carry no more weight than that of any other user. However if the statement relates to arbitration or a particular dispute which was considered in arbitration the statement may or may not reflect discussion within the arbitration committee, a majority or minority view or a simply a individual view. You might keep in mind that this is a wiki and if I write an article, Wikipedia:Wikilawyering or Wikipedia:Wikikarma, others, including arbitrators may modify it, perhaps adding value and eventually authority to it. Issues have to rise to a certain level of visibility in order for the entire arbitration committee to consider them. In a particular instance if you have a concern about something it can be helpful to email one of the arbitrators and ask them to forward your mail to the entire committee. Fred Bauder 15:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think so; last time I mailed the arbcom, the mail was misrepresented to attack me. I was asking about the general principle; I don't have any examples that are presently relevant; if I do, I'll let you know. R adiant _>|< 16:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

You are asking for an absolute rule on a very broad basis, when in reality this is a very subtle phenomenon. I know there are occasions when I make a comment using the arbcom's authority (such as this comment a few days ago), and (as you can see in that comment) I do my best to make it clear when I am conveying the committee's position instead of just my own. If no such hints are given (such as the plural "we") then you can safely assume I am referring to my own opinion and not the committee's as a whole.

As far as giving opinions about matters "not currently under arbitration and not related to arbitration procedure" - generally this shouldn't happen, but I am not comfortable speaking in absolutes. What about matters being requested but that have not yet been accepted? I know there have been occasions where a member of the committee has expressed the committee's opinion on a matter not currently under arbitation (such as the arbcom RFC questions I posted a few months back)

As for whether or not it matches the other members' opinions - presuming to speak for others is a dangerous game to play, but there are a huge number of occasions where people want to hear from the committee, and we are not going to have seperate disucssions for each one of them (like Everyking's question yesterday and my answer to it). When I respond to these questions without prior discussion, I only do so when I am almost-certain the other members of the commitee will agree with what I said (or something close to it) →Raul654 19:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for your two answers. I wasn't looking for an absolute rule, more like a confirmation that in matters unrelated to arbitration, arbitrators generally speak for themselves and not for any higher authority. Not to limit the Arbs, but rather to reassure the occasional n00b that gets confused by this. R adiant _>|< 16:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

What is the policy regarding parties that are subject to an RFAr but do not answer or even acknowledge the existance of the RFAr? I am refering to User:Pigsonthewing. What happens if he just blatantly ignores the calls on his talk page to answer the RFAr filed? I mean, you can't just let the case grow old and moldy. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a clear display of what many editors have had to deal with regarding POTW. He respects nothing but his own viewpoint, everything else just doesn't exist to him. Karmafist 01:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

If he does not wish to add evidence in his own defense, that will certainly not be to his benefit. Dmcdevit· t 01:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

But what actually happens, does the RFAr just continue and reach a verdict without his defense? Ban e s 06:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I assume so. If arbitration is meant to be corrective measure against misbehaving editors, it can't be a voluntary action. This is where you go when mediation has failed. Of course IANAA (I Am Not An Arbitrator :) Dmcdevit· t 06:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I might suggest that if someone fails to respond to Arbitration then a temporary defender should be appointed for them. Isn't there some sort of 'advocates' group? Someone who could at least speak up and say, 'Hey there is another side to this'. For instance, I'm not a particular fan of POTW, but I know he is a very active editor... from what I can see, the majority of his edits don't result in any controversy and expand Wikipedia's library of information. That should be considered even if the same intransigence which he manifests when there ARE disputes leads him to shun this procedure. -- CBDunkerson 14:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

We look at the evidence and accept it if appropriate; notify him that it was accepted and go ahead and hear the case. Fred Bauder 19:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Since this is kind of a related matter, I'll mention it here. At present, if there's an Arbcom case involving a user who goes absent, it is put into abeyance. This doesn't seem right. Should that not be heard (quickly) and then resolved. It seems silly to say to a user, yes - please come back to WP, but if you do you may immediately be subject to a ban of a few months when that user already has, for whatever reason, disappeared for a few months, jguk 19:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

We are always running behind, that's why we usually suspend proceedings if someone is not editing. Sometimes we are glad to see them back, sometimes not. Generally if they are making substantial contributions in areas unrelated to the arbitration case we will try to find some limited remedy. Only if nothing else works do we resort to general bans. Fred Bauder 22:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

If someone has left, then no benefit will come of further proceedings and so having the proceedings is a waste of ArbCom's time. In POTW's case, I've spoken to Phroziac (the lead complaintant) and she says that the objectionable conduct has not persisted since the RfAr was filed, which leads me to question whether we need to do anything at all. I'm therefore taking a wait-and-see attitude. Kelly Martin ( talk) 01:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not involved, but for what it's worth, I don't believe Phroziac is the lead complainant. Phroziac's only edit to the RFAr was to sign the post, saying that he was aware of the RFAr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ral315 ( talk • contribs) 04:39, November 7, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider myself the leed complainant either, but it might have something to do with my signature being the first on the list. :) -- Phroziac^{( talk)} 05:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes people who claim to have left don't really leave. "172 2" was such a case. It is also a precedent that should be examined for acting despite the failure of a defense to be mounted.-- Silverback 15:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I think in analogies, so I have one for this situation. Right now, POTW is much like a speeder on the highway, going 90 miles per hour when there are no police around or when he feels like it, going down to the speed limit when police are around or when he feels like it, and then once he feels like it or the police presence is gone, he goes back up to 90 miles per hour.

However, unlike traffic cops, you don't need a radar gun to see evidence, you can see it in his behavior in the past from his contribs and the RfC. Whether he's speeding right now or not is irrelevant, he deserves a ticket. Karmafist 16:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you please let me know which arbitration this refers to? Samboy 07:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The 'Request for Clarification' and 'Speeding Ticket' sections above were connected to the 'Pigsonthewing' arbitration request, but got left behind here when it was accepted. -- CBDunkerson 08:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It comes down to a philosophical question—is it the ArbCom's role to 'ticket speeders'? That is, should the ArbCom be handing out punishments when people break Wikipedia's rules? I'd like to think that the ArbCom is here–along with every one of our other processes and policies–for the purpose of building an encyclopedia. The ArbCom should be prepared to step in where an editor's behaviour is interfering with that primary goal (and where other attempts at resolution have failed.)

In other words, if an editor has made a nuisance of himself but later ceases the offending behaviour, it may not be necessary for the ArbCom to interfere further. If there is a sign of further trouble, we still have a record of the previous bad behaviour, and the ArbCom can 'throw the book at them', as it were. Obviously the amount of misbehaviour we should be prepared to set aside depends quite heavily on the circumstances. Some offenses are akin to 'speeding', others are closer to aggravated assault. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 21:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Ten. Whether or not he's doing something now is irrelevant. He's been a problem user in the past, he has refused to reform, so therefore he's going to continue to be a problem user in the future. Something has to be done, and I fear that the ArbCom is the only place where it can happen with the current structure of Wikipedia. Karmafist 22:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The primary goal should be to build a encyclopedia witch has a certain quality. This quality in the case of wikipedia is obtained by letting persons with different opinions argue on a level playing field and let them reach a version which is acceptable to all. When you don't see the need to offer a level playing field, one side of the argument will just walk away. Making Wikipedia a encyclodedia of low quality. You don't offer a level playing field when you say that some persons don't have move inside bounds of their parole.-- MichaelSirks 12:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Based on the lack of enforcement of RfAr/Climate change dispute, there are no ArbCom actions. ( SEWilco 21:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC))

Aw diddums, won't the arbcomm conduct your vendettas for you? How sane of them. But in fact that case shows you who wrong you are: the arbcomm very effectively banned JG and Cortonin. Did you forget that? William M. Connolley 22:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC).

The amount of game playing/favoratism associated with ArbCom procedings is truly a disgrace. Klonimus 07:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Per this page, [42], and it's advice to bring issue's pertaining to enforcement of a previous arbitration ruling to the RfAr, this information has been posted here.

Recently, Rex has been causing a lot of trouble at John Kerry. He has consistently edit-warred and has forced the page into protection Twice [43] [44] while at the same time violating 3RR Twice [45] [46]. The issue is the same exact one that has been brought up in previous ArbComm hearing's: John Kerry's 1st Purple Heart. In fact Rex talks about that in his opening statement in his first ArbComm hearing. [47]. Numerous people have attempted to dialog with Rex regarding this, so much so, that the discussion now occupies 6 archive spaces and approximately 700 kb worth of talk not including the current talkpage. [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] A vote was recently attempted to try and close the discussion. [54] Even after that, Rex continued to push his POV, which resulted in the page being protected for the second time. [55]

My question is this, do the Remedies, Enforcements and Judgements from previous Arbitrations still apply to this case? [56] Or have they all expired as Rex claims they have? [57] Do the three previous arbitration cases and two previous RfCs [58] [59] which involved this same exact issue; John Kerry's 1st Purple Heart; constitute an attempt at other methods of dispute resolution? Does the community need to go through a 4th Arbitration Case against Rex over the same issue? Or is there a "Requesting Enforcement of Previous Arbitration Ruling" template that I am missing? -- Mr. Tibbs 20:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

May I back up Mr Tibbs's intervention here. Rex has reduced the John Kerry page to chaos with endless nitpicking rows (Does a wounded man have a 'wound'? Is a bandage necessarily made of cloth? Medical definitions ad nausuam, a list of 50 'issues' he wants discussed, which actually boil down to five repeated in different ways over and over again, etc.) Rex's antics have alienated people who tried to be fair to him and listened to his endless raising of the same issues over and over and over and over, or rather his agreeing something, moving on, then returning back to square one 48 hours later and starting the argument all over again. The article and talk pages are right now unusable and will remain so until until Rex's antics are dealt with and ended. FearÉIREANN \ ^(caint) 21:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll throw in my own voice here. Though Rex is technically more polite than he was before the previous RfArs, he is doing exactly the same thing: obsessively focusing on doing whatever he can to make sure that John Kerry is not elected President in 2004. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 22:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Except for those parts of the decision with explicit sunset provisions (remedies 3, 4, and enforcement 3, 4) the decision is still in full force. →Raul654 23:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, he's learned a few things from his self-imposed exile (which I think ArbCom was foolish to accept): he's learned how to be obnoxious without crossing the bounds established in the arbcom cases. He hasn't learned how not to obsess, though. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 23:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Not sure about that. He is not supposed to revert, so instead he takes changes people made and puts in stuff he's put in 20 times before. So it's not literally a revert, but it basically is a revert. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 04:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The key question is, whose job is it to enforce the rulings that he is continuing, with more cunning and subtlety this time, to break? All that seems to happen is that an edit war breaks out, the page is protected and some well meaning admin (who hasn't time to read the 'War and Peace'-size archives) suggests that the issues be discussed first rather than edit warring. Everyone tells them that we have listened and talked and discussed and voted repeatedly and that the problem is that Rex ignores it all and goes back to the start and begins the whole charade again, and again, and again ad infinitum. Nobody seems able to actually know the ruling and enforce it, so the page and talk page ends up stuck in a timewarp of Rex's let start again for the nth time edits, with rows, edit war, protection, unprotection, 'please all communicate', Rex's epistles, rows, edit war, protection . . . etc. People need help (or free Wikipedia Valium!) FearÉIREANN \ ^(caint) 05:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Other than the question Jtdirl brought up, there are still Many unanswered questions in this Request for Clarification. Such as Does the community need to go through a 4th Arbitration Case with Rex over the same issue, or is it possible to just have the remedies from previous ArbComm's enforced? Because they currently aren't being enforced. Rex's two recent 3RR violations were completely ignored. Raul's answer brings up new questions too. First we hear: "Except for those parts of the decision with explicit sunset provisions (remedies 3, 4, and enforcement 3, 4) the decision is still in full force." [60] But then later we hear: "It appears that enforcement #7 (the penalty related to reverting articles) is in relation to remedy 4.1 (the prohibition on reverting articles). As such, it appears that enforcement 7 expired when 4.1 did." [61] So which is it? Is Enforcement 7 being given special consideration after the earlier "sunset provision" statement? Was there a typo in the original Arbitration Committee decision? Given the importance of these questions, are there other Arbitrators who could weigh in here? -- Mr. Tibbs 16:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The decision is still in full force, except for those parts that have expired (remedies 3, 4, and enforcement 3, 4, 7). My original list on this page should have included 7, but I somehow glanced over it. →Raul654 21:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some clarification of the ruling on User:Yuber. He has been revert warring at Syria (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Lebanon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Syrian occupation of Lebanon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and History of Syria (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), deleting properly sourced and relevant information. I protected three of the above recently and 40 minutes after I unprotected, he reverted one of them again. [62]

He has also created Israeli occupation of Lebanon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as an apparent WP:POINT, because he failed in his efforts to have Syrian occupation of Lebanon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) moved (or moved back) to "Syrian presence in Lebanon".

I want to warn him that he may be in violation of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber decision, but I'm not clear whether he is. Under "remedies," the ruling is limited to Islam and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

Yuber is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban him from any article which relates to Islam or to the Israeli-Paletinian conflict which he disrupts by inappropriate editing ... [63]

But under "enforcement," it seems to apply to any article:

Should a Wikipedia administrator feel it necessary that Yuber be banned from an article where he is engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, POV reorganizations of the article or any other activity which the user considers disruptive they shall place a template {{Yuber banned}} at the top of the talk page of the article and notify Yuber on his talk page ... [64]

So my question is: are Syria, History of Syria, Lebanon, Syrian occupation of Lebanon and Israeli occupation of Lebanon covered by the ruling? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

They are covered by the enforcement provision, yes. Raul654 08:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Raul. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

There are a few outstanding issues which I would be most grateful if the Committee would please clarify for me regarding the status of the accounts which were banned under the former temporary injunction. Since I was requested by Fred to make the various blocks on the temporary injunction, it means I have been receiving the e-mail dialogue from the parties wishing to be unbanned, and as a consequence of the recent closing of the case a few have written to me asking to be unbanned. My queries are as follows:

1. The final remedy decided upon by the Committee has been that the various Bogdanov Affair participants are indefinitely banned from the article itself. The previous temporary injunction was that they were banned indefinitely from Wikipedia; since this has now been replaced with only an article editing ban, does this mean all of those users are now entitled to edit Wikipedia, and thus should be unblocked?
2. A specific user, XAL ( talk · contribs) was initially banned by Fred prior to the passing of the injunction, although she is named in it. If the above is true, that is the users should now be unblocked, should XAL also be unblocked or is she a special case due to Fred's direct involvement?
3. Also, XAL has never edited the article, but has only been involved in the talk page. She has never edited the Bogdanov Affair article itself; there are a number of other users like this. Does this mean they fall outside of the purview of the enforcement decision? That is, is the ban from editing the article to be taken to also refer to the talk page? If not, we shall have to suffer a repeat of the whole talk page débâcle once again, since the users currently indefinitely blocked from editing shall be able to legitimately edit the talk page, and thus we may end up with yet another arbcom case about their talk page editing.
4. Regarding the decision on enforcement: "Any user banned from editing Bogdanov Affair who nevertheless edits it, may be briefly banned from Wikipedia entirely, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses, and after the 5th offense, up to a year." Since it was I who set the blocks, it must likewise be my duty to unset them. Also, others have indefinitely blocked a multitude of sockpuppets of Igor Bogdanov. Does that mean that I must go through the contributions of all of the users who have been indefinitely blocked, change those bans on users with 5 offenses or more to a year's ban, and unban the rest? (since, after all, they have been blocked for longer than 1 week). Also, this decision is liable to give rise to a whole load of Bogdanov sockpuppets that are discarded after they have been used for 5 offenses. If this really is what the admins involved must do, this would be a most laborious task considering the vast numbers of sockpuppets used.
5. No decision has been made regarding the page protection. The present scenario of having to revert changes, and protect the article regularly, due to banned users editing is most unsatisfactory. Undoubtedly, the article will need to be protected more often as a result of the above enforcement decision, since we shall not be able to block sockpuppets solely on the basis of name or after having made only a few edits which blatantly disclaim who is operating the account.

I am most grateful for the Committee's work on this matter, and would appreciate an expeditious response since I have been receiving some consternation from various blocked users via e-mail. Best regards, -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Unblock anyone who is blocked but who has not been trying to edit the article. Those who you are sure have been trying to edit the article during the injunction, need not be unblocked. Please don't unblock XAL. I'll try to help you with this tomorrow. Fred Bauder 04:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you are responsible for this mess. You only need to unblock folks when you have time. Fred Bauder 05:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yuber

I'd appreciate some clarification of the ruling on User:Yuber. He has been revert warring at Syria (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Lebanon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Syrian occupation of Lebanon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and History of Syria (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), deleting properly sourced and relevant information. I protected three of the above recently and 40 minutes after I unprotected, he reverted one of them again. [65]

He has also created Israeli occupation of Lebanon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as an apparent WP:POINT, because he failed in his efforts to have Syrian occupation of Lebanon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) moved (or moved back) to "Syrian presence in Lebanon".

I want to warn him that he may be in violation of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yuber decision, but I'm not clear whether he is. Under "remedies," the ruling is limited to Islam and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

Yuber is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban him from any article which relates to Islam or to the Israeli-Paletinian conflict which he disrupts by inappropriate editing ... [66]

But under "enforcement," it seems to apply to any article:

Should a Wikipedia administrator feel it necessary that Yuber be banned from an article where he is engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, POV reorganizations of the article or any other activity which the user considers disruptive they shall place a template {{Yuber banned}} at the top of the talk page of the article and notify Yuber on his talk page ... [67]

So my question is: are Syria, History of Syria, Lebanon, Syrian occupation of Lebanon and Israeli occupation of Lebanon covered by the ruling? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

They are covered by the enforcement provision, yes. Raul654 08:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Raul. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)