Systemworks seems to be a Lightbringer sock, violating the terms of his RFAr probation prohibiting the editing of Freemasonry-related articles. I've blocked the user as a disruption-only sock account in any case; could someone with checkuser see if it is Lightbringer's sock? - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 10:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Same ISP, same traceroute up to the last hop or two. Likely, but not certain, match; either the same person or someone who lives nearby. Kelly Martin ( talk) 10:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, we wouldn't wanna repeat that Agriculture/The Chief thing, but still, there's so much circumstantial evidence it's just too much of a coincidence, and especially after a closed case. R e dwolf24 ( talk) Attention Washingtonians! 10:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I looked on the /Proposed Decision page for Maoririder, and it seems odd to me that there is a MtC when there is currently nothing (only templates) in the "Proposed remedies" and "Proposed enforcement" sections. Can someone explain this?

It started that way but now Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Maoririder/Proposed_decision#Mentorship has been added. Fred Bauder 20:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

This is still not closed, but I'm wanting the ArbComs input on course of action. It's been my assertion that Instantnood is a POV warrior for Hong Kong independence. It's mostly the ArbComs deference to not rule on content. In the current case, Fred Bauder initially proposed a fact that Instantnood's edits sometimes questioned the soveriegnty of the People's Republic of China over Hong Kong - then he removed himself from that same fact. In our latest fracas, List of road-rail bridges, I have placed Hong Kong as a subsection of China. Instantnood reverts it, wanting Hong Kong to appear as an independent country. The last two edit summaries make it clear:

Me: (rv instantnoods insistence on Hong Kong as an independent country is POV.) [1]

'Nood: (a section ≠ it is an independent sovereign state) [2]

What's that say about Hong Kong? it is an independent sovereign state

Now, judging stricly by behavior, I may be seen as edit warring as much as 'Nood. Fine, and I'll take my lumps of being on probation with him. Clearly though, something must be done about his POV editing about Hong Kong. Some statement must be made that Hong Kong is not an independent country and it is appropriately listed as part of China, the country to which it belongs. SchmuckyTheCat 16:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I said in the edit summary "a section ≠ it is an independent sovereign state". The fact is that Hong Kong and Macao are not and have never been independent sovereign states. Nobody involved in the dispute has ever advocated their independence or secession. What is disputed and debatable is how to acknowledge their special status. I believe with several months of exchanges SchmuckyTheCat is pretty familiar with what is disputed and my position. I'd like to invite members of the ArbCom to take his deliberate inaccurate presentation of information and misinterpretation of my position into consideration. Thank you. — Insta ntnood 17:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for putting words in your mouth. However, edit summaries fail to show unicode and html entities correctly - at least on my browser.

The issue is still there - you're presenting Hong Kong in a list of independent countries when it is not. SchmuckyTheCat 23:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Many of the similar lists are lists by countries, not lists by independent sovereign states, although in some cases there're less than a handful of non-sovereign ones. Thanks to its size of population and economy, it's not surprising to find Hong Kong to be the only non-sovereign territory on such lists. — Insta ntnood 06:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems that he is still not following punctuation spacing rules (based on a check of his recent edits), yet it seems that no block has been imposed on him yet. Can someone check this out?

Babajobu ( talk · contribs) has undertaken to correct Louis Epstein's edits. If he is not doing so then Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Louis_Epstein#Conventional_punctuation_required will kick in. Fred Bauder 23:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

And it looks like User:Babajobu has put up a "Louis Epstein Punctuation Patrol" update space on his user page, if anyone is inclined to check. -- Calton | Talk 00:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

And for the record, it looks like he is keeping strictly to his word and cleaning up louis's edits. Raul654 00:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Please confirm to Admins whether ArbComm decisions are to be enforced, specifically for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute#Remedies. Please advise whether the bans and restrictions are to be enforced.
  • If that dispute should not have been enforced, advise Admins whether or how to compensate for Cortonin or JonGwynne lost Wikipedia time due to time served in the climate change dispute.
  • Apparently William M. Connolley: Six-month revert parole on certain articles has not been enforced. I have been reporting violations (see WP:AN/3RR), and both administrators and William M. Connolley have given indications of not following Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents#Arbitration rulings and are not regarding violations seriously. Indeed, William M. Connolley has admitted ignoring the parole terms when he finds them burdensome. [3]
• Please advise how violations should be reported. Usually users are supposed to report what they notice. I have been blocked due to reporting this no-Talk violation by User:SlimVirgin after having been invited by same to post additional violation reports to WP:AN/I (and such was noted in the report). I've made only 13 reports of his most obvious violations (about one a day is too fast for admins accusing me of spamming).
  • Inform Admins whether there is a statute of limitations on reporting violations. I did not see a /Precedent. Does it make sense that violations which are noticed during the term of the parole be ignored? ("You paid the court fine with a forged check, but we did not catch you until half the term of your parole had expired…")
  • Existing instructions on ArbComm and Admin pages should be clarified for reporting violations. There are limitations which make it difficult to find where to report violations.
  • I suggest that you consider having the Wikipedia:Mentorship Committee supervise the climate change dispute's remedy restrictions.
  • I suggest that you consider having William M. Connolley report his past violations to the ArbComm, in two types of violations: those for which he did not edit the Talk page for each revert, and those for which he did not (or may not) have met the content requirements for the required Talk page entry.
    • The others for whom remedies have been stated should also be required to do same, but their Contributions are much simpler to evaluate because of bans and a lack of activity.

— ( SEWilco 16:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC))

• WP:POINT. Thank you. Phil Sandifer 16:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• The most disruptive consequence of WMC's parole violations seems to be SEWilco's response on WP:AN/3RR, WP:AN/I, and now here. Wikipedia is not a penal colony; if WMC's actions didn't upset anyone enough to prompt a request for admin enforcement until three weeks or a month after the fact.... TenOfAllTrades( talk) 17:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Whether a trickle of reports is disruptive is a matter for WP:AN/3RR; 12 reports in a single day wouldn't be unusual in many other Wikipedia reporting/voting areas. If the quantity of violations is the problem, remember WMC created the violations. ArbComm has an outstanding ruling to clarify. ( SEWilco 01:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC))

He shouldn't have to beg, but on the other hand no point to post stale infractions. Fred Bauder 00:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No he shouldn't have to beg but I've been following his postings on AN/3RR and they are clearly malicious in an attempt to get WMC blocked and several blatant violations of WP:POINT as it's gone from listing in good faith to trying to be disrputive just because people refuse to give in to his vendetta to have another user blocked. Jtkiefer ^{T | C | @} ---- 00:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion as to whether my faith is good. Any clarification on the questions? ( SEWilco 01:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC))

In what way is an infraction during parole "stale"? Address the above clarification request on the subject. ( SEWilco 01:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC))

It's not necessarily whether the infractions are stale or not but the fact that you are listing numerous (13 at this point so far I think) which is beyond trying to just have the arbcom ruling enforced. Jtkiefer ^{T | C | @} ---- 01:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, please advise how violations are to be reported. Or are you proposing that the ArbComm approve performing dozens of violations as a method for escaping parole? ( SEWilco 04:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC))

Again, please advise how violations are to be reported. Speaking as an outsider, I suggest a four-word answer: "In a timely fashion." -- Calton | Talk 06:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

In a timely fashion after they are discovered. Certainly. ( SEWilco 14:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC))

Please take this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2

I have placed this request for clarification to the talk page of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 and will soon removed it from this page. Fred Bauder 15:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The ruling against Zen-master seems to be very specific regarding Race and intelligence, but he's currently editing in the same disruptive manner at Conspiracy theory (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): editing against consensus and when he can't get his own way, slapping the NPOV tag on it, replacing it when he's reverted, and making complex, partial reverts so that it's hard to see whether he's violated 3RR. Given that the same behavior seems to be involved, can the ruling be extended to this article too? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm happy for it to be so extended, given a brief look. James F. (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Ok, but probably should be made general and indefinite Fred Bauder 02:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

How is adding the {npov} tag to a disputed article a disruption? I assume that most of the recently active editors of Conspiracy theory (of which Slim is not among them) would agree with the statement that we are making some progress with the article NPOV wise, so what is the basis for her complaint exactly? Please provide citations and an explanation of how a particular wikipedia policy is being violated. zen master T 02:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think, despite Zen-master's Race and Intelligence block, that you need to Assume good faith - especially Fred Bauder, who, as an administrator, should try to be more objective. For example, on the mailing list, he apparently called a number of authors 'POV-pushers', 'POV-warriors', etc. (myself included) [4], [5], etc.

"Exactly, excellent parallel; although, this POV bunch is a bit bigger and better organized. And intimidating."

"Exactly, but are we all going to be bullied by POV warriors?", etc.

I fear that a belief in a 'POV cabal', of which Zen-master is apparently a member, may color Fred's opinions unduly. Indeed, what does the addition of an NPOV tag to an article violate? It happens a great deal on the other side of many of the ideological 'conflicts' I've seen Zen-master and others involved in. Ganging up on Zen-master without a clear idea of what's been violated just doesn't seem fair, nor objective. Just my $.02. And I am not trying to blame, nor accuse - just to remind folks of the need to be objective.

Last, extending the block to 'all articles', and making it 'indefinite', is, in my opinion, completely unwarranted and disproportionate to Zen-master's behavior, and I would hope such actions were not taken lightly against such users who are not fundamentally ill-intentioned, nor intentionally destructive to Wikipedia. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I don't know that I have ever considered your edits regarding any matter, but certainly we should be fair to Zen-master and not overdo it. Fred Bauder 03:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. I am one of the editors that was being (imho, maligned) in that mailing list conversation, which is why I was aware of it having transpired. Honest thanks for exercising your best judgment, Fred. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master has been relentlessly POV pushing on the subject of conspiracy theories for many months. A block on his editing conspiracy-related pages for three month would be a modet and appropriate response to his disruptive actions. SlimVirgin has bee a saint trying to deal with Zen-master.-- Cberlet 03:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet, I'm not surprised at that - SlimVirgin has shown herself to be a well-intentioned, even-handed editor and colleague. The issue here, however, is whether Zen-master should be indefinitely, totally blocked as a result of his behavior. While I disagree wholeheartedly with a lot of what I saw on Race and Intelligence, I cannot see the rationale for such an action on that basis. He's an editor with very strong opinions, an aggressive style and a lot of passion - but not an intentionally disruptive, nor destructive editor. I think there is a fundamental difference there, that necessitates discretion by the administrators. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet, I don't think our positions on the Conspiracy theory matter disagree all that much, take a look at my most recent tweak of your intro changes and let me know either way on the talk page. I think we are making progress towards clarity and NPOV there. zen master T 03:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of who's POV pushing, or if anyone is, I'd like to point out Zen-master's edit warring. It doesn't show any sign of slowing. In fact, ZM has violated 3RR on Conspiracy theory recenlty, for which I *almost* banned him from it (except for the little fact that I couldn't). I don't know about indefinite, but I think it is certainly fair to extend probation to all articles, especially considering probation does not restrict contributions, that's it's point: it only restricts disruption. Dmcdevit· t 03:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master, you asked for examples of policy violation. I'm alleging violations of WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:NOR, and WP:V. You've been engaged in a vigorous campaign for months to stop the phrase "conspiracy theory" being used in Wikipedia. You tried to have the term banned as a page title, and lost the vote decisively, posting dozens of repetitive posts, refactoring the voting page to change comments or the sequence of comments, fabricating (with no hint of irony) conspiracy theories of corruption between the editors opposing you. You edit-warred around the same issue in the same way at AIDS conspiracy theories, with 3RR violations; complex, partial reverts; reverting over what tag should be on the page; and making accusations of bias against everyone who disagreed with you. You're now doing it on Conspiracy theory, where you're opposed by Carbonite, Willmcw, Tom Harrison, Jayjg, Adhib, BrandonYusufToropov, Shoaler, Rhobite, Cberlet, and Calton, whose edit summary of "been there, done that, got the t-shirt" when he reverts you [6] tells the whole story. You've posted 40 largely repetitive posts to talk in the last three days; edit summaries saying you're "cleaning up" the intro, when in fact you're changing it completely to reflect your inaccurate and unsourced POV in violation of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability [7]; adding the two-versions, NPOV, or totally disputed tags and revert-warring when people try to remove them [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] making personal attacks in edit summaries, [16] and at least one recent 3RR violation. [17] There's more, but I hope that's enough. You're a handful, Zen, to say the least. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Slim, I admit to 3RR (and served my time), though most recently the cases were me trying to add the {npov} tempalte to the Conspiracy theory article to merely signify the existence of a neutrality dispute, which I am still surprised my fellow wikipedia editors aren't/weren't willing to allow (even if they disagreed with my content changes). It may seem like I am repetitive on the talk page but I am indeed vigorous, as you say, trying to understand your and everyone's POV and either logically convince you and others of my interpretation or understand yours to the point where I could become convinced of it. I apologize if I have riled you up, you may not believe me but I can only assure you I am interested in improving and working toward a bipartite version of the article. zen master T 04:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not a question only of POV, but of accuracy. Your versions (the ones I've read) are inaccurate. It's not true, for example, that "Conspiracy theory has a literal definition and a popular culture usage ... Literally, the phrase means exactly what its individual words mean, a theory alleging a conspiracy." That is your fabrication, and it would mean that the accepted story of 9/11 (that al-Qaeda hijackers flew planes into buildings for the reasons stated by Osama bin Laden) was a conspiracy theory. But that term is in fact always used in a way that's a great deal more complex and more loaded than that (always used that way; not just in what you're calling popular culture) and it's recognized by, I think, everyone else editing that article that "conspiracy theory" is a very particular narrative genre. In any event, even if you were 100 per cent correct, you're editing disruptively against consensus, and it's your behavior that's objectionable, not your beliefs. You should also bear in mind that the editors opposing you have very different POVs from each other, and yet they've found common cause in opposing you. That alone ought to tell you something. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

To be honest (and I don't mean to minimize your points in any way), the subtlety of the issue as you present it doesn't communicate 'Zen is disruptive' to me, as a completely outside viewer. It communicates to me that the issues are deep and exactly the kind of thing that well-intentioned editors struggle with. The fact that other editors oppose his perspective doesn't make it disruption. I've seen a lot worse behavior tolerated a whole lot more around here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, take a look at the histories of Conspiracy theory, AIDS conspiracy theories, and Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory, and also look at the talk pages. It may take you a few hours unfortunately to get the full flavor of it. I disagree about your view of what counts as disruption. If I'm opposed by ten or more good editors (and that's the point here: they are all good editors) over a period of months on multiple pages regarding almost every edit I make, and if I find myself unsupported and left to post 12 posts to talk every day that say the same thing, then at some point I have to ask myself whether I might be wrong. Zen-master never does that, and that's the problem in a nutshell. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If that's what's happening, I agree it's indeed disruptive. I've dealt with that kind of thing from other editors as well - but my personal experience with Zen was that he was a lot more even-handed than that. If not, an RfA should/will lead to a formal expansion of the probation he is under. I'd just hate it if Zen, whom I have seen edit in a constructive and cooperative way, is blacklisted. It would make me question whether there was a grand conspiracy afoot against him.

Yes, I was being both ironic and facetious. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Slim, I have seen how the phrase "conspiracy theory" has been used on wikipedia talk pages. For example, editor A has said "let's include allegation X" but editor B comes along and says "No, allegation X is a conspiracy theory!" with no regard to whether allegation X is cited or otherwise appropriate for article inclusion. Wikipedia policies should be exclusively used to determine if something is appropriate for inclusion, not alleged association with some genre, right? Wikipedia policies should be exclusively used to neutrally present a subject, and be unaffected by alleged association with a genre, right? The first paragraph's definition we have in Conspiracy theory now is actually synonymous with the literal definition (says the same thing with more words, a theory that alleges a conspiracy). At this point, the only change I would recommend to the intro is we should specifically note the two definitions/meanings are often confused, do you agree there is confusion? Separately, I've been wondering what do you mean by "narrative genre" exactly? In my interpretation this issue we are trying to find a bipartite way of describing is best thought of as an "allegation" and not as a "story" nor "narratives" nor anything related (at best it is indeterminate what they are and relevant places should make that point clear). If someone believes, even subconsciously, that a particular theory is a story or from the narrative genre or should be categorized within the conspiracy theory genre the article is still required to cite exactly who is counter claiming that about the theory, which is why I believe we need to have a sufficiently clear definition in Conspiracy theory to make that point/requirement as clear as possible. zen master T 04:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again. "Narrative genre" means "type of story". There is no "literal definition" of "conspiracy theory." That's like saying the literal definition of kindergarten is a garden for children. But that's not what it means, either in German or in English. Meaning has to do with the way words are in fact used in the world, and "conspiracy theory" is always used in a certain way, which I have explained to you a thousand times, as have others, so I'm not doing it again. But you are missing my point, I assume deliberately. The problem is your behavior, not your beliefs. You are editing disruptively, have been for months, always do, show no sign of stopping, show no indication that you even understand what is meant, show no remorse, feel no concern about the amount of time you waste, give no indication that you do any research into the topics. Your presence at a page invariably signals deterioration, both in terms of quality of content and in terms of relationships with other editors. I'm sorry to be so blunt. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The literal definition is important to note and understand because people may be confused into unconsciously assuming that any theory that alleges a conspiracy is a member of the "conspiracy theory" genre, they have the same name. Recall that editors argued in favor of "conspiracy theory" in wikipedia article titles because, they claimed, some subjects are "literally conspiracy theories" so it seems to me the implied literal definition is the exponentially key source of the confusion here, and we should fix it or at least clearly point it out. zen master T 05:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master, please do not extend your battle over "conspiracy theories" to this page. The issue at hand here is whether your conduct amounts to disruptive editing within the ambit of our previous order. Regretfully, I would say that it does not; clearly our previous order was insufficiently broad. At this point, I concur with my colleagues above, in that we should definitely consider expanding the scope of our order to all pages. I would have to say that you have demonstrated quite clearly your capacity for disruptive editing, just with your edits to this page. Kelly Martin ( talk) 06:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

How are my edits to this page disruptive? I've just been trying to explain the issues. zen master T 06:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a problem at Conspiracy theory, but it's one of those mothcandle articles that will always be at the sharp edge of such problems so long as Wikipedia retains its open-armed stance, which I take it we here all support. So it would seem to me to be wrong to exclude Zen-m for insisting that his rare views be respected by the article. If he goes, someone else will stand in his place (see Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations for a related article suffering identical problems without Zen-m's input). I agree that Zen-m's mode of insisting imposes a heavy burden, and approve of the suggestion on his talk page to try to limit edits to one per day. Wouldn't it be nicer still if we could just informally agree with him that all parties should back off, say until the New Year, to do their research and come back to the fray with substantial new cites and materials, the better to illuminate the current impasse? Or, perhaps, give SlimVirgin and her 'co-conspirators' the month off by locking-down the article. But picking Zen-m out is no solution, besides being unkind. Adhib 21:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I know this case was quite a while ago, but for those of you who remember it, I have one question: Why was Baku Ibne not among the accounts blocked as a result of this ruling?

It appears to be an oversight, but Baku_Ibne ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has not edited since March, 2005. Fred Bauder 15:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The admin Ryan Delaney has banned me (I am on probation) from the race and intelligence article for adding the {npov} template to a highly and fundamentally disputed article (and area of research). A quick look at the talk page will show the article and area of research have been accused (with citations) of unscientific and racism inducing methodologies. It also has as its foundation IQ testing which is itself highly disputed on numerous points.

Another admin has already poitned out to Ryan that (from Wikipedia:Probation) "A ban may be imposed only for good cause which shall be documented in a section set aside for that purpose in the arbitration case. Banning without good cause or in bad faith shall be grounds for censure, restriction, or removal of administrative access". The only explanation Ryan offered was in a check in summary which labeled my action as a "disruption", I challenge Ryan or anyone to show exactly how adding an {npov} template to an article that is (fundamentally) disputed in good faith is a "disruption"? For recent discussion of this see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master#Impositions_of_a_ban_under_the_probation_remedy. There seems to be a highly coordinated effort to censor, mischaracterize or lessen fundamental criticisms of "race" and "intelligence" "research". zen master T 18:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You have a history of disruptively adding permanent {npov} templates to articles until you get your way. This is part of a pattern. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

A quick look at the talk page will show other editors agree with me that the race and intelligence article is fundamentally disputed. Please assume good faith and investigate this issue. The criteria here is not about me getting my "way", the issue is Ryan Delaney and other admins repeatedly trying to deny the existence of criticisms of what appears to be a racism inducing article, aren't you at all concerned about that possibility? How can adding {npov} be "disruptive" if an in good faith dispute exists? zen master T 19:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

While there are legitimate issues with respect to the framing of the issues, your way of struggling regarding the framing of issues has been found to be disruptive, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master#Disruptive_edits. Fred Bauder 20:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

From WP:RFM/JoA:

User:Durova: We seem to have broken the deadlock and the article is much improved. I'd like to solicit Admin's help for one continuing problem. Switisweti and I are convinced that AWilliamson is still damaging the article via anonymous IP addresses. These range from aggressive POV edits to outright vandalism.

- St| eve 07:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I wonder why this one is in the "voting" phase when there is nothing in the "remedies" and "enforcements" sections (not even on the "workshop" page)?

I am recused, but looks like a work in progress, if you have some ideas go to the workshop page and make some suggestions. Fred Bauder 15:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Everyking has already begun exploiting a loophole in his ruling to spread his usual uninformed comments on RFAr talk pages. I know the ruling indicated that he was welcome to comment on non-editorial actions in an RfC or an RFAr, but surely that did not mean that he was free to continue making accusations and personal attacks on the talk pages of RFArs he is not even involved in? I'm referring here to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Evidence, where he is, quite strikingly, taking a complaint about evidence submitted by Tony Sidaway and concluding that the evidence shows that the case is about my trying to win a content dispute. When I asked him to look at the situation, he replied that he is not talking about particulars, he is talking about "the basis of it."

Everyking is not party to the case. He has not involved himself at all in the dispute. His only presence in the case is because, under the current interpretation of his ruling, he is still allowed to engage in this behavior on arbitration talk pages.

Can we please clarify this ruling to only include requests for arbitration that he is party to or submitting evidence in? Or should I just throw up my hands in despair and submit EK4 in pursuit of a ruling that finally actually ends this harassment? Phil Sandifer 08:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• I am not an arbitrator but I think this clarifies the issue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I am not comforted particularly by his belief that it is only probably not reasonable to suggest that I am responsible for Tony's thoughts, actions, and/or desires. I feel it is the sort of thing on which certainty is not inappropriate. Phil Sandifer 08:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I'm not going to get too worked up about this. I'm confident that things will work out fairly though I may be abused in the short term. Look at my previous two cases—severe penalties were imposed on me for a while, but now none of those penalties are left. We go to extremes, but with time we balance out. Everyking 08:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Our intention was to permit him to edit arbitration pages where he was involved in the arbitration. Not to harass you. Fred Bauder 13:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to harass him. Honestly, I don't know if harassment has any meaning left as far as we're concerned—how can what he's done to me not be harassment, but me making a few comments about questionable things he does is harassment? Snowspinner happens to be very active in arbitration matters and, seeing as I've been a victim of that, I feel inclined to comment when I think he's wrong about things. That is not a bad thing. Everyking 13:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Fred - the exception applies only to cases in which Everyking is a party. Raul654 18:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I do concur with this. The exception was meant to allow Everyking to speak in his own defense or when he is brought up explicitly. His contributions to the pages so far have been unhelpful. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I also concur; it was never our intention to give Everyking free license to use arbitration talk pages as a place to continue his sniping. The exception only reaches to the talk pages of cases in which he is a participant. Kelly Martin ( talk) 22:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

My understanding of the ruling is that I was only banned from the AN pages. So I don't consider posting to these pages exploiting a loophole; they are the same as any other pages on the project, with the exception of the AN pages. So on what grounds could I be prohibited from editing them? That would be very different from what the ruling says; it would take more than just clarification to make that change. Are you saying I'm not allowed to comment on Snowspinner's non-editorial actions? Well, then that's not such a big deal, because I can still discuss these cases, just not his personal actions by name. And that's all I'm actually interested in, Phil's claims to the contrary; because he is the focal point of so much of this stuff, he becomes the most obvious target for criticism, but what's really important is to be able to talk about the cases themselves, not the person who is the accuser. Everyking 06:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

My understanding of the ruling is that I was only banned from the AN pages. - you were banned from AN pages (remedy 2) AND your actions on all pages were restricted by remedy 3 (Everyking is prohibited from making comments on non-editorial actions taken by other administrators other than on the administrator's talk page, a Request for comment, or a Request for arbitration.). You are not prohibited from editing AN arbitration pages per se - you may still edit them, so long as you refrain from commenting on other administrators' actions except (as we have clarified here) in cases where you are actually a named party in the case. Raul654 18:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean he's not prohibited from editing arbcom pages, not AN pages, right? Phil Sandifer 19:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, my bad. Raul654 15:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, Raul's answer tells me I can comment on any Arb related page to the extent that anyone else can, with the exception that I can't comment directly on administrative actions. This suits me just fine. As for the AN issue Raul has raised, he will have to clarify whether that was a mistake or not. I think this is a good occasion to raise the issue of appeal, as well—when will be an appropriate time? Currently I'm trying to get Jimbo to talk with me about it, but whether he does or not, Jan. 11 seems to me like a suitable date—if he hasn't looked at the matter by then, it will be time to give up on him looking at it at all, and the ArbCom will need to take his place in resolving the matter. On the other hand, if he does look at it before then, and he doesn't overturn the ruling, two months still seems like an appropriate length of time for the ArbCom to review its decision. Everyking 09:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

(1) Don't hold your breathe about Jimbo. He's said in the past he won't overrule us except under exceptional circumstances - and I don't think your case comes close to qualifying. (2) "and the ArbCom will need to take his place in resolving the matter. " - As far as I am concerned, the matter is resolved. I can't speak to the others, but I for one intend to reject all appeals until I see evidence that you won't go right back to your old behavior. Raul654 15:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

What would constitute such evidence? Everyking 20:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Recognition that your past actions were problematic would be a good start; if you insist you have done nothing wrong, then it's not likely you'll stop doing it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, I did that back when the case was still active, and it got me nowhere. Everyking 21:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Your behavior since we closed the case has not been encouraging in the least. Rather than actually abiding by the spirit of the ruling and making a good-faith attempt at reform, every one of your actions seems calculated to 'scout out' the limits of the ruling and its application. This tells me quite a bit about your intentions. Raul654 05:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

As you know, I don't agree with the "spirit of the ruling". I agreed that I was uncivil at points in the past, but that is nothing I need to "reform" about because I had already improved substantially about it before the ArbCom case was even opened. Logically, then, the ruling was unfair in the first place and should be overturned at the first opportunity. So really there is nothing for me to do except try to get it overturned, or at least go on about my business to the greatest extent possible without violating the ruling. Everyking 07:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• An edit war, or vandalism, has taken place on these two sites, and on people and organisations connected to them, by two Canadian left-wingers who are intent upon character assassination and demonisation. They are clearly under the impression that they are above reproach. I am told legal action is in the pipline. Administrators need to address the activities of these users CJCurrie and homey on these sites. 213.122.32.154 10:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

This isn't an actual Request for Clarification. In any case, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard for two related entries. Homey 19:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no comment at this time, except to say that I completely reject User:213.122.32.154's interpretation of events. Readers are directed to Talk:Gregory Lauder-Frost and Talk:Monday Club for context. CJCurrie 21:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Having worked with CJCurrie and Homeontherange on hundereds of articles, and having observed their edits, I can vouch for their adherence to the principles of NPOV. The complainant, on the other hand, has repeatedly violated both NPOV and WP:NPA. Ground Zero | t 02:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Obviously I cannot fight this little gang of Canadians myself with virtually no assistance. I am a highly educated individual and I find their overall comments gratuitously offensive, as though they are somehow superior human beings. This is not the way forward for Wikipedia. Robert I 08:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If you are as highly educated as you say, then you should be able to discuss differences of opinion by discussing the matter at hand instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks. Ground Zero | t 16:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a very clear agenda by just a few people to demonise Lauder-Frost, The Conservative Monday Club (and, so, thousands of former members), and numerous other people and groups with any kind of link. Selective quotes from left-wing and marxist journalists and endless garbage from those who really know little about British political affairs apart from looking at media quotes means that people have been constantly re-edited so that they appear in the worst possible light. Wikipedia has a duty to people it puts up on the internet to make sure they are not demonised in the eyes of the world. As a former Monday Clubber I resent being called far-right by some Red journalist, whoever employs him. 86.129.77.132 23:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

"I resent being called far-right by some Red journalist, whoever employs him"

You should complain to the conservative Daily Telegraph then, not to us. Homey 23:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

As before, I completely reject the anon's accusation. Interested parties are invited to review the Conservative Monday Club page history and talk page for context. CJCurrie 01:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Just thought I'd bring this page to your attention: Wikipedia:Parole. It was not really sanctioned by Arbcom (and was started by a current party to the climate change dispute). I'm not sure what you'd want to do with it, it might be a good idea to have, but currently, it's not really in anything near a useful state. Dmcdevit· t 09:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It should not be deleted but improved to reflect what the arbitration committee means by parole, revert parole, personal attack parole. We could use another on ban and any other remedy we use regularly. Fred Bauder 13:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

There is already a pretty good article on Wikipedia:Banning policy which goes into detail on enforcement mechanisms. There is a redirect there from Wikipedia:Ban. I've updated it to mention the arbitration committee's occasional delegation of banning powers (in probation and mentorship). -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 13:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The ruling against Zen-master seems to be very specific regarding Race and intelligence, but he's currently editing in the same disruptive manner at Conspiracy theory (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): editing against consensus and when he can't get his own way, slapping the NPOV tag on it, replacing it when he's reverted, and making complex, partial reverts so that it's hard to see whether he's violated 3RR. Given that the same behavior seems to be involved, can the ruling be extended to this article too? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm happy for it to be so extended, given a brief look. James F. (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Ok, but probably should be made general and indefinite Fred Bauder 02:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

How is adding the {npov} tag to a disputed article a disruption? I assume that most of the recently active editors of Conspiracy theory (of which Slim is not among them) would agree with the statement that we are making some progress with the article NPOV wise, so what is the basis for her complaint exactly? Please provide citations and an explanation of how a particular wikipedia policy is being violated. zen master T 02:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think, despite Zen-master's Race and Intelligence block, that you need to Assume good faith - especially Fred Bauder, who, as an administrator, should try to be more objective. For example, on the mailing list, he apparently called a number of authors 'POV-pushers', 'POV-warriors', etc. (myself included) [18], [19], etc.

"Exactly, excellent parallel; although, this POV bunch is a bit bigger and better organized. And intimidating."

"Exactly, but are we all going to be bullied by POV warriors?", etc.

I fear that a belief in a 'POV cabal', of which Zen-master is apparently a member, may color Fred's opinions unduly. Indeed, what does the addition of an NPOV tag to an article violate? It happens a great deal on the other side of many of the ideological 'conflicts' I've seen Zen-master and others involved in. Ganging up on Zen-master without a clear idea of what's been violated just doesn't seem fair, nor objective. Just my $.02. And I am not trying to blame, nor accuse - just to remind folks of the need to be objective.

Last, extending the block to 'all articles', and making it 'indefinite', is, in my opinion, completely unwarranted and disproportionate to Zen-master's behavior, and I would hope such actions were not taken lightly against such users who are not fundamentally ill-intentioned, nor intentionally destructive to Wikipedia. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I don't know that I have ever considered your edits regarding any matter, but certainly we should be fair to Zen-master and not overdo it. Fred Bauder 03:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. I am one of the editors that was being (imho, maligned) in that mailing list conversation, which is why I was aware of it having transpired. Honest thanks for exercising your best judgment, Fred. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master has been relentlessly POV pushing on the subject of conspiracy theories for many months. A block on his editing conspiracy-related pages for three month would be a modet and appropriate response to his disruptive actions. SlimVirgin has bee a saint trying to deal with Zen-master.-- Cberlet 03:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet, I'm not surprised at that - SlimVirgin has shown herself to be a well-intentioned, even-handed editor and colleague. The issue here, however, is whether Zen-master should be indefinitely, totally blocked as a result of his behavior. While I disagree wholeheartedly with a lot of what I saw on Race and Intelligence, I cannot see the rationale for such an action on that basis. He's an editor with very strong opinions, an aggressive style and a lot of passion - but not an intentionally disruptive, nor destructive editor. I think there is a fundamental difference there, that necessitates discretion by the administrators. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet, I don't think our positions on the Conspiracy theory matter disagree all that much, take a look at my most recent tweak of your intro changes and let me know either way on the talk page. I think we are making progress towards clarity and NPOV there. zen master T 03:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of who's POV pushing, or if anyone is, I'd like to point out Zen-master's edit warring. It doesn't show any sign of slowing. In fact, ZM has violated 3RR on Conspiracy theory recenlty, for which I *almost* banned him from it (except for the little fact that I couldn't). I don't know about indefinite, but I think it is certainly fair to extend probation to all articles, especially considering probation does not restrict contributions, that's it's point: it only restricts disruption. Dmcdevit· t 03:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master, you asked for examples of policy violation. I'm alleging violations of WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:NOR, and WP:V. You've been engaged in a vigorous campaign for months to stop the phrase "conspiracy theory" being used in Wikipedia. You tried to have the term banned as a page title, and lost the vote decisively, posting dozens of repetitive posts, refactoring the voting page to change comments or the sequence of comments, fabricating (with no hint of irony) conspiracy theories of corruption between the editors opposing you. You edit-warred around the same issue in the same way at AIDS conspiracy theories, with 3RR violations; complex, partial reverts; reverting over what tag should be on the page; and making accusations of bias against everyone who disagreed with you. You're now doing it on Conspiracy theory, where you're opposed by Carbonite, Willmcw, Tom Harrison, Jayjg, Adhib, BrandonYusufToropov, Shoaler, Rhobite, Cberlet, and Calton, whose edit summary of "been there, done that, got the t-shirt" when he reverts you [20] tells the whole story. You've posted 40 largely repetitive posts to talk in the last three days; edit summaries saying you're "cleaning up" the intro, when in fact you're changing it completely to reflect your inaccurate and unsourced POV in violation of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability [21]; adding the two-versions, NPOV, or totally disputed tags and revert-warring when people try to remove them [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] making personal attacks in edit summaries, [30] and at least one recent 3RR violation. [31] There's more, but I hope that's enough. You're a handful, Zen, to say the least. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Slim, I admit to 3RR (and served my time), though most recently the cases were me trying to add the {npov} tempalte to the Conspiracy theory article to merely signify the existence of a neutrality dispute, which I am still surprised my fellow wikipedia editors aren't/weren't willing to allow (even if they disagreed with my content changes). It may seem like I am repetitive on the talk page but I am indeed vigorous, as you say, trying to understand your and everyone's POV and either logically convince you and others of my interpretation or understand yours to the point where I could become convinced of it. I apologize if I have riled you up, you may not believe me but I can only assure you I am interested in improving and working toward a bipartite version of the article. zen master T 04:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not a question only of POV, but of accuracy. Your versions (the ones I've read) are inaccurate. It's not true, for example, that "Conspiracy theory has a literal definition and a popular culture usage ... Literally, the phrase means exactly what its individual words mean, a theory alleging a conspiracy." That is your fabrication, and it would mean that the accepted story of 9/11 (that al-Qaeda hijackers flew planes into buildings for the reasons stated by Osama bin Laden) was a conspiracy theory. But that term is in fact always used in a way that's a great deal more complex and more loaded than that (always used that way; not just in what you're calling popular culture) and it's recognized by, I think, everyone else editing that article that "conspiracy theory" is a very particular narrative genre. In any event, even if you were 100 per cent correct, you're editing disruptively against consensus, and it's your behavior that's objectionable, not your beliefs. You should also bear in mind that the editors opposing you have very different POVs from each other, and yet they've found common cause in opposing you. That alone ought to tell you something. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

To be honest (and I don't mean to minimize your points in any way), the subtlety of the issue as you present it doesn't communicate 'Zen is disruptive' to me, as a completely outside viewer. It communicates to me that the issues are deep and exactly the kind of thing that well-intentioned editors struggle with. The fact that other editors oppose his perspective doesn't make it disruption. I've seen a lot worse behavior tolerated a whole lot more around here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, take a look at the histories of Conspiracy theory, AIDS conspiracy theories, and Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory, and also look at the talk pages. It may take you a few hours unfortunately to get the full flavor of it. I disagree about your view of what counts as disruption. If I'm opposed by ten or more good editors (and that's the point here: they are all good editors) over a period of months on multiple pages regarding almost every edit I make, and if I find myself unsupported and left to post 12 posts to talk every day that say the same thing, then at some point I have to ask myself whether I might be wrong. Zen-master never does that, and that's the problem in a nutshell. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If that's what's happening, I agree it's indeed disruptive. I've dealt with that kind of thing from other editors as well - but my personal experience with Zen was that he was a lot more even-handed than that. If not, an RfA should/will lead to a formal expansion of the probation he is under. I'd just hate it if Zen, whom I have seen edit in a constructive and cooperative way, is blacklisted. It would make me question whether there was a grand conspiracy afoot against him.

Yes, I was being both ironic and facetious. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Slim, I have seen how the phrase "conspiracy theory" has been used on wikipedia talk pages. For example, editor A has said "let's include allegation X" but editor B comes along and says "No, allegation X is a conspiracy theory!" with no regard to whether allegation X is cited or otherwise appropriate for article inclusion. Wikipedia policies should be exclusively used to determine if something is appropriate for inclusion, not alleged association with some genre, right? Wikipedia policies should be exclusively used to neutrally present a subject, and be unaffected by alleged association with a genre, right? The first paragraph's definition we have in Conspiracy theory now is actually synonymous with the literal definition (says the same thing with more words, a theory that alleges a conspiracy). At this point, the only change I would recommend to the intro is we should specifically note the two definitions/meanings are often confused, do you agree there is confusion? Separately, I've been wondering what do you mean by "narrative genre" exactly? In my interpretation this issue we are trying to find a bipartite way of describing is best thought of as an "allegation" and not as a "story" nor "narratives" nor anything related (at best it is indeterminate what they are and relevant places should make that point clear). If someone believes, even subconsciously, that a particular theory is a story or from the narrative genre or should be categorized within the conspiracy theory genre the article is still required to cite exactly who is counter claiming that about the theory, which is why I believe we need to have a sufficiently clear definition in Conspiracy theory to make that point/requirement as clear as possible. zen master T 04:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again. "Narrative genre" means "type of story". There is no "literal definition" of "conspiracy theory." That's like saying the literal definition of kindergarten is a garden for children. But that's not what it means, either in German or in English. Meaning has to do with the way words are in fact used in the world, and "conspiracy theory" is always used in a certain way, which I have explained to you a thousand times, as have others, so I'm not doing it again. But you are missing my point, I assume deliberately. The problem is your behavior, not your beliefs. You are editing disruptively, have been for months, always do, show no sign of stopping, show no indication that you even understand what is meant, show no remorse, feel no concern about the amount of time you waste, give no indication that you do any research into the topics. Your presence at a page invariably signals deterioration, both in terms of quality of content and in terms of relationships with other editors. I'm sorry to be so blunt. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The literal definition is important to note and understand because people may be confused into unconsciously assuming that any theory that alleges a conspiracy is a member of the "conspiracy theory" genre, they have the same name. Recall that editors argued in favor of "conspiracy theory" in wikipedia article titles because, they claimed, some subjects are "literally conspiracy theories" so it seems to me the implied literal definition is the exponentially key source of the confusion here, and we should fix it or at least clearly point it out. zen master T 05:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master, please do not extend your battle over "conspiracy theories" to this page. The issue at hand here is whether your conduct amounts to disruptive editing within the ambit of our previous order. Regretfully, I would say that it does not; clearly our previous order was insufficiently broad. At this point, I concur with my colleagues above, in that we should definitely consider expanding the scope of our order to all pages. I would have to say that you have demonstrated quite clearly your capacity for disruptive editing, just with your edits to this page. Kelly Martin ( talk) 06:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

How are my edits to this page disruptive? I've just been trying to explain the issues. zen master T 06:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a problem at Conspiracy theory, but it's one of those mothcandle articles that will always be at the sharp edge of such problems so long as Wikipedia retains its open-armed stance, which I take it we here all support. So it would seem to me to be wrong to exclude Zen-m for insisting that his rare views be respected by the article. If he goes, someone else will stand in his place (see Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations for a related article suffering identical problems without Zen-m's input). I agree that Zen-m's mode of insisting imposes a heavy burden, and approve of the suggestion on his talk page to try to limit edits to one per day. Wouldn't it be nicer still if we could just informally agree with him that all parties should back off, say until the New Year, to do their research and come back to the fray with substantial new cites and materials, the better to illuminate the current impasse? Or, perhaps, give SlimVirgin and her 'co-conspirators' the month off by locking-down the article. But picking Zen-m out is no solution, besides being unkind. Adhib 21:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I have restored this as we are now receiving a complaint about Zen-master's editing at [ [32]]. Fred Bauder 00:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to explain. It's about the Price-Anderson Act article, which has been highly contentious. We've gone through 2 mediators and we're on our 5th protection. Well I had shown zen the article 3 weeks ago while on IRC. I didn't even really say much about it. Yesterday, out of the blue, he started to get involved in it. What bothered me is that he made this edit where he added just a few words. I warned him about it. Basically said that he needed to get up to speed before diving into this. So what does he do...he joins the revert war we had yesterday on the article. We literally have 600K of talk on this article. It's not something you can dive into. Despite 3 warnings from me, he got into it anyway. I'm not sure that it violates anything, but it does bother me more than a bit that once again, he doesn't seem to listen to others real well. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 00:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I did revert that article one time, so what is the violation or issue exactly? What are you specifically saying that I should be listening to? I reverted because I thought others may have confused my small change with Benjamin Gatti's much larger change (I tried to apply my change to both competing versions of the intro), though I should have expected I would get sucked into the larger dispute after only trying to add my 2 cents to an article already in the middle of an edit war. zen master T 01:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not the one that put a complaint in about it and it's not my decision as to what was violated. I was just reporting what was happening. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 03:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

When you say "he doesn't seem to listen to others real well" that is doing a lot more than mere reporting. When you are ready to present a non-nebulous complaint or point to a specific policy violation please let me know. I interpret the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act article to be mistating or understating the critics' view in the intro, it also seems as if some subtly pro nuclear industry editors are the ones who have engineered this but I am not yet certain. zen master T 06:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As dmc says below, you are missing the point. I told you 3 weeks ago when I showed you the article that it was contentious and that we had gone through 2 mediators and 5 protections. And yet you came into the argument without reading any part of the 600K in archives we had and then you engaged in edit warring, including doing a revert. What are you violating? You are being disruptive. Disruptive is walking into an article that you know is contentious and yet, even after 2 warnings, flying right into it and engaging in a revert war. That's disruptive. That's adding tension to an already tense situation. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 07:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Formal motion to extend the scope of the probation

Following Kelly Martin's suggestion, I'm making this a formal request. Zen-master's response here seems to be clutter and muddling the point with content issues. The main issue here is that Zen-master has a fundamental misunderstanding of conflict resolution in Wikipedia, and views edit warring as a viable means of accomplishing it. The previous arbitration has shown that, and the recent edits at conspiracy theory especially, violating 3RR for something as petty as a tag, demonstrate no change. Zen-master has shown a propensity to be disruptive in any article where a dispute arises, and extending probation to all changes would curb that. I think it's important to note that probation shouldn't be a restriction, unless he's being disruptive. Both SlimVirgin's and Woohookitty's pleas are good enough evidence for me that disruption occurs outside that one article, and it needs to be addressed. I was also worried that his response to my reminder to refrain from edit warring yesterday was basically that probation didn't apply there (rather than addressing my real concern of edit warring). Dmcdevit· t 06:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm with dmc. What bothers me with this whole thing is sort of what dmc said. Zen was put on probation...he was banned for a week...and yet...here we are again. We need to broaden the scope of the probation. Hopefully, eventually we'll get it through to him that he needs to reform. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 07:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

And if any more evidence was needed, Zen-master just broke 3RR on conspiracy theory again ( 3RR report). Dmcdevit· t 19:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I noted it below. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 21:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Votes by arbitrators

• Extend to all articles Fred Bauder 07:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Extend to all articles Kelly Martin ( talk) 19:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Extend to all articles Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Extend to all articles Raul654 17:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Extend to all articles ➥the Epopt 21:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Extend to all articles. James F. (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Recuse. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Please show me evidence of edit warring on Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act? I came upon a previously existing edit war and merely tried to add clarity to both of the two competing versions of the article, then moved to the talk page. In my interpretation that article currently misstates or understates critics' views, is that what you actually find to be disruptive here? Are you pro nuclear industry like many editors of that article seemingly are? I followed the 1 revert rule on that article just like other editors that have definitely been engaging in edit warring, why the double standard? Please point to a specific policy violation on my part?

In my interpretation the NPOV policy is not "petty", when the neutrality of an article is disputed the {npov} tag is generally added to it, but since I was the only one a number of weeks ago on conspiracy theory I eventually digressed. Though, it is worth noting that since then I and more than a handful of other editors have made significant progress on the talk page towards a consensus NPOV intro of conspiracy theory (a little work still needs to be done).

I am starting to detect a pattern here, I criticized a seemingly racism inducing and unscientific method of presentation in race and intelligence and I was blocked for a week and put on article specific probation (full disclosure: I was blocked for personal attacks, I labeled that article's method of presentation as being "nazi-esque", I subsequently apologized for not making myself clear and for using labels that detracted from my point that I interpret a highly biased and biasing article, but those criticisms remain unaddressed). Then you called me disruptive for trying to add clarity to a subject and article in dire need of disassociation: conspiracy theory. Now you are proposing expanding the scope of my earlier race and intelligence probation after I criticized the misstatement or understatement of critics' views in an article about an act passed by Congress that is basically a massive pro nuclear industry government subsidy which also eliminates or lessens the public's right to seek civil law recourse in the event of a nuclear accident. I repeat, what policy am I violating here? I am trying to work towards neutrally presented articles. zen master T 07:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It's considered disruption, because you made these changes to the article without discussing them first. You even had an edit summary of "rv, i think the "consensus" version is mistating critics' views". That's joining an edit war. You seem to like to get into these things just to stir the pot up and I would consider that disruptive as well. You basically joined an article that you were told was contentious and had a long history (it says right on the top that we have 8 archives and that combined it's over 600K) and yet made a change...was told that any changes are contentious on this article...you said well you don't see how this could be contentious and did it anyway. And in the end, you ended up making the edit war much worse because if you look at the history of the article, a bunch of the reverts that led to protection were reverts of your addition. What should have happened here is that you should have said hey...I'm new...get me up to speed and I'll see what I can add here. Instead, you hopped right into an edit war on an article you had never posted on before. Again. it's disruption. And the pattern here is that the only thing linking these 3 articles (race and intelligence, conspiracy theory and P-A) is that they are controversial. You seem to get taken off of one article and then you go right into another one and do the same things. That's why probation is warranted for all articles. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 18:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

How is that "joining the edit war", I was the first person to note that specific point about the critics' view misstatement? I learned the article was contentious after I tried to add a small bit of clarity to it. How will I know if something is contentious or not unless I am bold and edit it? I did not support either side in the edit war. I am ok with the article being reverted if my fellow editors disagree with my changes but it's not my fault that other people are reverting to my version of the article. I applied my changes to both version of the article because I thought people were confusing my small change as being Benjamin Gatti's version. Anyway, all this detracts from and discourages improvement of Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act which needs to include a much more accurate and complete synopsis of the critics' view and position. zen master T 19:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen, you need to learn that it's how you do things that matters on Wikipedia more than anything else. You added the text, which is fine. But then I warned you. And then you readded it and then you did the revert. You need to learn to discuss things like that first. I almost wonder if the mentorship program would be appropriate for Zen. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 19:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You warned me against getting involved in the edit war which from my standpoint I did not. How is one revert to an article (when I assumed there was confusion) considered an edit war? After my last change was reverted I understood fellow editors disagreement with my specific proposed change so I headed to the talk page where fellow editors have yet to really directly address my point about critics' views being misstated. Also, some editors seem to be subtly arguing a very pro nuclear industry position (stating the act is "better") even though they separately claimed to be "flaming liberal", it doesn't add up. zen master T 19:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen. It's called arguing for a NPOV on an article. People can believe one thing but push for another because they are trying to make the article neutral. There is a principle here called writing for the enemy. It basically means that you believe one thing, but you write another in an effort to make an article NPOV. Ben's never understood that and I don't think you do either. It's a very good thing to learn. Am I a flaming liberal? Yes. But I want articles on here to be neutral, so I will write things into an article that I might not believe in an effort to make it NPOV. And by the way, what you did is considered getting involved in an edit war because you clearly said in the revert you did that you were reverting the consensus version because you didn't agree with it. So you were admittedly bucking a consensus. If that's not joining an edit war, I'm not sure what is. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 23:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV policy can't be used as some sort of justification for mischaracterizing or downplaying cited arguments. The core issue here is presentation accuracy for any summary of the critics' view. It's also worth pointing out the fact that misstating a cited source is a direct violation of NPOV policy. Feel free to argue on the talk page the act is "better" for the public in some way but don't mischaracterize the position of critics, they specifically argue forcing civil law (and presumably criminal violations too?) out of state court and into federal court was wrong, for multiple of reasons. Whether you claim to be a flaming liberal or not is irrelevant as far as understanding your argument and apparent duplicitous advocacy is concerned. I did revert the "consensus" version one time to specifically note my complaint that the intro was and is misstating the critics view (which is itself an NPOV violation). When that was reverted by someone else I become aware that you and others either disagree with my interpretation or you want to preserve the misstatement of the critics' view for some reason. zen master T 23:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

This page is not for content disputes. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 00:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, this page is for arguing some sort of policy violation has taken place, when you are prepared to do that please let me know. In fact, it seems to me supporters of that article are the ones violating policy here, mischaracterizing cited sources is not good. zen master T 02:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Um zen? Look at this. It's one of the things you were blocked a week before and put on probation for. it's the exact same thing here too. And if I wasn't making good points here, why would the arbcom be extending your probation? And you were also blocked/put on probation for misusing sources. It's all right here. Like I said, i wonder if you'd be a good mentoring candidate since it's clear that you still don't realize what's acceptable here and what isn't. You reverted a consensus version. That is edit warring no matter how you argue it. And I'm sure the arbcoms haven't seen this yet, but zen is now arguing for compiling a list of NPOV violations on Price-Anderson. I have a feeling we're going down *that* road again. This is the diff. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 08:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Woohoo, please point to specific edits of mine that violate policy. One possible explanation is some members of the arbcom are complicit in censorship etc. I was actually blocked for a week and placed on probation for interpreting an extremely biased, biasing and even racism inducing race and intelligence article. If there are two editors who disagree with your version of an article you can't claim there is a "consensus" version, see definition of consensus. What is wrong with compiling a list of NPOV policy violations? zen master T 11:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbcom, zen just basicaly said that you guys are complicit in censorship. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, he just blasted your decision on race and intelligence. We also have this diff on Price-Anderson where he basically calls me a liar or a hypocrite or being insincere or any other way you want to take it. Please commence the extension ASAP. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 11:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Where did arbcom say that? Where was my decision [do you mean my interpretation?] "blasted" on race and intelligence? I was blocked for "personal attacks" which is a convenient way of ignoring my fundamental criticisms of the article. No one has responded to my challenge to explain what appears to be a biased, biasing, and racism inducing method of presentation in race and intelligence -- compared to that the misstating of critics views and the regurgitation of pro nuclear industry talking points in Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act seems like small potatoes. zen master T 19:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Question

Zen was just blocked for violating 3RR on conspiracy theory. So has he violated probation? We have 4 votes now but I have no idea if that made it immediate or not or what the threshold was on this. The violations all came *after* the 4th vote went in. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 16:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to know if the probation has been expanded yet. I'm not sure how many "accept" votes are needed, but I do think it would be ideal if the probation was expanded by the time Zen-master's current 3RR block expires. Carbonite | Talk 17:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Otherwise, there is nothing to stop zen from doing this again. Btw looks like the block was extended to 48 hours so we have until sometime on Wednesday before he returns. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 17:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

InstantNood has continued his revert warring tactics since the closing of the ArbCom case. Rather than revert him and continue the game, I've reported it on WP:AN/I as instructed in the notice put on our talk pages [33].

InstantNood is filibustering [34] [35] there on the plain meaning of "any article which relates to China which you or they disrupt by inappropriate editing".

Can ArbCom make a statement that:

1. "Any article which relates to China" means exactly that, and is not somehow restricted in scope to previous articles brought up in the case
2. "disrupt by inappropriate editing" includes slow revert wars. Reverting once a day on schedule, or even returning weeks later to some old dispute to start reverting again (without discussion, of course), is inappropriate editing.

The filibustering makes any admin loathe to make a strong decision and enforce the terms of the probation that all parties to the case were put under. SchmuckyTheCat 21:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

IMHO there is little reason for the probation, as a decision of our ArbCom case, to extend to all China-related entries, including those that are not, or marginally, relevant to the issues that led to the case. If my action were disruptive, actions could be taken against me (and/or the other party/ies) no matter the problem were China-related or not. As for " InstantNood has continued his revert warring tactics since the closing of the ArbCom case ", the matters around the articles that SchmuckyTheCat has listed at WP:AN/I has been surfaced before the ArbCom case was closed, and are not relevant to the ArbCom case. — Insta ntnood 21:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood placed on probation

4) Instantnood 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 them from any article which relates to China which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. Instantnood must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. They may post suggestions on the talk page of any article they are banned from editing. This remedy is crafted to permit Instantnood continuing to edit articles in these areas which are not sources of controversy.

Any article related to China. Any administrator using their own judgement. You have wide discretion. Any of the mentioned examples could fall within that wide discretion. Fred Bauder 21:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Fred. Does that mean any of us ( user:Huaiwei, user:SchmuckyTheCat and I) could be placed on probation according to the ArbCom remedies as long as there's disruptive behaviour around any China-related entry, even if the entry/ies are not relevant to our ArbCom case? — Insta ntnood 07:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it means. Fred Bauder 14:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I must confess to being baffled: what part of any article which relates to China is unclear? I don't see a "but" or "except" or "other than" attached to that clause. -- Calton | Talk 07:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. As it was within the context of the remedy of an ArbCom case, it's reasonable to expect it refers to entries which relates to China that are relevant to the case itself. — Insta ntnood 08:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

As Wolfgang Pauli reportedly once said, that's not right, it's not even wrong. What part of the adjective any in that sentence did you misunderstand? -- Calton | Talk 14:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't think I've misunderstood anything. It was within the context of the remedy of the case. It's natural to have thought it refers to any article which relates to China that are relevant to the case. — Insta ntnood 20:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't think I've misunderstood anything. Clearly untrue, given your demonstration that the meaning of the three-letter adjective any continues to elude you. -- Calton | Talk 00:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom decided to ban Pigsonthewing ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one day. He is currently under a 48 hour block, should the ban run concurrently with the block, or should it be run consecutively? -- Phroziac _. o º ^{O ( mmmmm chocolate!)} 18:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Consecutively Raul654 18:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC) (you can safely assume that our blocks always run consecutively unless otherwise stated.) Raul654 18:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Mark, you're wrong there. Or at least, to put it another way, all ArbCom remedies are stated to run concurrently (unless explicitly stated to run consecutive). Every "Proposed decision" page clearly states "Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated". This has been the case for quite some time now. There's good reason for this being the case - eg Suppose Arbs were to vote both for a three month and a six month ban for exactly the same thing and it being argued that this really means a nine month ban.

Incidentally, I strongly recommend keeping the default where Arbs are silent on the matter aws being "concurrently". If Arbs bugger up, this is the least damaging default, jguk 23:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes our remedies run concurrently, but the 48 hour block was not imposed by us. So it kicks in after the current block. It is intended to be a reminder and must clearly visible and annoying to be effective (on the theory than any ban is effective). Fred Bauder 20:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Based on his talk page comments, I'm not forseeing a happy outcome here:

The arbitration commitee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing case. Raul654 18:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I shall treat that with the utter contempt that it deserves. Andy Mabbett 10:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

-- Calton | Talk 10:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just blocked Pigsonthewing for 48 hours for breaching his Arbcom ruling - the first block. See WP:AN/I for details of the excessive reverts. David | Talk 12:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Now instead of working on the Bogdanov Affair page, the users who were banned from editing the Bogdanov Affair (including CatherineV) are editing the talk page of the article instead. Can they be blocked for doing that or not? The RfAr decision isn't clear on that. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 17:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

This decision should be modified to include the talk page. Fred Bauder 13:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. I will hold off on doing anything until it is. We have Catherine and I'm pretty certain that LaurenceR is a sock of the Laurence blocked already for Bogdanov. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 15:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

What's the status on this? I don't mean to be pushy but the people who should be blocked from talking on the talk page are still talking on the talk page and until the decision is altered, I can't do anything about it. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 23:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Motion to extend ban to talk page

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Regarding_The_Bogdanov_Affair#Ban_on_editing_Bogdanov_Affair is extended to include the talk page of the article.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
2. ➥the Epopt 14:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Concur. Kelly Martin ( talk) 17:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
5. James F. (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

This is a message to the ArbCom team.

I have been advised that User:Poetlister was indefinitely banned because of being a suspected sock puppet of User:RachelBrown, which apparently was done because of a ruling by the Arbitration Committee. I asked to be directed to where this has happened, and no answer was given (in 6 hours). I have searched your archives and cannot find the existence of an arbitration against Poetlister, nor can I find any administrative notes regarding the lead up to this ban. Please can you direct me towards where this has happened.

The claim is that Poetlister and RachelBrown both voted in the same manner on up to 5 AFDs, and that this may have influenced closing admins. However, AFD is not a vote, so I do not see how this can be a bannable offence, even if they were the same person. If they were, they would be guilty of sock puppetry, which is bad, but surely not something which can be punished by an indefinite ban.

Secondly, RachelBrown last used Wikipedia on 10 December 2005, the last major contribution being 3 December 2005, yet Poetlister was banned on 22 December 2005, fully 2 weeks after RachelBrown last edited. As such, a claim of sock puppetry seems to be theoretically impossible, unless it is a historical case, as RachelBrown has not even edited anything for 2 weeks (3 weeks since any major edits). Thus, if there were any evidence of sock puppetry, it could only have happened prior to this.

Thirdly, RachelBrown, Poetlister and a 3rd user had lodged complaints with regards to the actions of Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, with support from SlimVirgin with regards to their editing of List of Jewish jurists, specifically that Lulu had violated 3RR, had spuriously added tags, had wiped useful content, had wrongly ignored evidence of claims and claimed WP:V violations on cited sources, and removed lists. At one point, Lulu deleted names from the list of people who were "Judge of the Supreme Court of Israel" claiming that there was no evidence that they were Jewish. Lulu also deleted names of people who were listed in the "Jewish Year Book", stating that if its not on the internet its not evidence, in spite of quotes and ISBN numbers given. Generally, Lulu failed to adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE and may have engaged in WP:No personal attacks against these users.

This case was at the stage of mediation, and Lulu refused mediation, meaning that it would then go forward to a Request for Comment, and may have ended up in the Arbitration Committee. In effect, it was already at the RfC stage, although this had not been formalised.

The blocking could be seen as a deliberate disruption of due process, and it needs to be explained in full, especially because of the nature of the behaviour of Lulu et al in relation to this. I note an existing ArbCom surrounding User:SlimVirgin, and this could potentially be added to that in some way. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure who Zordrac is, but I'm almost certain that s/he has a closer connection to RachelBrown/Poetlister than s/he is stating. Zordrac has taken in the last day to writing all over user talk pages scurrilous things about me, even though I've never interacted with this user (under this name) before. Just for the record:

Basically, every single thing claimed by Zordrac is false. By his own description, he's acting as a meatpuppet for Poetlister, at this point, so I guess that probably speaks to motives.

• I most certainly did not, at any point, violate 3RR on List of Jewish jurists. FWIW, I don't think RachelBrown/Poetlister did either (though I suppose if they are really sockpuppets, that might do it).
• I did not remove any listed name because Jewish Year Book is not a reliable source (even though it is probably not a reliable source). I removed some names, however, because no source whatsoever was provided (within the article namespace), including Jewish Year Book. Thankfully, Jayjg eventually fixed this lacuna by adding footnotes to JYB next to some of the names; I never removed any name so cited.
• Obviously, I never claimed that a Supreme Court Justice of Israel was not Jewish. I questioned whether a figure who did not apparently merit a WP article was notable (and asked why that particular justice, but not the dozens/hundreds of others who have served on that court).
• Clearly, RachelBrown/Poetlister were not new users when they started the "add names to Jewish lists" crusade. So biting newcomers is irrelevant.
• I also did not add the "disputed" tags to the page in question, that was RachelBrown/Poetlister. If anything, I argued that the more limited "accuracy" tag should be used rather than the "totallydisputed" tag.
• Elsewhere, Zordrac claims that Poetlister would have written an RfC one hour later if she had not been blocked. It's certainly a peculiarly detailed insight for an uninvolved editor to have about Poetlister's alleged plans.
• Zordrac/Poetlister/RachelBrown seem to subscribe to a silly idea that I am in some cabal to orchestrate a block. I had no idea a block was discussed or placed prior to being informed of such on my user talk page.

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note that this was a request for clarification directed to Arbitration Committee members, not to Lulu, who is not an arbitration member and hence is not someone whose input is welcome.

I have never met Poetlister or had any contact with any of the persons involved, and, as has been stated and proven elsewhere, my involvement was that I received an e-mail from Poetlister asking for me to help her, as I had helped out many other newbies in distress over similar incidents.

Lulu has gone to many places making false claims about me, which I believe has contributed to this problem. I ask that her comments here be disregarded as this is purely a request for clarification towards ArbCom members, rather than being an invitation to personal attacks from Lulu. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 19:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not connected with anyone here, but I'd very much like clarification on this mess too. Dan100 ( Talk) 20:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Everyking is currently arguing that his parole banning him from making comments on non-editorial actions does not actually contain any provision for enforcement, and thus there is no way to block him for doing so.

Since Everyking has also developed a strange habit of showing up on many pages I edit and to weigh in on whether situations are abusive in a wide variety of contexts, and has taken to badgering me every time he does not feel like he gets a response to one of his trolling questions in what he considers a timely manner, I request that the remedy be rethought somewhat - an explicit mechanism for blocks to be spelled out, certainly, and possibly an extension of the parole to include all cases of badgering or, as JImbo so eloquently put it, carping? Phil Sandifer 06:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

All Arbitration paroles are de facto enforceable via blocks imposed as necessary by non-involved administrators. Neutrality ^talk 06:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Raul654 18:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

In the Ed Poor/FuelWagon case, FuelWagon had been claiming for months that three valuable editors left in disgust as a result of Ed's mishandling of the Terri Schiavo mediation. Without getting into an argument about whether or not Ed mishandled the case (though I personally don't think he did), I would like to point out that it is untrue that User:A ghost left because of the events of mid-July. He stayed around for a while afterwards, contributing and collaborating, and then, when everything had settled down, he suddenly disappeared.

One of the arbitrators' "findings of fact" in this case is that "As a result of this dispute, multiple users (Ghost, Neuroscientist, Duckecho) have left Wikipedia". I pointed out on 12 December that there was no evidence that Ghost's departure was linked to the dispute, and suggested that it should read: "Duckecho, Neuroscientist, and possibly Ghost". At that stage, five arbitrators had signed it. The wording was not corrected. A sixth administrator endorsed it on 13 December, and a seventh on 21 December. Ghost came back on 22 December, and stated that he took a break because of work and family. The case was closed the next day, and the official verdict is still that Ghost left as a result of the dispute.

With so many thousands of words to wade through, I can't blame the arbitrators for missing the post in which I drew attention to this, but I think it should be corrected now. AnnH ^(talk) 01:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

As I read the final decision now, it reads a bit as if Ed Poor is being deadminned because he's also been debureaucrated and de-developered. That can't be entirely right. I understand he's been doing a lot of other things, and this is just the last straw? Could the arbitration committee please elucidate that in their decision, else people reading a year hence might end up slightly puzzled. Thanks in advance. Kim Bruning 23:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC).

See FOFs 1 and 4 Raul654 00:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The terms of the probation at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute_2 say:

3) SEWilco should not use a bot to convert citations on articles, nor should he manually 
convert citation styles on any articles.

I'd like to understand if this diff is a permissible use of a bot, or a violation of the arbcom decision. On the face of it it seems like a contravention of the decision. Is there something I'm missing? I have blocked the bot temporarily (24 hours) while trying to understand this issue. If I'm mistaken and this is a permissible use, any admin should feel free to undo the block (but please explain to me how to distinguish permissible from impermissible bot edits). Thanks, Nandesuka 15:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

SEWilco indicates on my talk page that he thinks its a permissible use because the article style already uses WP:FN. But the way the remedy is written is "should not use a bot to convert citations on articles" (emphasis added), not "convert articles". So if this use is permissible, a clarification is very much needed. Nandesuka 15:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The article already uses WP:FN style, and I created a citation where there had been none.. A URL link alone is not a citation. " complete citations — also called "references," because the citations identify the referred-to sources — are collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading". ( SEWilco 16:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC))

He is correct, the article is already using Wikipedia:Footnotes style. He is technically violating the arbitration remedy but the violation is harmless. I don't think we will modify the remedy, but the evil addressed is changing a bunch of articles that are in some other format to the footnotes format without concensus not the particular use here. As we impressed on SEWilco, at great length, merely technical violations may or may not be enforced. Fred Bauder 16:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

SEWilco is gaming. I just blocked RefBot indefinitely (second account created to evade ArbCom ruling) and SEWilco 48 hours (creating second account to evade ArbCom ruling) - David Gerard 18:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Another "finding of fact" accuses Ed of claiming falsely that FuelWagon's talk page contained personal attacks.

I originally queried that finding for two reasons – one that Ed had used the word "remarks", not "attacks", and two that FuelWagon between the moment of blocking and the moment that Ed protected his talk page had made 108 edits, many of them full of sarcasm and sneers (in my view). With regard to my first query, Raul654 referred me to the block log, where Ed did indeed use the word "attack". I accept that. I asked for further clarification here, as I felt that the words "claiming falsely" could give the impression that the ArbCom found FuelWagon's 108 posts acceptable. At the time that I queried it, five arbitrators had endorsed it. Two more have done so since then, and there has been no clarification.

Since FuelWagon has undoubtedly been guilty of violating WP:NPA on many occasions, it might seem relatively unimportant to make a judgment as to whether or not he was violating it on his talk page during his block on that particular date. I raise the issue again because it has been officially judged that Ed Poor made a false claim, and since making a false claim is a rather shabby thing to do, I think that perhaps the evidence could have been examined a little more thoroughly before reaching that official decision, or that the ArbCom should have given a little more clarification so that we could know on what grounds they judged that Ed's claim was "false".

On 12 December, I wrote as follows (in italics):

Do the five arbitrators who signed the proposed finding of fact all stand over the claim that none of the following

• SlimVirgin lies
• The benefits of adminship is never having to admit you're wrong and never having to say you're sorry
• Despite this laundry list of problems, SlimVirgin has NOT ONCE conceeded that there is ANY PROBLEM with ANY PART of his ENTIRE EDIT
• (SlimVirgin) also happens to be an administrator, which, apparently has its perks, not the least of which is never having to say your sorry for unrepentant bad edits or unrepentant false accusations
• SlimVirgin seemed to be throwing hand grenades at this point.
• I'm starting to get the distinct impression that one major perk of being an administrator is never having to admit you're wrong, never having to admit you made a bad edit, and NEVER having to apologize for your behaviour.
• And I just gotta wonder how much back-channel communication goes on between admins. Hey, SlimVirgin, did you know I got blocked because you were the one who requested it?
• I'm starting to get the distinct impression that we're dealing with a persecution complex. SlimVirgin accuses everyone of launching personal attacks against SlimVirgin if the editor does not wholeheartedly agree with SlimVirgin's edits.

contains any personal remarks?

I would ask you all please to take a little time to go through those posts, and perhaps reconsider your proposed finding of fact. I realize you may still decide that Ed was wrong to protect FuelWagon's talk page after the 108 posts (though I have known other admins to take similar action, and personally supported it), but at least it should be worded in such a way as not to accuse Ed of something which he did not do.

I would still like clarification on this "finding". If seven arbitrators judged that Ed made a false claim, does that mean that all seven found FuelWagon's 108 posts perfectly acceptable, or found them inappropriate but not attacks, or found them bordering on attacks but not quite attacks, or even just got bogged down with the enormous amount of evidence, and made an understandable error? I personally found that some of his posts were attacks, but if ArbCom members found that they were borderline rather than clear-cut, wouldn't it be fairer to say that Ed exaggerated, rather than the he made a false claim? AnnH ^(talk) 01:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's an exerpt from the email I sent the arbcom mailing list on December 13th regarding the issues you brought up: I don't believe any of the diffs she cited contain personal *attacks*, but a reasonable person could disagree with me on this point. They are personal remarks; whether or not they are attacks is - at best- debatable Raul654 05:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Raul654 for clarifying that. I still think that the wording chosen is too harsh on Ed. If you felt that "a reasonable person" could think they were personal attacks, then you must feel that Ed could reasonably have thought they were personal attacks. So the blunt wording that he claimed falsely etc. suggests that he (perhaps deliberately?) made an untrue assertion (perhaps as an excuse to protect the page without justification?). It reflects badly (and unfairly) on Ed, and I feel that wording should, at least, have been softened by suggesting that he simply exaggerated the seriousness of inappropriate remarks, or something like that. Otherwise, it suggests deliberate untruthfulness on Ed's part, rather than a sincere opinion which happens to differ (legitimately) from that of the ArbCom members. (I'd be a bit surprised to find that the seven members who endorsed that finding all felt that Ed made a false claim.)

On a related note, if it can be accepted that Ed blocked FuelWagon justly and protected the talk page in good faith, then perhaps his "I'm getting away with it because I've been around a long time" remark could be seen as tactless and imprudent rather than actually malicious. I've noticed that he tends to change his mind a lot. Note how he signed the RfC against SlimVirgin, and then unsigned it, blocked FuelWagon and then apologized, opposed Lord Voldemort's RfA and then supported it. I would see it as a tendency to occasionally act or speak first and think second, rather than actually think he can break rules because he's been around for a long time. AnnH ^(talk) 08:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Technically, the term of several ArbCom members expires December 31st. Because it was considered unwise to hold the elections during the holiday season, they have been delayed until the middle of January. This means that the new ArbCom could not feasibly be instated before February 1st. Am I correct to assume that this means the present ArbCom stays in function for another month to cover the gap? It doesn't seem problematic to me, but I thought I'd ask. R adiant _>|< 22:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

We'll just soldier on til something happens. Fred Bauder 22:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Umm. I'm sorry? "it was considered unwise to hold the elections during the holiday season"? By whom? When? And why on Earth is there a departure by the community from the rules that they seemed so obsessed with following regarding elections in the first place? Those are the more interesting questions to be asking. We serve at Jimbo's pleasure, and will continue to do so until we give him our resignation, he asks us to stop, or he explicitly replaces us. Don't worry about that. :-)

IMO, it seemed that nobody could be fagged to go through the bother of carrying out the voting, rather than any particular active deicison against holding the election at the normal time... but that's merely my opinion, of course.

James F. (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Since you asked - it was considered by the (admittedly few) people who joined the discussion on the ArbElect talk page and ANI, after Jimbo requested that a RFA-like process be used for this year's election, and before that by some people on Jimbo's talk page during the time that Jimbo had stated the elections would be done different this year, but had not informed the community of how. R adiant _>|< 00:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I imagine the current arbcom will remain seated until an alternative is in place, because that is by far the most sensible thing to do, and we are above all ruled by sense. Phil Sandifer 01:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Fred's comment just about sums it up best - we'll continue to do what we have been doing until the community and Jimbo come to some kind of decision. Raul654 22:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Do the decisions make by members of the arbitration committee during the gap period possess any legal validity? — Insta ntnood 21:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Legal validity isn't at issue, as far as I can see. Wikipedia is run by a private organization free to set its own rules or lack thereof, and if that organization says the ArbCom's rulings are binding in this interim period, then they are. Of course, that doesn't mean anything outside of Wikipedia and maybe other sites Wikimedia has a hand in, but no-one has ever claimed otherwise as far as I can tell. PurplePlatypus 21:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

By talking about legal validity I'm not talking about laws in the real world, but the character that the arbitration committee is making binding decisions like rulings of a legal body. — Insta ntnood 22:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

If we wanted to waste the time of some rather busy people, we could ask for a determination from the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation that the present ArbCom should continue working until elections are held. On the other hand, it strikes me that applying common sense is a much more efficient way to achieve the same result. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 21:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

We cannot assume something as such, since rulings of the arbitration committee are only valid when and only they're made by its members whose terms of office have not yet expired. Of course the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation can make a determination, but procedurally we cannot assume the members are still having the authority unless the Board has already made such a determination. — Insta ntnood 22:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

See, this is where even I - much more of a believer in having the rules spelled out clearly and applied consistently than, apparently, many members of the current ArbCom - think you're being rather silly. Procedural technicalities are explicitly not the way Wikipedia is run, and even I think that's all to the good. While I have had some harsh words for the current ArbCom, those go more to the kind of culture they seem to be encouraging and enforcing. I see no issues with their mandate in and of itself, even if it gets extended for a couple of extra months. PurplePlatypus 23:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I posted some of my concerns about what I am worried is narrow and inflexible wording used in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine decision on the talk page there, but I got no answer unfortunately. Now it seems that User:Ultramarine and User:172 are starting the revert war back up again. This is problematic since the decision does not list 172 as a user who may be blocked for reverting. I'm warning the users not to engage in sterile revert warring but I think some clarification or revision of that decision is badly needed. -- Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think that the decision has solved little. Some of the involved editors seem to have left Wikipedia. However, other who edited constructively as long as the arbitration case was open have now again started to blankly delete well-referenced material. They have now deleted many extremely well-referenced statements and whole sections of the prior article. I try to discuss the differences but they refuse to give sources for their statements and claims which makes reaching any consensus difficult. I would greatly appreciate if Wikipedia policies such as Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view would be uphold. I see no way out of the current controversy until the arbitration committee makes this clear also for this maybe very politicaly sensitive article. Unfortunately, the other side seems to respect Wikipedia policy only when there is an ongoing case.

I would also request that Ryan Delaney should be prohibited from applying any remedies, since he and I have longstanding issues regarding other articles and he unfortunately seems to be stalking me. Ultramarine 10:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have also suggested moving the contents to other articles that maybe have better and less POV names, as this may resolve some issues, but they insist that all the criticisms of communism should be in this article, which they now claim ownership of and as noted refuse to engage in factual discussions and refuse to give sources for claims. Ultramarine 10:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I support Ryan's efforts. The dispute indeed is quite sterile and it is time to just write a new article. I posted a note on the talk page stating a pledge to follow the "one-revert rule on the page" and asking Ryan to enforce my pledge as a mutual agreement between the two of us. [36] On that note, IMO the Arbcom decision could have been far more helpful. I think a much more sweeping decsion would have been order, such as a ban on editing that editor binding on just anyone who has ever edited it, including myself. 172 10:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, Ryan Delaney selectively decided to not block 172 when he reverted the article from the earlier stable version. However, Ryan Delaney has now stated on the discussion page that he will without warning block any editor that attempts to change 172's version, regardless if they were mentioned in the arbcom case or not. He and 172 has now effectively locked the article into their preferred version indefinitely. So its is not surprising that 172 supports "Ryan's efforts" regarding selective blocking and thus sees no need to engage in any meaningful discussions on the talk pages or such things as source citations in order to reach a consensus. Ultramarine 12:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, if 172 reverts, I'm blocking him too, since he basically gave me permission to do so. However, this Arbcom decision dosen't really give me the authority to do that, which is the problem I am trying to address here. -- Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

While I am recused from this matter I suggest that Ultramarine and others adopt the framework of 172's version and then negotiate how much detail, as opposed to links to specific articles, ought to be included from the other version which I find quite crowded with excessively detailed, sometimes controversial information. I too am disappointed with the ArbCom decision. After I recused because 172 was involved, they went ahead and crafted a solution which did not include 172. Fred Bauder 15:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that Ultramarine and others adopt the framework of 172's version and then negotiate how much detail, as opposed to links to specific articles, ought to be included from the other version... This is a good proposal. Criticisms of communism is one of the most important subjects on discourse in 20th century world history found in any encyclopedia. An excellent final product will have the structure of the 'Pmanderson, and Robert A., and Mihnea Tudoreanu version' and much of the content of the Ultramarine version.' Just a minor correction... There is no '172 version' of the article. The version that I restored was the work mostly of Pmanderson, and Robert A., and Mihnea Tudoreanu. My involvement in the article was very minimal between around September, except for the first few days following the creation of the article, and yesterday. 172 21:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I would be glad to discuss any changes, hopefully you could include some views since you are recused. However, I do not see how the current stalemate can be broken as long as there is blank denial of such basic concepts such as Verifiablity. Please see this section which is the most recent attempt to factually discuss 172's version (Note that this is weeks before the current attempts to simply blankly revert) [37]. Ultramarine 16:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I just don't have time. The arbitration committee has the usual backlog and even cases out of the backlog could still use work. I would not strongly insist on verifiability for all elements of the article. Sometimes insights regarding the structure of an article are not easily verified such as treatment of the controversy on the left regarding appropriate treatment of the shortcomings of Communist practices. However, it is not impossible. For example, see page xiv in the Author's Notes of The Rosenberg File, ISBN 0030490367 Fred Bauder 16:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I can agree that verifiability can and should not always be included, for example for obvious logical arguments. However, I think you have previously supported such issues as including the more prominent critics of communism. As noted, they only name left-wing critics of communism and they refuse to name or include the views of other critics. Another example, they refuse to mention any arguments that the Communist states were related to Marxist ideology and only mentions arguments against this. Unfortunately, I do not see how consensus can be achieved as long they blankly refuse to include such basic issues. Ultramarine 17:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they should give some too. Khruschev honestly believed he was building communism following the principles of Lenin and Marx, as did Breshnev. God knows what Stalin believed, but probably he felt himself to be a practical man with common sense. So it is rather obvious that Marxism is intimately related to Communist practice. How, is the question. Fred Bauder 17:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see some of this go to the talk page of Criticisms of communism. In the mean time, I need to stress that suggestions -- like the one that you well-meaningly posted above, or that Arbcom posted in their ruling -- are not going to resolve this dispute, as is evident by the revert war having started again, and my being unable to really do anything about it. -- Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The previous discussion [38] was removed because it was considered " answered " [39]. Nevertheless the matter was not actually answered, that, it wasn't made clear whether the terms of office of the members had been extended or not, except that many users had assumed as such. Some wikipedians may think it's just common sense, and I agree. But it doesn't take much effort for the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation to make an official announcement, to avoid all possible troubles and challenges in future. — Insta ntnood 10:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee upheld/confirmed/retroactively authorized an indefinate block of Rainbowwarrior1977 in a previous RfAr, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rainbowwarrior1977 closed on October 27th. The same individual has been indef blocked under at least five other abusive accounts Musachachado, CelineDionFan82, Pamstar, TheDeletator, and Shelburne_Kismaayo, for a variety of reasons, all of which are set out in the original RfA (except Shelburne, which was a sock used to take revenge on Redwolf24 via RfC). There is at least one other known sock ( User:SamuraiBoywithaDrugProblem) which has been used for similar harassment.

The individual has now returned under the username Brandonfarb, and admitted to being the same individual. This has been known for quite some time, but as the original decision (i.e., whether the individual is banned under any username, or under only the blocked usernames) is unclear, he has not been blocked. He has now returned to his same established behavior by harassing me in a variety of ways. I would like quick clarification of the ban status; if it is a full ban, the reincarnations may be blocked on sight, if it is not, then a new RfAr needs to be filed. I apologize for having to bother the ArbCom with this, but it seems to be the only way to get a clear ruling on whether or not reincarnations may be blocked. -- Essjay · Talk 15:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The Shelburne Kismayo account was used to certify the RfC that was brought by Wiki brah ( talk · contribs) sepreately from RW1977, and if I recall correctly, he confirmed that he was not Wiki brah shortly thereafter. Just clarifying.-- Sean| Bla ck 23:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, he apologized to Red under this account, apparently wanting to redeem himself. Looks like that has not come to fruition, unfortunately.-- Sean| Bla ck 23:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Any new account or sock may be banned indefinitely, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rainbowwarrior1977#Indefinite_ban Fred Bauder 00:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That was my reading of the decision as well, but there were objections raised the last time one of his socks was banned, and I wanted to be sure before I placed a block and created a situation. I will block the offender immediately. My thanks to the committee for thier quick response. -- Essjay · Talk 15:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

"X) Everyking shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Snowspinner, on any page in Wikipedia. Should he do so, he may be blocked by any administrator (other than Snowspinner) for a short time, up to one week; after the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year."

Just to make sure I've got the nitty gritty details right, Everyking is permitted to edit articles that Snowspinner edits as well under the following conditions:

1. Everyking follows the same rules everyone else does.
2. Everyking does not revert Snowspinner's edits, or target them for removal or modification in anyway.
3. Everyking does not engage Snowspinner in discussion, or discuss his edits, on any page, and/or edit summaries
4. Everyking avoids non-incidental interaction Snowspinnner, as outlined by the above.

--That sound about right?-- Tznkai 04:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Everyking does not engage Snowspinner in discussion, or discuss his edits, on any page, and/or edit summaries" -- not quite. Everyking is not to mention, gesture, indicate, or gesticulate in any way that implies Snowspinner or any action taken by Snowspinner (including, but not limited, to Snowspinner's edits). Raul654 04:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

So replace "edits" with exitence or actions, and discussion with an exhasutive list of communication mediums?-- Tznkai 05:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Raul654 07:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be kinda like how my dog gets along with my cats. She spends most of her time denying the existance of the cats -- walking right past them without so much as glancing at them. They're not there; nope, no cats here. For her to acknowledge their presence would cause intolerable conflict in her doggy mind -- she'd have to lash out, make some sort of gesture, bark in the middle of the night. For the sake of domestic tranquility, she's opted instead to take a stance of total non-involvement with the cats. Everyking is the dog; Snowspinner is the cats. Everyking can do pretty much whatever he wants; just don't acknowledge or react to Snowspinner. All rules are off if the cats start the fight, however. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 18:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place, but I would like to request an injunction against Everyking posting on my talkpage. I've asked him several times to stop, and once he agreed to, but every time I log on, there he is again, insisting that I cease persecuting the "wronged" and "excellent" editor Hollow Wilerding (currently indefinitely blocked). IMO this has crossed the line into harrassment, see [40], [41] (a different page, important for context), [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]. He largely ignores my replies. Compare the remedy in Everyking 3 that "Everyking is required to familiarize himself with the particulars of a situation before commenting on it"; if he's even been clicking on the informative links I've been posting for him, he isn't showing any signs of it. Please note that my page is not the only, or the most relevant, venue for him to criticize my admin actions, even though he's banned from AN and ANI; there's a current Requests for comment/Bishonen about this very case, which I have several times recommended him to take his pro-Hollow Wilerding anti-Bishonen campaign to. (He does get to post on RFC's, see remedy 3.) Bishonen | talk 17:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

Here's the latest example of this "harassment": "OK, what are your arguments? I want us to agree on a compromise. Isn't that reasonable? Let's see if we can reconcile our arguments and be pragmatic here. Everyking 15:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)" I think if you're going to block someone, especially someone with a history of excellent contributions, you need to be willing to discuss it. I guess Bish does not want her block to be questioned, so she is going to this measure because she knows the ArbCom have a history of penalizing me for any and all reasons. I can simply unblock HW if I want, yet I have not done so, because I want to handle this amicably. Everyking 17:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Context, James, context. I'm done with asking you to refrain from misleading rhetoric or to respond to the points I make (because I fucking well have tried to discuss the case with you, up hill and down dale, as you must know), but I'll ask others to check out the context for your "latest example". Bishonen | talk 18:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the standing block on HW is my block. Phil Sandifer 18:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've told James that. I've told him lots of facts, but I don't see any of it getting through. Bishonen | talk 18:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It just seems relevent as it's possible that this is an extension of his past behavior. Phil Sandifer 18:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've warned Everyking twice that I intend to help enforce the ruling that he shouldn't comment on any of Snowspinner's actions, even indirectly, and I've already blocked him once for violating it. [49] I see this as another violation, because the block that he's trying to persuade Bishonen to overturn is Snowspinner's. [50] I therefore warned him again today, [51] which he acknowledged reading, [52] but he made another comment about the block anyway, [53] so I've blocked him for 48 hours. [54] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Zen-master is on probation regarding all articles. Does that include pages in the Wikipedia namespace? The reason I'm asking is that he's recently been active in some (rather spurious) policy proposals. R adiant _>|< 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I am interested in hearing any evidence or argument Radiant can come up with that explains and justifies his labeling Peter's WP:0RR guideline or any other "policy" proposal I've "recently been active in" as being "spurious". I will also note the coincidence that Peter is unable to defend his guideline against charges of being "spurious" as he was just blocked for 24 hours for accusing Carbonite of being a "troll" because Carbonite initially moved the WP:0RR guideline to Peter's user namespace because of a header dispute (among other actions that are seemingly unbecomming of an admin and don't appear to have been done with an assumption of good faith in mind). Feel free to disagree with any guideline but please don't thwart its acceptance by others. zen master T 23:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master#Zen-master_placed_on_probation includes any page other than his own user and talk pages. Whether he is being disruptive is up to the determination of the banning administrator. Any ban should be logged and documented. Fred Bauder 23:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

But some actual reasonable argument has to be attempted that explains specifically how I have, if ever, been "disruptive". Instead of repeating labels over and over again why don't you or someone get down to specifics? Please note WP:Probation policy: "A [probation] ban may be imposed only for good cause which shall be documented in a section set aside for that purpose in the arbitration case. Banning without good cause or in bad faith shall be grounds for censure, restriction, or removal of administrative access". At this point I interpret everytime I've been labeled as "disruptive" was and is some sort of misdirection ploy so people don't focus on numerous highly biased and biasing articles, with the most notable and nefarious example being race and intelligence. zen master T 01:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The terms of the probation at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute_2 say:

3) SEWilco should not use a bot to convert citations on articles, nor should he manually 
convert citation styles on any articles.

I'd like to understand if this diff is a permissible use of a bot, or a violation of the arbcom decision. On the face of it it seems like a contravention of the decision. Is there something I'm missing? I have blocked the bot temporarily (24 hours) while trying to understand this issue. If I'm mistaken and this is a permissible use, any admin should feel free to undo the block (but please explain to me how to distinguish permissible from impermissible bot edits). Thanks, Nandesuka 15:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

SEWilco indicates on my talk page that he thinks its a permissible use because the article style already uses WP:FN. But the way the remedy is written is "should not use a bot to convert citations on articles" (emphasis added), not "convert articles". So if this use is permissible, a clarification is very much needed. Nandesuka 15:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The article already uses WP:FN style, and I created a citation where there had been none.. A URL link alone is not a citation. " complete citations — also called "references," because the citations identify the referred-to sources — are collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading". ( SEWilco 16:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC))

He is correct, the article is already using Wikipedia:Footnotes style. He is technically violating the arbitration remedy but the violation is harmless. I don't think we will modify the remedy, but the evil addressed is changing a bunch of articles that are in some other format to the footnotes format without concensus not the particular use here. As we impressed on SEWilco, at great length, merely technical violations may or may not be enforced. Fred Bauder 16:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

SEWilco is gaming. I just blocked RefBot indefinitely (second account created to evade ArbCom ruling) and SEWilco 48 hours (creating second account to evade ArbCom ruling) - David Gerard 18:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

That is incorrect. RefBot is my third account, not second. It was not created to evade the ArbCom ruling; not only was it created before the ArbCom ruling, and the ruling does not distinguish between my accounts, but actually User:RefBot was created because its abilities are becoming too specialized for the utility account User:SEWilcoBot. So far 0.5% of the Admins have been involved, and it would save everyone effort if you'd ask questions before acting in ignorance. ( SEWilco 01:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC))

Clarification necessary

The phrasing "convert citations on articles, nor should he manually convert citation styles on any articles." is overly ambiguous. I've been blocked due to following WP:CITE and defining a missing citation in an article which uses WP:FN. Apparently any change from [[http://example.com/]] to {{ref|example.com}} is not allowed. Is changing * John Smith: "My Autobiography" to * Smith, John: "My Autobiography" allowed? There are many things which can be called "citations" and "citation styles", such as changing (pp. 33-41) to (Smith pp. 33-41) when content changes make the first format incorrect. The discussion had only mentioned a few situations. ( SEWilco 01:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC))

Yes, your block was over a technicality. I suggest that before you run a bot doing any of the things you suggest you, and others, hammer out on the policy pages a definite policy which establishes whatever format is under discussion as agreed policy. This matter is really over that, proceeding prior to establishment of a definite policy. It may be no policy can be agreed on. In that case, just wait. Fred Bauder 14:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it already agreed that an article should use one format, and editors should follow that format? That's what I was doing when adding a WP:FN citation to an article in WP:FN format. ( SEWilco 15:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC))

On second thought, looking at the above comment I made. That is a kind of Breshnev comment, "stagnation should continue..." I really don't think that is going to get us anywhere. However you have a knack of coming up with formats that I and, probably others, don't like. Fred Bauder 14:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I and the others using WP:FN come up with those formats (used in 3 of most recent 10 WP:FAC). And WP:CITE repeatedly emphasizes that complete citations should exist, yet when I add full citations they sometimes (rarely) get deleted without that deletion being acknowledged as being an improper action. I can easily add citations which are not linked from the appropriate text, but then updating references and citations manually becomes quite difficult (try finding the citation for the 8th note in Global cooling, then imagine the same format for the 44th note in (old:Killian documents)). Manual edits are likely to orphan old citations and reduce Verifiability. ( SEWilco 15:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC))

The ruling is quite clear, that you should not change citation styles. While this was obviously referring to your insistence on removing inline citations, if you are in any doubt at all, then you should avoid making any changes. This is not the page to try to argue that your preferred style is the better one. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The phrasing of the ruling is simple, but the ruling not clear. The meanings of "convert", "citation", and "style" are ambiguous. "Citation" can mean the phrasing or WikSyntax description of source material in text, the "complete citation" ( WP:CITE phrasing about what often goes in a "References" section) which provides details about a source, or the conceptual connection between text and "complete citation". "Convert" can mean rearranging, adding, moving, or deleting all or part of entries. So far only 3 Arbs have agreed that in an article using WP:FN for all other citations that the move of a single URL to a full citation with a WP:FN link is to "convert" the information (I saw it as addition or maintenance, not conversion). Is adding a full citation without linking to it a "conversion" or addition? "Style" can mean the WikiSyntax used, the exact or similar visual appearance on the page, the general patterns (numbered or bulleted lists, sorted order, journal vs news phrasing, consistent or chaotic lists), specific patterns used (author name format, standard publication names, phrasing (chapter/ch.,pages/p./pp.)). The ambiguities are also apparent in the ongoing consolidation of WP:CITET: is changing template parameters from uppercase ("Author=") to lowercase ("author=") a violation? Such a change can be a violation on several levels: Discussion of a conversion can cause change, changing a template can cause changes in citations in several ways, and replacing "Author=" with "author=" in article citations is a citation change. Is a (rhetorical) merge of {{ news reference}} and {{ journal reference}} which requires translation to [[Template:published reference]] a violation? (Actually, all WP:CITET is being consolidated toward a single template) ( SEWilco 16:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC))

Please assume the broadest possible interpretation. We will back up any administrator that blocks you under a broad interpretation. Meanwhile help work out policy. Fred Bauder 18:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that SEWilco did list his bot account for approval at Wikipedia talk:Bots at 19:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC). Am I to presume that he should not be permitted to use this bot due to the ArbCom ruling? -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

After reading comments above, I will make note in the request page that his bot is not approved due to ArbCom rulings. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Since this is the place to request clarification on matters related to the arbitration process, I figured I might try to draw attention to three unanswered questions of mine on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Xed 2/Proposed decision. It concerns a question about a proposed remedy of a year-long ban, one about the proposed finding of fact that Snowspinner be commended for his course of action in this case, and one about the beginnings of this case in general. The first two were placed on December 21, 2005 and the third on December 23, 2005.

Now, I don't know how long it usually takes the arbitrators to get to questions like that, so I hope I'm not too impatient (if I am, I sincerely apologize), but especially since the motion to close has been started I thought it wouldn't hurt to draw attention to the three questions here. Thanks very much. — mark ✎ 21:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Things slow down if we are disagreeing and having trouble. Fred Bauder 02:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'll have some more patience, then; just had to hear that the questions were not being ignored. — mark ✎ 08:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What the....Fred, you just voted to close the case. How can you reconcile that with your statement above? Everyking 08:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Four days later, and I'm still waiting. One arbitrators has now addmitted that 'one year may a bit long', but has supported the remedy anyway and proceeded to vote to close the case, just like Fred did; so two arbitrators have voted to close the case since I put this question here to get some attention. What am I to make of this? Is this the way to reduce the workload? — mark ✎ 08:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the election may have something to do with this. All other things seems to have slowed to a crawl too. Fred Bauder 18:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I might as well note here that I also have have some questions about this case pending on the discussion pages. Particularly as to the specific factual finding which provides the basis for a one-year ban. Is the basis "incivility", as it presently appears, or something else? If so, is the ban based solely on the use of the words "weasel", "propagandist", and "lying" presented in the factual findings. Or is there a broad pattern of recent personal attacks which was inadvertently not entered as an official finding? Derex 20:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: I'm posting this here because it concerns Zephram Stark's ArbCom case. I also wanted the entire ArbCom to be aware of this request so that there are no implications that I singled out certain arbitrators to perform this sockpuppet check.

I'm requesting that the ArbCom confirm whether Peter McConaughey ( talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of banned Zephram Stark ( talk · contribs). I believe there's more than enough evidence to warrant use of CheckUser:

• Zephram Stark was banned on 12 November 2005 (for six months). Peter's first edit was on 23 November 2005.

• Both editors focused on terrorism (Zephram on Terrorism, Peter on American terrorism), Declaration of Independence (United States) and Inalienable rights. Taking a look at the history of Inalienable rights shows very similar edits and edit summaries on this low-traffic article.

• Both editors are extremely vocal about alleged administrative abuse and are prone to Wikilawyering and long diatribes.

• Both editors have used original diagrams to illustrate their points. Peter Image:Organization_layout.gif and Zephram created Image:IAR.gif.

• Both editors have entered in conflicts with many of the same users. Besides myself, Peter has also been in conflict with User:Commodore Sloat, even denying that he was Zephram with the same use of sexual innuendo [55] that Zephram commonly used. Carbonite | Talk 13:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Any doubt that Peter is not a sockpuppet of Zephram should be put to rest with this evidence. On 10 November 2005, Zephram created Coving. This obscure article has only been edited twice more, most recently by Peter McConaughey on 20 December 2005 [56].

• Peter has commented [57] about CheckUser:

"The Cabal is hoping that vague innuendo will be enough to create an official case. After they gain the legal right to snoop my personal information, they will be free to reveal what they already know. Don't be surprised to hear something along the lines of, "We had no idea about this before the case opened, but look what we have discovered now that we have a legal right to investigate the personal information about this editor!"

Of course, none of the information they reveal will be direct or a threat to Wikipedia in any way, but it will be enough to hang me in the court of public opinion. We all have skeletons in our closet."

Though this comment seemed like paranoia when I first read it, it makes much more sense due to his status as a sockpuppet of a banned user. There's more circumstantial evidence, but I believe this should be sufficient for a CheckUser. Carbonite | Talk 13:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: Additional IP info on Zephram can be found in his RfC. Carbonite | Talk 13:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I could not get anything from Checkuser today on either of them. Fred Bauder 14:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming this a server/database issue and that when CheckUser is back online this information may be available. Is this correct? If so, what would you recommend doing until CheckUser is back online? I'm very concerned that Peter/Zephram is (and has been) causing a good deal of disruption by circumventing his ban. Carbonite | Talk 14:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

CheckUser relies upon recent changes, which is the only store of IP addresses within the database. If the information is not in the recent changes cache, then it is not available to those using CheckUser. Rob Church ^Talk 01:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I support looking into this user for the reasons Carbonite suggested. My suspicions began after a few repeated instances of nonsense from this user on the World Islamic Front discussion page. The nonsense is accompanied with a supposedly authoritative chart that he only later in the discussion admitted was of his own creation. I haven't looked at his other edits but my sense on this page is that he is, as another editor noted above, needling people to try to pick fights over non-issues. It reminded me of another user, who coincidentally stopped editing a couple weeks before Peter M started editing. It looks like at least two of Peter M's obsessions are the same as Zephram's were -- terrorism and the Declaration of Independence. When I voiced my suspicions, his response was telling -- very much in the style of Zephram's writing. Other recent irrelevant comments about my sex life (see also here) and further comments in his edit summary seeming to call out Jews and Muslims in an inflammatory manner provide more evidence to me confirming my suspicion that he may be User:Zephram Stark. Then there is the sheer nonsense -- at one point he asked about a perceived inconsistency in the article. I responded with a quite simple (and obvious) answer. His response was some bizarre reference to " death-eaters".

After this discussion proceeded and it became clear that he could not defend his position adequately, another user mysteriously appears. I believe this other user to be a sockpuppet too. User:MACMILLAN entered the discussion out of the blue, changing the article and obnoxiously claiming " I AM A TERRORIST EXPERT" in his edit summary, and on the discussion page claiming to have seen additional translations of a document that we were discussing there. When pressed, he did not produce any additional translations, nor defend his alleged expertise at all. His user page claims that his name is "Gabriel MacMillan," certainly not a known name of any terrorism expert. He would not answer when pressed for details about the translation he claims to have seen or about his own expertise (publications, even conferences attended). The community of scholars in counterterrorism is not large, and while I do not consider myself an "expert," my own work touches on these issues, and I have researched the documents in question, and I find no support whatsoever for his claim that there are alternate translations of this document available. What really gave it away for me is a catchphrase commonly used by Zephram, also used both by Peter McC and by MACMILLAN, as a way of disingenuously avoiding actually discussing issues on the page: something to the effect of "my main interest is in improving the quality of the article, not fighting with you". Compare MACMILLAN, Peter, Peter, Peter, and of course Zephram. (There are many more examples of Zephram using similiar phrases in this way if you look through his edit history around August-September 2005).

Finally there is one more editor whose work is suspicious here, and that is User:The Random Element. His user page reminds me very much of Zephram's old user page, with its meandering parables. He entered the debate on this page and Peter stepped in supposedly to mediate between myself and him (which is where the "Jews" comment came in). Taking a look at his edit history, I see some strange edits as well as obnoxious examples of WP:POINT. This user may not be Zephram - there is not enough information to tell - but I would take a look at his IP as well if possible.

Overall I have found Peter McC's edits to be destructive to Wikipedia, and his comments in Talk are what led me to the conclusion that he is the same sock puppeteer as the person behind Zephram Stark. One final piece of evidence - when challenged on this point he at one point claimed to have "researched him" (Zephram) and pointed misleadingly to Zephram's edits on Wikispecies, a different site. Apparently Zephram is on that site causing trouble as well, making graphical charts that look similar to the one produced by Peter here. He is apparently writing a Wikibook also. I think Peter's link to this page (rather than to Mr. Stark's ubiquitous activities here at Wikipedia) is an obvious attempt to feign ignorance of Stark's disruption of wikipedia in previous months.-- csloat 22:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

24.147.97.230 was banned for three months for edit warring on Ted Kennedy. The same edits are now being made to Ted Kennedy and Rosemary Kennedy by User:24.147.103.146. These are both Comcast static IP addresses in Massachusetts. If a banned anonymous editor uses a neighbor's cable modem to edit, is that considered a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet? Robert McClenon 12:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

One often cannot know, but if it acts like a duck, treat it as a duck, which is to say, the remedies in the decision apply to the new puppet. Fred Bauder 15:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, it says that "Deliberations are often held privately, but Arbitrators will make detailed rationale for all their decisions public." In the recent case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others, this was not done with respect to the remedy Herschelkrustofsky placed on Probation; my user name appears only in the remedy (i.e., no finding of fact, or other explanation of, or justification for, the penalty.) I would like to request that the ArbCom correct this oversight. -- HK 07:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually see detailed rationales publicly available for any recent cases. Has this fallen by the way (perhaps as a result of the backlog), or am I simply not looking in the right place? PurplePlatypus 07:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen detailed rationales. You usually just get a terse sentence or two. Everyking 07:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

A terse sentence or two would be a substantial improvement. I believe that a finding of fact is normally de rigueur. -- HK 15:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I am trying very, very hard to WP:AGF here. If there's something I've missed I genuinely want to know about it. Having said that, there does appear to be a lot of resistance to the idea that there should be some accountability here, and I have a hard time understanding that to say the least. PurplePlatypus 08:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that there can be differences of opinion as to how much detail there should be. With as many cases that are as messy as the current backlog is, the statements of principles, findings of fact, and remedies are as much as I would expect. It does appear that in this particular case, the ArbCom accidentally omitted a finding of fact. User:Herschelkrustofsky had been on POV parole from the Lyndon LaRouche 2 case. The ArbCom probably intended to find as fact that he had violated the terms of the POV parole. I have not reviewed the evidence, but it appears that the action taken by the ArbCom is exactly what they would have done if they had found that he had violated the parole. I would suggest that the ArbCom re-open the case only to add that finding as the basis for the remedy. Robert McClenon 16:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the Nobs01 and others case is more-or-less an extension of the previous LaRouche cases- as such, I think you can use the findings there as further evidence for this remedy.-- Sean| Bla ck 20:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

We tightened up the Herschelkrustofsky remedy a bit, but the other remedies are based on the behavior of the different individuals involved. Nobs01, for example, was banned on the basis of personal attacks, not for the sort of idiosyncratic original research involved in the La Rouche cases. Fred Bauder 21:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The original wording of the remedy, as authored by Fred Bauder, hinted at the actual reason for the probation: "In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by Herschelkrustofsky with the decisions reached in this case, and the apparent lack of insight into any role his own behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems which gave rise to this case, he is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation." I had expressed strong (although not uncivil) opinions on the Workshop page, to the effect that the ArbCom was playing favorites by imposing servere sanctions on User:Rangerdude, and a "get out of jail free card" to User:Cberlet, when as far as I could see, the misconduct of these two users was more or less equivalent. There was no remedy contemplated against me until I expressed this opinion. Subsequently, arbitrator Raul654 removed this explanation, calling it "controversial," and replaced it with... no explanation. Then the remedy was voted up. Under the policies enunciated in Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, I am asking for some sort of formal (and public) explanation of why I am being sanctioned in this matter. -- HK 07:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Would constantly making trouble serve? Fred Bauder 16:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out this signpost article to the ArbCom, which is about public opinion on holding admins accountable for their actions. R adiant _>|< 20:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears that none of the remedies in this case have actually been implemented so far. Does anyone know what happened? -- TML1988 23:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In Nobs01's case, he hasn't posted since 12/23, which is when the decision became final. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 06:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

But what about the other remedies? For example, Cognition has made many posts after the decision came down, and Lyndon LaRuche 2 has not been touched since last February. -- TML1988 15:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the case was not closed properly. Fred Bauder 15:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Then can someone "clean up the mess"? -- TML1988 02:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've heard some users comment on a lack of people with CheckUser rights, and I notice a backlog of about a week on the CheckUser board. As such, I was wondering if the ArbCom intends to extend CheckUser rights to some of the new Arbiters. R adiant _>|< 02:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we have been discussing giving it to one person (a non-arbitrator) for the last day or so. We'll probably soon end up giving it to some of the new arbitrators too. Raul654 02:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering the fact that a certain previous arbitrator has been doing most of the checkuser requests for awhile now is it to be assumed also that the arbcom is happy with allowing those who already have it to keep it despite not having a current position on the arbcom? Jtkiefer ^{T | C | @} ---- 02:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

While I was still on, I did say I'd happily give it up if asked (though I'd rather not), but that Kelly at least should definitely keep it 'cos she plans to actually work on the CheckUser feature when her Linux box is back to life. Considering the present CheckUser extension is more or less a quick hack Tim Starling put together for my personal use so I wouldn't have to bug the devs, it could do with a lot of polishing up! - David Gerard 16:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well when I mentioned a former arbitrator who did the majority of checkuser checks I was referring to Kelly and the fact she's planning on making the checkuser feature better is all the more reason former arbitrators should be able to keep their access as long as they don't go postal and blatantly misuse it... and I seriously doubt that will ever happen. Jtkiefer ^{T | C | @} ---- 03:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

In the 'nood ArbCom decisions "1) Instantnood ( talk · contribs) is restricted to proposing only one page move, poll of editors, or policy change relating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) per week."

What should be done when he doesn't actually propose a move, but just uses subterfuge to get what he wants?

In the ArbCom case there was plenty of evidence in the start of the case that he was abusing the rename process by repeatedly asking for "Foo of Taiwan" to be renamed "Foo of the Republic of China". Now that ArbCom closed the case with that restriction above, he just avoids the rename process altogether. Yesterday there was an existing category Taiwanese newspapers that corresponded with the naming convention in Category:Newspapers by country (ie, "Foobarnese newspapers" as opposed to "Newspapers of Foobar"). To get what he wants without actually proposing a rename he created a parallel category ( Newspapers of the Republic of China), put it in Newspapers by country and other parent categories, then deprecated Taiwanese newspapers by removing it from the parent categories.

Meanwhile, while the new category sits on CfD, with an overwhelming early consensus to delete, he's insisting that either his, or BOTH of the categories should exist in the parent categories [58] [59].

So, he hasn't actually proposed to rename the the category, he just wants to create two parallel categories and move them around in the category structure. (Creating parallel forks isn't new behavior from him, but it fell through the cracks in the case.)

Also meanwhile, he's not "proposing a move" merely "seeking clarification" on another ROC/Taiwan move, Media in Taiwan.

And I'd also like the ArbCom to consider removing the words "relating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)" from this restriction on his behavior. I'm mostly not involved, but he's currently edit warring with other editors on half a dozen articles related to the naming of food of all things and whether they should be named with Cantonese, Mandarin, or English. [60] [61], etc. These aren't related to the Chinese naming conventions, but mere mortal editors shouldn't have to try and keep up with his proposals and unilateral moves.

- SchmuckyTheCat 22:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What should be done when he doesn't actually propose a move, but just uses subterfuge to get what he wants? Then it counts as a move. As to the edit warring over food names, guess there are some general problems we didn't handle. Fred Bauder 03:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there an enforcement mechanism for this, or just an admonishment? (The same question could be said about the edit summary statement - "is reminded to make useful edit summaries.") SchmuckyTheCat 21:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Instantnood_placed_on_probation will have to serve. However, this requires an administrator with the energy and interest to look into it and actually do something. Fred Bauder 14:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

That was not a rename. Republic of China and Taiwan means something different. I am not proposing to move newspapers published in Taiwan to the parent category for the Republic of China, which Taiwan is, contemporarily, a major part of. The relevant Wikipedia policies, including the NPOV policy, have been listed here [62]. As a matter of fact, user:SchmuckyTheCat tried several times to delink the category he has nominated to CfD from all other categories ( [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]), although the CfD is in process.

The disputes around the articles on food is not only around their names, and they're not related to the previous arbitration case. — Insta ntnood 21:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It's your contention, not the communities, that RoC and Taiwan mean something different. The category existed, you delinked it when you created a new replacement category. A duck by any other name still quacks. SchmuckyTheCat 03:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're not agreeing with the NPOV policies, please proceed to propose changes to them. Don't disrupt Wikipedia by reverting edits made based on those policies, and, to the worst, nominating something to deletion by producing false accusations there. — Insta ntnood 09:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If the disputes over food names is not related to the previous arbitration case, then could you explain the administrative action of page bans in Barbecued pork with rice, Char siu, and so on? And yes it is not a rename. If it was you would have flouted the arbcom rules outright and STC wont have needed to post this here at all to highlight your gaming of the rules.-- Huaiwei 15:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this entire exchange here with the numerous openly hostile comments Schmucky has made toward Instant or anyone who in anyway supports a viewpoint like Instant's or even advocates a modicum of decorum shows the action taken by the ArbCom just didn't go far enough here. The edit warring continues across several articles, Schmucky has flat out said he intends on being hostile and continue what sounds like a crusade when he describes it against Instant [70]. The ink is hardly dry from the decision and the warring continues. -- Wgfinley 04:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to comment, that my recent dealings with Wgfinley has been far from jovial, given his propensity in openly accusing the "opponents of instantnood" of all wrong doings, while continuing to believe instantnood is a victim of circumstance. I do not find STC's comments openly hostile in any way, and the source quoted above does not show his intention to be hostile or to launch a crusade against Instantnood, since he did insist that he at least still goes by the rules, something instantnood has spectacularly failed to do consistantly before or after the arbcom ruling. I would therefore read Wgfinley's comments with a pinch of salt.-- Huaiwei 15:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, how is it supposed to stop it? You could endorse one side or the other but in most POV disputes, surely the two sides will not actually go, well, the arbcom says the other POV has merit so I'll just stop fighting for my POV. If anything, it shows the pointlessness of the arbcom, or any other empowered group of editors, getting involved in content disputes. Not that pointlessness will stop them, obviously. -- Grace Note

Zen-master ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I think it is time to ask for a banning of Zen-master. For how long, I do not know. But. Probation (which was prescribed for him at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master) has failed miserably with him. He was just blocked for violation of the 3RR on Wikipedia:Title Neutrality. It's his 3rd 3RR ban in the last 6 weeks. In addition, he has been banned from several articles for periods of time, including conspiracy theory and Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights. He also joined an edit war at Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, which if anything else shows continued poor judgement and lack of understanding of his probation, which is supposed to keep him out of any edit wars. I put a notice on WP:AN/I for others to chime in here as I believe I am missing an article or two he was blocked from in the last 2 weeks. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 07:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Seconded. Zen is belligerent, assumes bad faith, does not listen to other people, revert wars, and calls his opponents vandals. He is unable or unwilling to understand such concepts as consensus, or the fact that policy is not created by voting upon it, and has created or promoted several snarky policy proposals in an attempt to give false credence to his opinions. For instance, Wikipedia:Information suppression, which is a faux addition to WP:NPOV with the underlying intent of not allowing scientific sources to "put down" psuedoscientific articles.
• I would recommend putting him under the zero-revert rule, and banning him entirely from the Wikipedia namespace. But frankly he hasn't done much that is useful the last weeks. R adiant _>|< 10:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Many of Zen-master's violations stem from his crusade (over the past 7-8 months) to eliminate the term "conspiracy theory". There's been endless discussions on at least a dozen pages and a straw poll showed strong support for keeping the term. Zen is basically attempting to force through his opinion through Death by a thousand cuts, hoping that other editors will eventually wear down and give up. I'd support a permanent ban from any "conspiracy theory" related article as well as a several month ban from the Wikipedia namespace (perhaps allowing for AfD and RfA). Carbonite | Talk 15:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That's the main issue with Zen and to me it's what demonstrates the failure of probation. The idea of probation is supposed to change people's ways. Well, if you look at zen's edits since his probation started, I think he's gotten worse, not better. He still doesn't even quite understand why he was put on probation in the first place. Probation is just wasted on him. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 06:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• I'd say it's time for a long term block of a month or more. Can we get a vote by the arbcom? -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 16:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• I agree. Zen-master is causes disruption on practically every page he edits. He even managed to try to start drama on WP:FAITH. -- Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Probation is designed to try to avoid long term blocks. If probation isn't working then we'll have to try another remedy. Let me think on it a while. In the meantime please provide evidence that probation isn't working ( links are more useful than opinions ) Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Did Ryan or anyone ever provide "evidence probation isn't working" or evidence probation that attempts to restrict what a user can discuss on a discussion or project page is ever appropriate? It is also (still) unclear how discussing politically sensitive topics can ever be considered a "disruption"? First I interpret an unscientific, suggestive, racist and racism inducing method of presentation in the race and intelligence article and was blocked for 7 days, now I interpret the phrase "conspiracy theory" being at least ambiguous and duplicitous if not subtly yet profoundly tainting when used in a title to describe another subject and a year long block is proposed -- what is going on here? It is also prejudicial to propose an extended block while I am temporarily blocked because it is impossible for me to defend myself during that time. This prejudice should be obvious to see given the fact 5 arbitration committee members voted before I was even able to post this response. This year long block vote is taking place outside of normal aribtration committee procedures for the purpose of attempting to quickly silence my legitimate criticisms. I interpret at least some members of the arbitration committee and/or other users and admins to be at least inadvertently complicit in censorship or obfuscation. zen master T 21:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

People have given up trying to explain things to you or give evidence because you never heed advice or accept evidence as correct anyway. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 07:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidence for what and please list that evidence? Also please list situations where people were ever "trying to explain things"? All claims that lack evidence or an argument that can be refuted are worthless in my interpretation. zen master T 14:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. All we've done the last several *months* is explain things to you. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 19:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposing a year long ban without presenting any evidence is the joke here. zen master T 22:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a view on Zenmaster as I haven't followed his conduct or otherwise. I do have a view on the above comment "has created or promoted several snarky policy proposals in an attempt to give false credence to his opinions. For instance, Wikipedia:Information suppression, which is a faux addition to WP:NPOV with the underlying intent of not allowing scientific sources to "put down" psuedoscientific articles.". This is both inaccurate characterization of a page, and of a discussion in which Zenmaster has had no involvement other than that of normal WP conduct to a high standard. It is also straw man, and breaches several other conduct policies. If the prime example is inaccurate, it is likely that others hidden behind the weasel words "several snarky policy proposals" in that comment are equally suspect. FT2 ( Talk) 20:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• I haven't been following him closely lately, but from my experiences with Zen-master, he's a very reasonable and intelligent person. It's totally false that he "causes disruption on practically every page he edits." Also, if bringing information in is disruptive, so be it. Sure, it causes a a "disruption," because people are resistant to accepting new or unfamiliar information. Some of these articles need a little "disruption" of that type, because of their low quality. I commend him. Like I said, I haven't followed him lately, so I'm not familiar with any improper behavior. But, I'd say that he's probably a NET value to Wikipedia. To ban him is the wrong thing the do. RJII 20:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed year long ban (6/1/1/0)

OK I'm going to suggest a year long ban. I think we can just vote here. But if my fellow arbitrators disagree then I'm happy to formally reopen the case. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

How many votes are required to pass this? -- Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. Let's not waste time with a new case. res ipsa loquitur Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Also agree. James F. (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, rather take a look at it again, I'd like to see if he is really wasting all our time or doing some good work. Fred Bauder 23:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Ban, aye ➥the Epopt 04:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• It's been pointed out to me that I didn't vote. My proposal was intended as a vote, but just to make sure everyone knows where I stand I'm voting for a year long ban. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Recuse. Dmcdevit· t 08:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Ban. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 13:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Ban. Mackensen (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This motion is passed. -- Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again

• Zen-master ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just got blocked once again for violating the ban on article titles. 2nd time in 13 days. It's his 11th block overall and 5th since probation was imposed. Arbcom, I think it's time to act here. He hasn't learned nor is he going to. Please reopen his case or start a new one or something. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 12:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• What is the threshold on the vote? For his arbcase, it was 5. Is it 5 for this as well or what is the needed number then? -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 12:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)