This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll may have been set up as a majority-wins poll, but the ArbCom clearly encouraged consensus on the matter. There is a clear lack of consensus on the poll, and yet so far three of the "admin judges" are treating it as a majority-wins poll. -- SPUI ( T - C) 06:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I would like to ask the arbcom for clarification. Specifically, I would like explicit endorsement or repudiation of the following principles (which form the basis for how I have been operating since I got involved in trying to shepherd the process along:
I have made some statements that not everyone agrees with. The following references may be of some use.
I have handed out a block to SPUI in this matter for what I viewed as disruption. It was reduced but not overturned. I feel SPUI returned to his disruptive ways last night but perhaps has settled down today. I would nevertheless welcome review of my actions and I seek clarification in the form of yes/no answers to the questions I pose above. I was counseled by some to let this go, to let someone else implement but i am one of the 6 "judges". Comment on whether I should leave enforcement to a non judge admin welcomed as well. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your effort, Lar. Please note that the opinions I expressed above are my own, not those of the Committee. Fred Bauder 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Some of the proponents of Principle II in the recent Highway naming poll are trying to comeup with a Manual of Style that addresses most of the concerns of Principle II supporters while keeping in line with the decision by the majorit to use the style of Principle I in the article title. This is being done at WP:USSH. I am under the impression that Lar and a few others think this is disruption. We are trying to gain real consensus by addressing specific problems with the chosen Principle without overturning it. I strongly believe that is not disruption. I hope most of thr ArbCom agrees. -- Polaron | Talk 16:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable to the ArbCom if the members of this entire debate just sat down and had a civil conversation, and reached a virtually unanimous agreement on a compromise? They seem to be on track to do this now, but some are raising concerns about being outside of the process of the naming conventions poll, and that the judges of said poll have already ruled that there is a consensus. Personally, I don't think that matters, because it's always good to have more people agree, so there's no harm in having more discussion. At worst, it's just more incivil discussion and you won't be able to tell it apart from the rest anyway, but it doesn't seem to be heading that way, and is currently being rather productive. What does the ArbCom think? -- Rory096 16:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Eternal Equinox came back a few days ago, editing her favorite articles as an anon, from her trademark range. She has already amassed a fairly impressive log of blocks and bans The user is editing by ArbCom permission, she's not banned; so could that permission be made conditional on her creating an account and being limited to using that only? I think I saw her claim a while back that she has munged the Eternal Equinox password--IIRC--but she could obviously easily create a new name account. The floating cloud of IPs she's using makes it very difficult to keep track of her edits and infractions, to block her (I got collateral damage on the brief range block I imposed last night) and to communicate with her. Bishonen | talk 14:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC).
There is a problem with this ArbCom ruling and adjustments will have to be made in order to ensure that these users do not abuse it the way they have been. Also, I will absolutely not create an account since I'm only editing Wikipedia on occasion now. This is Hollow Wilerding, which you have been told (and obviously received the e-mail for since you wrote my name in one of the "bans"). I'll be sure to tell E.E. that you're failing to respond to him. Hollow Wilerding 17:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Admins are discussing here whether they will be enforcing Remedy 7.3.1, "Irishpunktom and Dbiv are banned from editing Peter Tatchell for one year" with respect to Dbiv. Admin and ArbCom clerk Tony Sidaway has, in fact, said outright that he would "stop trying to enforce this remedy", saying that Ignore all rules applies here. [1] Is non-enforcement optional or dependent on the quality of the edits, or is this a bright-line ruling? -- Calton | Talk 01:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
just a quick note that now that User:Kehrli is banned from editing m/z or presumedly articles about mass spectrometry, he is now moving on to export his cranky beliefs onto physical constant and to dimensionless number (although i agree with him that renaming it dimensionless quantity was a good idea). but he has some personal pet theory that dimensionful physical constants are essentially equivalent to dimensionless fundamental physical constants which is contrary to the present widely accepted state of physics. we ( User:Army1987 and i) have reverted his factually incorrect changes to both articles and have tried to reason with him from multiple angles and his responses is to say without any content that our explanation supports his fallacious position, to misrepresent our positions and repeat the misconception as if nothing was ever written by any of us to explain what was wrong with it. he is basically repeating that the widely accepted wisdom is a misconception and then replacing it with his own misconception. i think he is trolling, but am not entirely sure. i am sure he's a crank. i have now tired of dealing with him, but if he tries to reinsert this junk, i'm afraid an edit war will ensue. i need help from admins who are real physicists to be able to examine Kehrli's claims (which he tries to make sound reasonable, but they are fundamentally misconceived). r b-j 19:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please see this WP:AN/I discussion regarding my involvement in this case. The general feeling, it seems, is that this case needs to be revisited for the following reasons:
Thank you, in advance, for your time and consideration. Best wishes, -- AaronS 01:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The abstention of User:SimonP from Remedy 3 was treated in the same manner as a recusal, reducing the majority for that motion to 5. The motion passed. Evidence was presented demonstrating that AaronS was blocked for edit warring, and a Finding to that effect was made in the case. I regret that neither the arbitrators nor the clerks informed AaronS that probation was being considered in his case. This was an oversight. -- Tony Sidaway 04:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should enforcement point 2 in this case, Enforcement of administrative probation, be removed in light of the fact that Dbiv was not placed on administrative probation? Ral315 ( talk) 04:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a new ruling that Eternal Equinox, aka User:Velten is limited to a single account; and after a lot of carry-on (some of it appears at the foot of this section), she seemed resigned to following it. However, today she again edited anonymously, supporting herself at Promiscuous (song) and making this sneaky revert. There was no apology or "oops, forgot to log in" or anything of that nature, in fact the IP had already been used for another edit four minutes earlier. I assume not very much good-faith forgetfulness in this case. (I know, I know, but with respect, the arbcom hasn't already spent as much good faith on the editor as I have.) She apparently "foresaw" herethat it would happen soon, even though I can't say I can remember the diligent Eternal Equinox (etc) persona having any tendency to forget to log in. Anyway. Does the ruling have any teeth? It doesn't specify any penalties for editing anonymously. Can she be blocked for it? If not, I foresee she soon won't log in at all. (As above, on the good faith already spent.) Bishonen | talk 19:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC).
In response to Bishonen: yes, I predicted that I might edit anonymously and I did. (Occasionally it happened when I used Hollow Wilerding, but that was long ago, so I can't remember.) If I do this again and another edit following from the Velten account occurs, I'd appreciate that I don't have to explain myself. Like I said, it happens because the browser logs you out sometimes and I didn't realize it. So I don't want to have to explain each time; because I've told everybody here, you'll know that it's me accidentally editing anonymously.
However, I was editing Promiscuous (song) and Loose (album) as early as these edits:
To EM: indeed I'm a fan of Nelly Furtado, but Gwen Stefani is still the best; don't be silly now. I wasn't harassing you and please don't block me if you aren't aware of the details. Discussion should always be incorporated and consensus might be achieved.
By the way, the 64.231 cannot be blocked upon sight since it's from a library. If it's musically-related, it's likely me, but there's still a chance it won't be. I'm saying this just so everybody knows. Velten 21:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The ArbCom ruling states that: "All edits by Eternal Equinox under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user". However, the 64.231 IP address is connected to the Toronto Reference Libraries, which all parties involved in this case seem to have acknowledged. As a result, I hereby request that this portion of the ruling be lifted so that others can edit from the libraries if they desire to. It should be noted that the library has new material that can unblock Wikipedia-enforced bans, which Bishonen acknowledged. Please remove this from the ruling. Velten 16:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
copied from Thatchers talk page, with details removed and replaced by 'X':
"" Blocking the anon from XXXXXXXX
Removed comments I did not post here -- Golden Wattle talk 11:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Dont you people think you are getting a bit carried away with yourselves? Are you children? I am starting to think that you may be as it seems you are playing something like a computer game with the target needing to be nuked and nil else will do.
If you are children then wik needs to note that in log on names or something. I do not usually log on to sites that children play on as too many weirdos also around them.
Re my ip, the server adjusts. Sometimes it runs through one server, then adjusts to another, then to another. It all depends on what other traffic XXXXXXX are carrying such as defence, media and private commercial, line loads and where there is space to put the cyber stuff. I do not live in a little town re my ip but on a major node. Thus, my ip range would be pretty wide as it goes all over the place. My log on varies as I dial in to other servers for other stuff so probably swap carriers here and there to do that. Hope that helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.193 ( talk • contribs) .
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have asked for a clarification on my arbitration
[23], but got no response there, so I will try it here. My comment was:
“ | I'm confused. Somehow the ArbCom did not find my edits to be "tendentious," yet the probation is about that. How is this logically possible? | ” |
Sam, there is a potential problem here. At the moment, Intangible is removing statements with reliable newspaper citations from Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw and Paul Belien; in one case because the version of a person's statement quoted in a French language newspaper differs from the version on Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw's own web site (hence, a mistranslation, according to Intangible); and in the other case because Mr. Belien has stated on his personal blog that the newspaper reporter responsible for the articles is biased against him. "Tendentious editing" was rejected as a finding of fact because it is content based. However, whether Intangible edit wars over his interpretations depends on the number of opposing editors and their tenacity. This doesn't seem right to me. Thatcher131 16:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I was working with Intangible to get Paul Belien a little more balanced. Since a civil discussion on the talk page didn't get us anywhere, I put an {{unreferenced}} template on the article page [24]. He reverted it immediately, saying that the article wasn't unreferenced [25], so I put some {{fact}} templates on the page [26] [27], and the {{unreferenced}} template [28], hoping it would make my goal clear. About minutes later, he did this : [29]. Of course, the two can be unrelated, and (assuming good faith) he might genuinely be worried that there is a reference problem with George W. Bush being the U.S. president. -- LucVerhelst 15:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What would the proceedure be for getting off probation? There were four users placed on probation, SPUI, PHenry, JohnnyBGood, and myself. SPUI did have some run-ins at WP:SRNC, but has left. PHenry has not edited since the conclusion of the case. JohnnyBGood has drifted away from highway articles a bit, editing other articles. (but in effect not doing any mass moves). I started WP:SRNC, and the poll has concluded, and mass moves are being done to move the pages to the agreed upon locations. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 22:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I hate to be a pill, but in this case, two arbitrators amended the prinicple
with the addition
Arthur Ellis ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is under a 5 day block for disruption and sockpuppetry. today performed characteristic vandalism, including calling Warren Kinsella names [30] and blanking a section of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement [31]. Two other IPs 142.78.190.137 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 64.230.111.172 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which are consistent with Ellis' venues and manner, also edited articles from which Ellis is banned. Based on the findings in this case, should this IP be treated as an Ellis sock (in which case triggering enforcement against Ellis), or should they be treated as de novo vandals. Thatcher131 20:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
One more request for clarification.
Does that include the Rachel Marsden page? Marsden has been involved in Canadian politics. Geedubber 23:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Andries 13:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC) added question about contradictory guidelines. 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC) added new point expressing concern about the number of disputes. 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 18:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I want to comment here on my dual role in this matter. My first response on this was that it seemed to be a matter for administrators to resolve, and I investigated as an administrator and warned Andries politely in my role as an administrator that in my view and that of other admins he was contravening the ruling in the arbitration case.
Andries has come back politely with what amount, in my view, to clear signals that he requires much closer direction on this matter. I suggested that clarification from the arbitrators might be a good way of resolving this matter, and his query here is the response. Andries has shown by his responses and actions that he is eager and willing to comply with the arbitration and in my role as a clerk I commend his queries to the Committee, While this is clearly a dispute that could have become very rancorous, it seems to me that Andries is doing his best to avoid that path and seek clarification. I also commend SSS108 for his civility in the course of expressing a difference of opinion in a forthright and honest manner.
I hope that this is not "crossing the streams". I hope it's clear that my views as an administrator and as a clerk are quite distinct. My regard for both participants here is very high. Their honesty and civility is impressive. -- Tony Sidaway 02:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Following the block by User:Zoe on User:Jgp, who had no prior history of any disruption, no known associations w/ED, and one readdition of the link, albeit in a profane way, how should blocks be doled out. His block, in particular, was indefinite, which seems entirely arbitrary and overblown. Please clarify. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 21:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is no prior case from which a motion can proceed therefore this motion is out of process. The case that was proposed but not proceeded with dealt with admin abilities only ("This is a request for review of admin status" and "This is a request that his administrative status be reviewed." [55]) which is no longer an issue, nor is there a community ban against me as that proposal was defeated. This is therefore a request for probation for a case where there has never been a "trial" and is therefore inappropriate. If and when there is some sort of disruptive editing it would be in order to pursue an RFA through normal channels but this sort of a priori action is out of order. However, this request has been prompted not by "disruptive editing" but by content dispute and is an attempt by the person who prompted it to gain advantage in a content dispute through administrative means. I suggest that ArbComm members who wish to support this talk to Jimbo *first*. At the very least no action should be taken without a full and fresh RFA being undertaken. 74.98.234.104 12:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The current motion against Homey is, in fact, out of process and inappropriate.
Certain editors seem to be under the impression that the user formerly known as "Homey" is (i) forbidden from editing under a different name, and (ii) forbidden from engaging in content disputes on certain subjects. Neither assertion is accurate.
Many of these same editors have themselves been conducting a campaign of harrassment against "Homey" over a period of several months. Tactics have included dubious 3RR blocks, unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry, threats of de-sysoping and attempts to resolve content disputes through the administrative process. These actions were always unjustified, and remain so now.
I would encourage Fred Bauder to reconsider his support for the present measure.
I will also note that HotR's having been a party to three arbitration requests is irrelevant (perhaps prejudicial) to the present discussion. The Israeli apartheid case involved several administrators, and was primarily focused on the actions of SlimVirgin and JayJG. No credible charges of misconduct were made against him in the other cases, both of which were resolved in his favour. CJCurrie 19:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Surely there are some allowable circumstances under which links to ED should be allowed? See here for full list of links. Among the hundreds of locations there are links to ED from various arbitration pages, signposts (I think the signposts links are all related to arbitration cases anyway), and numerous archives including AfDs. Could you clarify under which circumstances should these exceptions be made.-- Konst.able Talk 04:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm having a major ongoing issue regarding an inappropriate block and a massive misuse of sysop abilities, and I wouldn't be surprised if one thinks I'm simply placing this here because Velten ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User talk:Velten was protected not long ago. I am editing from an IP address because the original operator of Eternal_Equinox ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wants to return to Wikipedia, but does not want to use the same account as I ( Hollow_Wilerding ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) currently am. I'll understand if this is removed, but there's no other way to ask this as of now.
While I'm here, I'd like to request something of the arbitration committee. In the past few weeks, I've been receiving increasingly abusive blocks from Extraordinary_Machine ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) which range from reasons such as "removed a template that I think should have stayed there" to assuming that I've edited from an IP address when it can't be proven. Again, I'm sure this will be ignored and removed altogether, but his abuse has got to stop. I'd provide diffs, but most are currently on User talk:Velten and I'm not up to it since this is likely not going to stay here. If I'm going to be placed on an ArbCom decision, there are going to be circumstances under which I can become blocked, because EM has so far abused it to his likening, which is evident through the following:
I've already waited two a half weeks based on his original ridiculous block. I'm not waiting again for something I didn't do. Can the ArbCom please do something? Thatcher131 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) said that he was concerned about this block and that it wasn't within the ArbCom's scope, which if I look at WP:RFAR/Eternal Equinox, is over two weeks the original punishment. This user is now deliberately trying to keep me away.
Could something be done? 64.231.64.221 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
This is exactly what I mean when Extraordinary Machine is simply silly. Here's a long post from me too.
Also, I still have not received suggestions about Eternal Equinox and his will to create a new account. Thoughts? Velten 21:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:SlimVirgin reverted this edit by 172.194.169.47, with no editing memo explanation. I didn't see the need to do that, so I put the external link back in this edit. SlimVirgin then left a message on my talk page implying that I could be blocked for doing so. I asked for clarification as to whether she was threatening me with a block, and she replied with these words.
I don't plan to replace the external link on the Lyndon LaRouche article, but I would like to know whether SlimVirgin is accurately describing the Arbitration Committee ruling, and whether it really applies to an external link on the Lyndon LaRouche article. There are about 19 footnotes and external links to LaRouche websites on the Lyndon LaRouche article. Are they all forbidden by the Arbitration ruling as well? If not, what makes this particular link different? Please post your answer at Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Policy_Question so that other editors will be aware of it. Thanks in advance for your time. -- ManEatingDonut 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I have looked over the article in question (the one that was the target of the external link) and it appears to me that it is entirely "relevant to the biography of Lyndon LaRouche." It discusses many of LaRouche's various campaigns and issues. It is mainly a rebuttal of the theories of Berlet, theories which dominate most of the Wikipedia articles on LaRouche. But I am mainly interested in a precise clarification of what the Arbitration ruling means, because I have seen Berlet threaten other editors with this ruling as well (see
Talk:National_Caucus_of_Labor_Committees#Disputed.) Perhaps there should be clarification on this example as well. The edit that appears to have provoked the threat is
here. --
ManEatingDonut 15:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
There is an additional issue that was under consideration in the first LaRouche case - the fact that LaRouche organizations publish an extremely large amount, responding to all criticisms. Excessive citation of this material when describing controversies surrounding LaRouche leaves the mistaken sense of giving LaRouche the "last word" in every dispute. Phil Sandifer 23:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dispute about the fact whether an article about Sathya Sai Baba in salon.com qualifies as a reliable source. article in salon.com This question has already been treated extensively in mediation. [75] Now user:SSS108 changed his opinion because he states that salon.com is a self professed tabloid and because he states that it is only published online. He says that he was unaware of this during mediation. Andries 17:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I propose a centralized discussion for the question whether salon.com is a reliable source. Talk:Salon.com/as_a_source_for_Wikipedia. Andries 23:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I made my case here: [77] & [78]. People are confusing Salon.com with a particular tabloid article on Salon.com, a self-professed online tabloid magazine (that has not been published anywhere else except on Salon.com). This particular article does not meet Wikipedia's policies of reliable sources, in my opinion. SSS108 talk- email 06:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Fred, so are you saying that the following articles can be cited on Wikipedia? Since I do not hold a favorable opinion of Scalia, I will cite Salon.com and it's article about him to support the widely held opinion that he is "martyr", is a "a poster boy for intolerance, vitriol and questionable ethics", writes "masterpieces of contemptuous nastiness" and turns up "the volume on his vitriol so high that it's hard to hear anything" [79]. Fantastic! SSS108 talk- email 19:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
JBKramer, ArbCom is setting the standards. Are these the standards that ArbCom is saying are allowable? The above example shows the flaw in the reasoning of allowing stand-alone sources (which can be used and abused to push an agenda). I am surprised that no one is concerned about this. If Salon.com is allowed as a reliable stand-alone reference, anyone can make the argument that I just made above and get away with it. SSS108 talk- email 19:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I will, once other ArbCom members hopefully comment on it. And I will accept their majority opinion on this matter. I am not alone in my objection either. SSS108 talk- email 20:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It would appear that I am under the continuing harassment by User:Davenbelle (aka User:Moby Dick) and User:Stereotek (aka User:Karl Meier aka commons:User:Igiveup). see: Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Disputes#Complaint_about_abuse_of_adminship_by_Cool_Cat.
While I understand other projects are beyond the grasp of en:Arbcom, I'd like a way to deal with this issue. At the very least an arbcom opinion on the matter (non-binding as far as commons is concerned perhaps but would be a notable opinion helping desicion making process).
-- Cat out 16:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Cool Cat edited my user page on commons and I reverted him. He then reverted back and protected my user page. And *I'm* harrasing him? -- Moby 09:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm told this is the appropriate place to come for this appeal. In July, I was placed on probation as part of the decision in this RfA. I do not believe this decision was just, and I have chosen not to participate as an editor at Wikipedia rather than continue editing while subject to an unjust probation. In the nearly four months since that decision, I believe, subsequent events have demonstrated rather starkly that arbitrator Fred Bauder's initial assessment of the cause of the dispute was correct, and that JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and I should never have been placed on probation in relation to this matter. In addition, the underlying dispute has been harmoniously resolved, which suggests that the need for probation, assuming such need ever existed in the first place, has now ended. Accordingly, I request that this probation be formally lifted. Thank you. — phh ( t/ c) 01:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, I'm right here in case anyone had wondered. I just blanked my talk page and userpage :) JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is currently an edit war on the article Temperature record of the past 1000 years. One of the participants is User:William M. Connolley. WMC's edits were surprising for me; I checked his history, and found that ArbCom has previously had him on 6-month parole for trying to impose an extreme non-factual POV on climate-related articles. In my opinion, he is continuing that.
There is one action by WMC that I have a general question about. After the edit war started, I put a Disputed tag on the article. WMC reverted the article to the version that he preferred and removed the Disputed tag. As far as I can tell, there are no Wikipedia policies/guidelines about removing Disputed tags. My question is this: is there such a policy and, if not, should there be one? I am not an expert Wikipedian; my (possibly naive) view is that it would be preferable to have some policy/guideline prohibiting removal of disputed tags while an article is being actively disputed.
TheSeven 09:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Its unclear to me what this has to do with the arbitrators. TS has just had this pointed out to him, but it doesn't seem to have done any good William M. Connolley 13:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I guess my question was not worded well. My question is a general one, and the mention of WMC was to give an example. Herewith, my question:
Is it inappropriate for someone to remove a Disputed tag during an active dispute and should Wikipedia have a policy that pertains to removal of Disputed tags?
My question arose because it seems inappropriate to me for someone to remove a Disputed tag during an active dispute. In the example that I gave, the removals have been continuing (i.e. the Disputed tag has been removed while simultaneously a statement that I, and others, believe to be incorrect has been reinserted). But this is only an example; it is the general question that I put to ArbCom.
TheSeven 17:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As far as I understand it, Brion Vibber's dismissal of the remedy Giano II in RFAR/Giano, which was passed 6–0, as a "whim" [80] means that Giano is unable to vote for or against new Stewards in the current Meta elections, because he's putatively too new. (The account Giano II hasn't been editing for the required three months.) I suppose this (minor) aspect of the problem could be fixed, provided anybody cares? Bishonen | talk 02:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have made motions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pat8722/Workshop#Motion_for_Clarification and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pat8722/Workshop#Motion_for_Clarification_and_Motion_for_Procedure] but have not received a response. What is the procedure for notifying arbcom that I have motions outstanding? (I had assumed the workshop page would have been kept on an arbcom member's watch list, but I am now wondering if that is the case). My motions are requesting clarification or their words, and detail on the procedure they have requested I follow in my future action. pat8722 02:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. - Mike Rosoft 22:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Although not provided for in the penalties, I have indefinitely blocked Terryeo as described at [83]. The reasons amount to malicious and targetted harassment of users as part of his unabandoned quest to advance his POV on Scientology. Phil Sandifer 18:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The duration of Fys' probation (enacted 21 Sep 2006) is not clear. Is it for one year (as for Karl Meier and Irishpunktom) or indefinite, and if one year, does the year extend from the date of the case or the date of the amended decision? Thatcher131 21:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've blocked ManEatingDonut ( talk · contribs) for 24 hours for violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche, which says "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense." See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche#Enforcement.
ManEatingDonut was warned on Oct 23 about reinserting LaRouche material, [86] and took part in a request for clarification on this page about it. [87] Despite the warning, on Nov 18, he removed the redirect of Eurasian Land-Bridge ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to Asian Highway Network and twice reinserted a LaRouche-related text. The Eurasian Land-Bridge is a name that some people use for parts of the Asian Highway, so the title is redirected there. However, it's also a name used for a more complex idea that LaRouche claims is his. Herschelkrustofsky/Weed Harper wrote the original article that included LaRouche's views; [88] it was redirected to Asian Highway Network in September 2004. The text was restored and rewritten a little by NathanDW, [89] another LaRouche supporter, on October 31, 2006; reverted by Will BeBack; restored by ManEatingDonut on Nov 18; [90] reverted by SlimVirgin; restored by ManEatingDonut on Nov 22. [91]
I've blocked him for 24 hours for the repeated re-insertion, but I'd like to make the block indefinite. He has made 186 edits since August, almost all promoting LaRouche. He has edited logged out (acknowledging that it was him) and used the same AOL IP range 172.192.0.0 - 172.194.0.0 that Herschelkrustofsky/WeedHarper used. There's no firm evidence that it's the same person, but I believe he may be from the same LaRouche group in Los Angeles. As any proposed ban needs to be confirmed by the ArbCom, I'm asking here for your thoughts. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised that no one thought to notify me of this. I left a note on SlimVirgin's talk page asking her to warn me if she thought I was violating an arbcom decision, preferably before blocking me rather than afterward. I made my views on LaRouche clear to the only person who asked me, at User talk:Astor Piazzolla. It is wrong to accuse me of "promoting LaRouche" when I have added almost no material to these articles -- I have only opposed edits that I thought were biased, or looked up sources and added them when sources were requested. As far as those other people are concerned (Herschelkrustofsky, etc.) I became aware of them for the first time when I discovered the talk page of Eurasian Land-Bridge. Apparently there was a lot of conflict between them and SlimVirgin and Will Beback. I have no interest in reviving that conflict, and it is unfair to somehow involve me in it.
I came to this page tonight to ask further clarification. The arbcom decision that I have read says "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." This is now being interpreted by editors at the article Lyndon LaRouche to include the article Lyndon LaRouche as well, and material is being removed such as a quote from Eugene McCarthy that appeared in an EIR interview, or in this case, a quote from Mexican President Lopez Portillo. Since the arbcom decision explicitly says "other than the article Lyndon LaRouche," I would like to know if you think that this behavior is justified. -- ManEatingDonut 07:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both the Rachel Marsden and Marsden-Donnelly harassment case articles have been deleted by administrators in the last day (and protected to prevent re-creatin). Some editors have argued that references to Marsden's past controversies are inappropriate for the article.
The Marsden RfA determined that "Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden, may, when they violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, be reduced to a stub by any user or deleted, together with their talk pages, by any administrator. Removal of poorly sourced negative information or of blocks of grossly unbalanced negative material is not subject to the three revert rule. Such material may be removed without limit". It also ruled that the Marsden and Marsden-Donnelly articles, in their existing state, were in violation of BLP.
Questions: (i) Do references to Marsden's past controversies inherently violate BLP, or would a fair and neutral overview be permitted? (ii) Is page deletion an appropriate remedy to this situation? CJCurrie 06:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
More questions: (iii) Interpretation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is often a matter of debate. May speedy deletions of Marsden-related articles be overturned through the usual channel of Deletion Review? (iv) Are we supposed to delete based solely on whether the current version of a page violates WP:BLP, or may we delete based on the existence of previous versions that have violated WP:BLP? Kla'quot 06:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC) (v) Why didn't Arbcom go ahead and delete the articles themselves as soon as the case closed? Kla'quot 07:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Kla'quot 03:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some questions have risen as to the interpretation of that phrase ("can't work out what it's trying to say" [92]). Could the arbitrators clarify what the above sentence means? Or would they say the sentence should be clear in its context ( Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone#Sources for popular culture)? -- Francis Schonken 22:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[...] when a substantial body of material is available [...] the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included.
What's unclear? In the context of the case, it says that, given a large corpus of material on a topic, that has not been subject to scholarly analysis, it is acceptable to quote selectively and with qualification from it. Charles Matthews 10:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm happy to see the 4th vote to accept this RfA. Without some conclusion on the matter Robert Folsom is likely to just keep on reverting any edits that his boss doesn't like. (Un)Fortunately, it is now time for my Christmas holiday, and I will be travelling and doing all those Christmas things for the next three weeks. Is it possible to get this delayed for 3 weeks? I'm sorry if this throws a wrench in the usual process.
Happy Holidays,
Smallbones 09:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Zer0faults, now editing as NuclearUmpf ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is under probation and may be banned from articles he disrupts. A complaint was filed at WP:AE alleging disruption at September 11, 2001 attacks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (with a related discussion here). I looked into the situation, and found an edit war over the insertion of an external link. I counted 18 insertions of the link by 5 editors (11 by NuclearUmpf) and 17 removals by 7 editors over 7 days, with no attempts made to follow any dispute resolution process (third opinion, RFC or mediation). There was extensive discussion on the talk page but it was fruitless, as it revolved around whether the link met the external link policy, rather than what seems to me the more important issue of even if it does, should it be included as a matter of editorial judgement. I offered an opinion on the link, and declined to enforce NuclearUmpf's probation, as he was only one of twelve people involved in an edit war, including at least one admin, none of whom sought help through the dispute resolution process (I left open the possibility of future action if Nuclear continues to fight the issue after DR). [93] (One other uninvolved editor has also offered an opinion on the link [94].) My judgement has been called into question by two editors, one of whom said (in email) "You have effectively taken the power and credibility from the arbcomm, saying their rulings mean nothing." I request a review by the arbitration committee. Thatcher131 14:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please have a look at Robert Priddy. IMHO User:SSS108 is boldy misinterpreting [95] the ArbCom ruling. It doesn't apply to the article Robert Priddy (as he is neither Sathya Sai Baba nor an affiliated organization). And if I'm not completely mistaken, the ArbCom ruling only applies to User:Andries and User:SSS108. -- Pjacobi 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
It looks like a new case involving these articles is being accepted, so this dispute can be addressed there. Newyorkbrad 18:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it correct for me to assume that the current ArbCom case [96] is going to deal with this issue, as stated by Newyorkbrad? SSS108 talk- email 05:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After his third arbitration case, Instantnood was placed on indefinite (both regular and general) probation. Instantnood violated his probation by POV-pushing at Single-party state. I reported him on the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard, and Eagle 101 blocked him for 24 hours and placed him on 1RR.
My first question: Are admins allowed to place a user on 1RR, or is only the Arbitration Committee empowered to do so? If only the Arbitration Committee can place a user on 1RR, can they only do so as a remedy during an arbitration case involving said user?
Instantnood's POV-pushing sparked an edit war between him, Huaiwei, and several others. During the heated discussion on the talk page, Huaiwei has made personal attacks on Regebro, and Regebro has made comments which are, at worst, personal attacks on all Singaporeans, and, at best, incivili and assumption of bad faith. In addition, Nightstallion's use of rollback in a content dispute may constitute abuse of administrator privileges.
The ongoing mediation will probably fail; in fact, the Mediation Cabal rejected the case. Regebro has filed an RFC against Huaiwei, and Thadius856 has filed an RFAr against Huaiwei (not related to the dispute on Single-party state).
My second question: is this dispute serious enough to warrant filing of an arbitration case? I believe arbitration is neccesary to review the conduct of all involved parties, impose binding sanctions, and put a stop to the conflicts between Huaiwei and Instantnood, as other attempts at dispute resolution have failed, and Instantnood has repeatedly ignored consensus. However, since arbitration is not a laughing matter, and I don't want to waste the Arbitration Committee's time, I would like to get some consensus before filing an arbitration case.
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A finding of fact in the RPJ case mentions the site spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk (founder John Simkin), characterised as propagandistic in relation to uncritical inclusions as factual of material on the Kennedy assassination. The Spartacus site contains unrelated historical material on many subjects. Having heard from John Simkin, and having myself linked to Spartacus pages on numerous occasions, I would like to clarify that (as far as I'm concerned) the FoF in the case is not intended as a blanket condemnation. Editors should exercise good judgement as to tone and factual reliability of these pages, case by case. Charles Matthews 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. An excerpt of an IRC log were placed on and were subsequently removed from the project's talk page. I seek clarification from the Committee as to the extent to which we are we permitted to or prohibited from discussing the content contained in this excerpt (without direct quotations, of course). Since I have already commented on these, I would like to know whether I am in breach of the rules by doing so, so that, if applicable, I could rectify this and remove my comment accordingly. The pertinent comments are here. El_C 00:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll may have been set up as a majority-wins poll, but the ArbCom clearly encouraged consensus on the matter. There is a clear lack of consensus on the poll, and yet so far three of the "admin judges" are treating it as a majority-wins poll. -- SPUI ( T - C) 06:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I would like to ask the arbcom for clarification. Specifically, I would like explicit endorsement or repudiation of the following principles (which form the basis for how I have been operating since I got involved in trying to shepherd the process along:
I have made some statements that not everyone agrees with. The following references may be of some use.
I have handed out a block to SPUI in this matter for what I viewed as disruption. It was reduced but not overturned. I feel SPUI returned to his disruptive ways last night but perhaps has settled down today. I would nevertheless welcome review of my actions and I seek clarification in the form of yes/no answers to the questions I pose above. I was counseled by some to let this go, to let someone else implement but i am one of the 6 "judges". Comment on whether I should leave enforcement to a non judge admin welcomed as well. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your effort, Lar. Please note that the opinions I expressed above are my own, not those of the Committee. Fred Bauder 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Some of the proponents of Principle II in the recent Highway naming poll are trying to comeup with a Manual of Style that addresses most of the concerns of Principle II supporters while keeping in line with the decision by the majorit to use the style of Principle I in the article title. This is being done at WP:USSH. I am under the impression that Lar and a few others think this is disruption. We are trying to gain real consensus by addressing specific problems with the chosen Principle without overturning it. I strongly believe that is not disruption. I hope most of thr ArbCom agrees. -- Polaron | Talk 16:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable to the ArbCom if the members of this entire debate just sat down and had a civil conversation, and reached a virtually unanimous agreement on a compromise? They seem to be on track to do this now, but some are raising concerns about being outside of the process of the naming conventions poll, and that the judges of said poll have already ruled that there is a consensus. Personally, I don't think that matters, because it's always good to have more people agree, so there's no harm in having more discussion. At worst, it's just more incivil discussion and you won't be able to tell it apart from the rest anyway, but it doesn't seem to be heading that way, and is currently being rather productive. What does the ArbCom think? -- Rory096 16:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Eternal Equinox came back a few days ago, editing her favorite articles as an anon, from her trademark range. She has already amassed a fairly impressive log of blocks and bans The user is editing by ArbCom permission, she's not banned; so could that permission be made conditional on her creating an account and being limited to using that only? I think I saw her claim a while back that she has munged the Eternal Equinox password--IIRC--but she could obviously easily create a new name account. The floating cloud of IPs she's using makes it very difficult to keep track of her edits and infractions, to block her (I got collateral damage on the brief range block I imposed last night) and to communicate with her. Bishonen | talk 14:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC).
There is a problem with this ArbCom ruling and adjustments will have to be made in order to ensure that these users do not abuse it the way they have been. Also, I will absolutely not create an account since I'm only editing Wikipedia on occasion now. This is Hollow Wilerding, which you have been told (and obviously received the e-mail for since you wrote my name in one of the "bans"). I'll be sure to tell E.E. that you're failing to respond to him. Hollow Wilerding 17:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Admins are discussing here whether they will be enforcing Remedy 7.3.1, "Irishpunktom and Dbiv are banned from editing Peter Tatchell for one year" with respect to Dbiv. Admin and ArbCom clerk Tony Sidaway has, in fact, said outright that he would "stop trying to enforce this remedy", saying that Ignore all rules applies here. [1] Is non-enforcement optional or dependent on the quality of the edits, or is this a bright-line ruling? -- Calton | Talk 01:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
just a quick note that now that User:Kehrli is banned from editing m/z or presumedly articles about mass spectrometry, he is now moving on to export his cranky beliefs onto physical constant and to dimensionless number (although i agree with him that renaming it dimensionless quantity was a good idea). but he has some personal pet theory that dimensionful physical constants are essentially equivalent to dimensionless fundamental physical constants which is contrary to the present widely accepted state of physics. we ( User:Army1987 and i) have reverted his factually incorrect changes to both articles and have tried to reason with him from multiple angles and his responses is to say without any content that our explanation supports his fallacious position, to misrepresent our positions and repeat the misconception as if nothing was ever written by any of us to explain what was wrong with it. he is basically repeating that the widely accepted wisdom is a misconception and then replacing it with his own misconception. i think he is trolling, but am not entirely sure. i am sure he's a crank. i have now tired of dealing with him, but if he tries to reinsert this junk, i'm afraid an edit war will ensue. i need help from admins who are real physicists to be able to examine Kehrli's claims (which he tries to make sound reasonable, but they are fundamentally misconceived). r b-j 19:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please see this WP:AN/I discussion regarding my involvement in this case. The general feeling, it seems, is that this case needs to be revisited for the following reasons:
Thank you, in advance, for your time and consideration. Best wishes, -- AaronS 01:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The abstention of User:SimonP from Remedy 3 was treated in the same manner as a recusal, reducing the majority for that motion to 5. The motion passed. Evidence was presented demonstrating that AaronS was blocked for edit warring, and a Finding to that effect was made in the case. I regret that neither the arbitrators nor the clerks informed AaronS that probation was being considered in his case. This was an oversight. -- Tony Sidaway 04:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should enforcement point 2 in this case, Enforcement of administrative probation, be removed in light of the fact that Dbiv was not placed on administrative probation? Ral315 ( talk) 04:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a new ruling that Eternal Equinox, aka User:Velten is limited to a single account; and after a lot of carry-on (some of it appears at the foot of this section), she seemed resigned to following it. However, today she again edited anonymously, supporting herself at Promiscuous (song) and making this sneaky revert. There was no apology or "oops, forgot to log in" or anything of that nature, in fact the IP had already been used for another edit four minutes earlier. I assume not very much good-faith forgetfulness in this case. (I know, I know, but with respect, the arbcom hasn't already spent as much good faith on the editor as I have.) She apparently "foresaw" herethat it would happen soon, even though I can't say I can remember the diligent Eternal Equinox (etc) persona having any tendency to forget to log in. Anyway. Does the ruling have any teeth? It doesn't specify any penalties for editing anonymously. Can she be blocked for it? If not, I foresee she soon won't log in at all. (As above, on the good faith already spent.) Bishonen | talk 19:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC).
In response to Bishonen: yes, I predicted that I might edit anonymously and I did. (Occasionally it happened when I used Hollow Wilerding, but that was long ago, so I can't remember.) If I do this again and another edit following from the Velten account occurs, I'd appreciate that I don't have to explain myself. Like I said, it happens because the browser logs you out sometimes and I didn't realize it. So I don't want to have to explain each time; because I've told everybody here, you'll know that it's me accidentally editing anonymously.
However, I was editing Promiscuous (song) and Loose (album) as early as these edits:
To EM: indeed I'm a fan of Nelly Furtado, but Gwen Stefani is still the best; don't be silly now. I wasn't harassing you and please don't block me if you aren't aware of the details. Discussion should always be incorporated and consensus might be achieved.
By the way, the 64.231 cannot be blocked upon sight since it's from a library. If it's musically-related, it's likely me, but there's still a chance it won't be. I'm saying this just so everybody knows. Velten 21:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The ArbCom ruling states that: "All edits by Eternal Equinox under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user". However, the 64.231 IP address is connected to the Toronto Reference Libraries, which all parties involved in this case seem to have acknowledged. As a result, I hereby request that this portion of the ruling be lifted so that others can edit from the libraries if they desire to. It should be noted that the library has new material that can unblock Wikipedia-enforced bans, which Bishonen acknowledged. Please remove this from the ruling. Velten 16:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
copied from Thatchers talk page, with details removed and replaced by 'X':
"" Blocking the anon from XXXXXXXX
Removed comments I did not post here -- Golden Wattle talk 11:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Dont you people think you are getting a bit carried away with yourselves? Are you children? I am starting to think that you may be as it seems you are playing something like a computer game with the target needing to be nuked and nil else will do.
If you are children then wik needs to note that in log on names or something. I do not usually log on to sites that children play on as too many weirdos also around them.
Re my ip, the server adjusts. Sometimes it runs through one server, then adjusts to another, then to another. It all depends on what other traffic XXXXXXX are carrying such as defence, media and private commercial, line loads and where there is space to put the cyber stuff. I do not live in a little town re my ip but on a major node. Thus, my ip range would be pretty wide as it goes all over the place. My log on varies as I dial in to other servers for other stuff so probably swap carriers here and there to do that. Hope that helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.193 ( talk • contribs) .
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have asked for a clarification on my arbitration
[23], but got no response there, so I will try it here. My comment was:
“ | I'm confused. Somehow the ArbCom did not find my edits to be "tendentious," yet the probation is about that. How is this logically possible? | ” |
Sam, there is a potential problem here. At the moment, Intangible is removing statements with reliable newspaper citations from Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw and Paul Belien; in one case because the version of a person's statement quoted in a French language newspaper differs from the version on Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw's own web site (hence, a mistranslation, according to Intangible); and in the other case because Mr. Belien has stated on his personal blog that the newspaper reporter responsible for the articles is biased against him. "Tendentious editing" was rejected as a finding of fact because it is content based. However, whether Intangible edit wars over his interpretations depends on the number of opposing editors and their tenacity. This doesn't seem right to me. Thatcher131 16:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I was working with Intangible to get Paul Belien a little more balanced. Since a civil discussion on the talk page didn't get us anywhere, I put an {{unreferenced}} template on the article page [24]. He reverted it immediately, saying that the article wasn't unreferenced [25], so I put some {{fact}} templates on the page [26] [27], and the {{unreferenced}} template [28], hoping it would make my goal clear. About minutes later, he did this : [29]. Of course, the two can be unrelated, and (assuming good faith) he might genuinely be worried that there is a reference problem with George W. Bush being the U.S. president. -- LucVerhelst 15:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What would the proceedure be for getting off probation? There were four users placed on probation, SPUI, PHenry, JohnnyBGood, and myself. SPUI did have some run-ins at WP:SRNC, but has left. PHenry has not edited since the conclusion of the case. JohnnyBGood has drifted away from highway articles a bit, editing other articles. (but in effect not doing any mass moves). I started WP:SRNC, and the poll has concluded, and mass moves are being done to move the pages to the agreed upon locations. -- Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 22:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I hate to be a pill, but in this case, two arbitrators amended the prinicple
with the addition
Arthur Ellis ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is under a 5 day block for disruption and sockpuppetry. today performed characteristic vandalism, including calling Warren Kinsella names [30] and blanking a section of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement [31]. Two other IPs 142.78.190.137 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 64.230.111.172 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which are consistent with Ellis' venues and manner, also edited articles from which Ellis is banned. Based on the findings in this case, should this IP be treated as an Ellis sock (in which case triggering enforcement against Ellis), or should they be treated as de novo vandals. Thatcher131 20:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
One more request for clarification.
Does that include the Rachel Marsden page? Marsden has been involved in Canadian politics. Geedubber 23:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Andries 13:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC) added question about contradictory guidelines. 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC) added new point expressing concern about the number of disputes. 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 18:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I want to comment here on my dual role in this matter. My first response on this was that it seemed to be a matter for administrators to resolve, and I investigated as an administrator and warned Andries politely in my role as an administrator that in my view and that of other admins he was contravening the ruling in the arbitration case.
Andries has come back politely with what amount, in my view, to clear signals that he requires much closer direction on this matter. I suggested that clarification from the arbitrators might be a good way of resolving this matter, and his query here is the response. Andries has shown by his responses and actions that he is eager and willing to comply with the arbitration and in my role as a clerk I commend his queries to the Committee, While this is clearly a dispute that could have become very rancorous, it seems to me that Andries is doing his best to avoid that path and seek clarification. I also commend SSS108 for his civility in the course of expressing a difference of opinion in a forthright and honest manner.
I hope that this is not "crossing the streams". I hope it's clear that my views as an administrator and as a clerk are quite distinct. My regard for both participants here is very high. Their honesty and civility is impressive. -- Tony Sidaway 02:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Following the block by User:Zoe on User:Jgp, who had no prior history of any disruption, no known associations w/ED, and one readdition of the link, albeit in a profane way, how should blocks be doled out. His block, in particular, was indefinite, which seems entirely arbitrary and overblown. Please clarify. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 21:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is no prior case from which a motion can proceed therefore this motion is out of process. The case that was proposed but not proceeded with dealt with admin abilities only ("This is a request for review of admin status" and "This is a request that his administrative status be reviewed." [55]) which is no longer an issue, nor is there a community ban against me as that proposal was defeated. This is therefore a request for probation for a case where there has never been a "trial" and is therefore inappropriate. If and when there is some sort of disruptive editing it would be in order to pursue an RFA through normal channels but this sort of a priori action is out of order. However, this request has been prompted not by "disruptive editing" but by content dispute and is an attempt by the person who prompted it to gain advantage in a content dispute through administrative means. I suggest that ArbComm members who wish to support this talk to Jimbo *first*. At the very least no action should be taken without a full and fresh RFA being undertaken. 74.98.234.104 12:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The current motion against Homey is, in fact, out of process and inappropriate.
Certain editors seem to be under the impression that the user formerly known as "Homey" is (i) forbidden from editing under a different name, and (ii) forbidden from engaging in content disputes on certain subjects. Neither assertion is accurate.
Many of these same editors have themselves been conducting a campaign of harrassment against "Homey" over a period of several months. Tactics have included dubious 3RR blocks, unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry, threats of de-sysoping and attempts to resolve content disputes through the administrative process. These actions were always unjustified, and remain so now.
I would encourage Fred Bauder to reconsider his support for the present measure.
I will also note that HotR's having been a party to three arbitration requests is irrelevant (perhaps prejudicial) to the present discussion. The Israeli apartheid case involved several administrators, and was primarily focused on the actions of SlimVirgin and JayJG. No credible charges of misconduct were made against him in the other cases, both of which were resolved in his favour. CJCurrie 19:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Surely there are some allowable circumstances under which links to ED should be allowed? See here for full list of links. Among the hundreds of locations there are links to ED from various arbitration pages, signposts (I think the signposts links are all related to arbitration cases anyway), and numerous archives including AfDs. Could you clarify under which circumstances should these exceptions be made.-- Konst.able Talk 04:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm having a major ongoing issue regarding an inappropriate block and a massive misuse of sysop abilities, and I wouldn't be surprised if one thinks I'm simply placing this here because Velten ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User talk:Velten was protected not long ago. I am editing from an IP address because the original operator of Eternal_Equinox ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wants to return to Wikipedia, but does not want to use the same account as I ( Hollow_Wilerding ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) currently am. I'll understand if this is removed, but there's no other way to ask this as of now.
While I'm here, I'd like to request something of the arbitration committee. In the past few weeks, I've been receiving increasingly abusive blocks from Extraordinary_Machine ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) which range from reasons such as "removed a template that I think should have stayed there" to assuming that I've edited from an IP address when it can't be proven. Again, I'm sure this will be ignored and removed altogether, but his abuse has got to stop. I'd provide diffs, but most are currently on User talk:Velten and I'm not up to it since this is likely not going to stay here. If I'm going to be placed on an ArbCom decision, there are going to be circumstances under which I can become blocked, because EM has so far abused it to his likening, which is evident through the following:
I've already waited two a half weeks based on his original ridiculous block. I'm not waiting again for something I didn't do. Can the ArbCom please do something? Thatcher131 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) said that he was concerned about this block and that it wasn't within the ArbCom's scope, which if I look at WP:RFAR/Eternal Equinox, is over two weeks the original punishment. This user is now deliberately trying to keep me away.
Could something be done? 64.231.64.221 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
This is exactly what I mean when Extraordinary Machine is simply silly. Here's a long post from me too.
Also, I still have not received suggestions about Eternal Equinox and his will to create a new account. Thoughts? Velten 21:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:SlimVirgin reverted this edit by 172.194.169.47, with no editing memo explanation. I didn't see the need to do that, so I put the external link back in this edit. SlimVirgin then left a message on my talk page implying that I could be blocked for doing so. I asked for clarification as to whether she was threatening me with a block, and she replied with these words.
I don't plan to replace the external link on the Lyndon LaRouche article, but I would like to know whether SlimVirgin is accurately describing the Arbitration Committee ruling, and whether it really applies to an external link on the Lyndon LaRouche article. There are about 19 footnotes and external links to LaRouche websites on the Lyndon LaRouche article. Are they all forbidden by the Arbitration ruling as well? If not, what makes this particular link different? Please post your answer at Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Policy_Question so that other editors will be aware of it. Thanks in advance for your time. -- ManEatingDonut 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I have looked over the article in question (the one that was the target of the external link) and it appears to me that it is entirely "relevant to the biography of Lyndon LaRouche." It discusses many of LaRouche's various campaigns and issues. It is mainly a rebuttal of the theories of Berlet, theories which dominate most of the Wikipedia articles on LaRouche. But I am mainly interested in a precise clarification of what the Arbitration ruling means, because I have seen Berlet threaten other editors with this ruling as well (see
Talk:National_Caucus_of_Labor_Committees#Disputed.) Perhaps there should be clarification on this example as well. The edit that appears to have provoked the threat is
here. --
ManEatingDonut 15:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
There is an additional issue that was under consideration in the first LaRouche case - the fact that LaRouche organizations publish an extremely large amount, responding to all criticisms. Excessive citation of this material when describing controversies surrounding LaRouche leaves the mistaken sense of giving LaRouche the "last word" in every dispute. Phil Sandifer 23:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dispute about the fact whether an article about Sathya Sai Baba in salon.com qualifies as a reliable source. article in salon.com This question has already been treated extensively in mediation. [75] Now user:SSS108 changed his opinion because he states that salon.com is a self professed tabloid and because he states that it is only published online. He says that he was unaware of this during mediation. Andries 17:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I propose a centralized discussion for the question whether salon.com is a reliable source. Talk:Salon.com/as_a_source_for_Wikipedia. Andries 23:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I made my case here: [77] & [78]. People are confusing Salon.com with a particular tabloid article on Salon.com, a self-professed online tabloid magazine (that has not been published anywhere else except on Salon.com). This particular article does not meet Wikipedia's policies of reliable sources, in my opinion. SSS108 talk- email 06:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Fred, so are you saying that the following articles can be cited on Wikipedia? Since I do not hold a favorable opinion of Scalia, I will cite Salon.com and it's article about him to support the widely held opinion that he is "martyr", is a "a poster boy for intolerance, vitriol and questionable ethics", writes "masterpieces of contemptuous nastiness" and turns up "the volume on his vitriol so high that it's hard to hear anything" [79]. Fantastic! SSS108 talk- email 19:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
JBKramer, ArbCom is setting the standards. Are these the standards that ArbCom is saying are allowable? The above example shows the flaw in the reasoning of allowing stand-alone sources (which can be used and abused to push an agenda). I am surprised that no one is concerned about this. If Salon.com is allowed as a reliable stand-alone reference, anyone can make the argument that I just made above and get away with it. SSS108 talk- email 19:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I will, once other ArbCom members hopefully comment on it. And I will accept their majority opinion on this matter. I am not alone in my objection either. SSS108 talk- email 20:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It would appear that I am under the continuing harassment by User:Davenbelle (aka User:Moby Dick) and User:Stereotek (aka User:Karl Meier aka commons:User:Igiveup). see: Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Disputes#Complaint_about_abuse_of_adminship_by_Cool_Cat.
While I understand other projects are beyond the grasp of en:Arbcom, I'd like a way to deal with this issue. At the very least an arbcom opinion on the matter (non-binding as far as commons is concerned perhaps but would be a notable opinion helping desicion making process).
-- Cat out 16:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Cool Cat edited my user page on commons and I reverted him. He then reverted back and protected my user page. And *I'm* harrasing him? -- Moby 09:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm told this is the appropriate place to come for this appeal. In July, I was placed on probation as part of the decision in this RfA. I do not believe this decision was just, and I have chosen not to participate as an editor at Wikipedia rather than continue editing while subject to an unjust probation. In the nearly four months since that decision, I believe, subsequent events have demonstrated rather starkly that arbitrator Fred Bauder's initial assessment of the cause of the dispute was correct, and that JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and I should never have been placed on probation in relation to this matter. In addition, the underlying dispute has been harmoniously resolved, which suggests that the need for probation, assuming such need ever existed in the first place, has now ended. Accordingly, I request that this probation be formally lifted. Thank you. — phh ( t/ c) 01:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, I'm right here in case anyone had wondered. I just blanked my talk page and userpage :) JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is currently an edit war on the article Temperature record of the past 1000 years. One of the participants is User:William M. Connolley. WMC's edits were surprising for me; I checked his history, and found that ArbCom has previously had him on 6-month parole for trying to impose an extreme non-factual POV on climate-related articles. In my opinion, he is continuing that.
There is one action by WMC that I have a general question about. After the edit war started, I put a Disputed tag on the article. WMC reverted the article to the version that he preferred and removed the Disputed tag. As far as I can tell, there are no Wikipedia policies/guidelines about removing Disputed tags. My question is this: is there such a policy and, if not, should there be one? I am not an expert Wikipedian; my (possibly naive) view is that it would be preferable to have some policy/guideline prohibiting removal of disputed tags while an article is being actively disputed.
TheSeven 09:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Its unclear to me what this has to do with the arbitrators. TS has just had this pointed out to him, but it doesn't seem to have done any good William M. Connolley 13:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I guess my question was not worded well. My question is a general one, and the mention of WMC was to give an example. Herewith, my question:
Is it inappropriate for someone to remove a Disputed tag during an active dispute and should Wikipedia have a policy that pertains to removal of Disputed tags?
My question arose because it seems inappropriate to me for someone to remove a Disputed tag during an active dispute. In the example that I gave, the removals have been continuing (i.e. the Disputed tag has been removed while simultaneously a statement that I, and others, believe to be incorrect has been reinserted). But this is only an example; it is the general question that I put to ArbCom.
TheSeven 17:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As far as I understand it, Brion Vibber's dismissal of the remedy Giano II in RFAR/Giano, which was passed 6–0, as a "whim" [80] means that Giano is unable to vote for or against new Stewards in the current Meta elections, because he's putatively too new. (The account Giano II hasn't been editing for the required three months.) I suppose this (minor) aspect of the problem could be fixed, provided anybody cares? Bishonen | talk 02:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have made motions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pat8722/Workshop#Motion_for_Clarification and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pat8722/Workshop#Motion_for_Clarification_and_Motion_for_Procedure] but have not received a response. What is the procedure for notifying arbcom that I have motions outstanding? (I had assumed the workshop page would have been kept on an arbcom member's watch list, but I am now wondering if that is the case). My motions are requesting clarification or their words, and detail on the procedure they have requested I follow in my future action. pat8722 02:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. - Mike Rosoft 22:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Although not provided for in the penalties, I have indefinitely blocked Terryeo as described at [83]. The reasons amount to malicious and targetted harassment of users as part of his unabandoned quest to advance his POV on Scientology. Phil Sandifer 18:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The duration of Fys' probation (enacted 21 Sep 2006) is not clear. Is it for one year (as for Karl Meier and Irishpunktom) or indefinite, and if one year, does the year extend from the date of the case or the date of the amended decision? Thatcher131 21:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've blocked ManEatingDonut ( talk · contribs) for 24 hours for violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche, which says "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense." See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche#Enforcement.
ManEatingDonut was warned on Oct 23 about reinserting LaRouche material, [86] and took part in a request for clarification on this page about it. [87] Despite the warning, on Nov 18, he removed the redirect of Eurasian Land-Bridge ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to Asian Highway Network and twice reinserted a LaRouche-related text. The Eurasian Land-Bridge is a name that some people use for parts of the Asian Highway, so the title is redirected there. However, it's also a name used for a more complex idea that LaRouche claims is his. Herschelkrustofsky/Weed Harper wrote the original article that included LaRouche's views; [88] it was redirected to Asian Highway Network in September 2004. The text was restored and rewritten a little by NathanDW, [89] another LaRouche supporter, on October 31, 2006; reverted by Will BeBack; restored by ManEatingDonut on Nov 18; [90] reverted by SlimVirgin; restored by ManEatingDonut on Nov 22. [91]
I've blocked him for 24 hours for the repeated re-insertion, but I'd like to make the block indefinite. He has made 186 edits since August, almost all promoting LaRouche. He has edited logged out (acknowledging that it was him) and used the same AOL IP range 172.192.0.0 - 172.194.0.0 that Herschelkrustofsky/WeedHarper used. There's no firm evidence that it's the same person, but I believe he may be from the same LaRouche group in Los Angeles. As any proposed ban needs to be confirmed by the ArbCom, I'm asking here for your thoughts. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised that no one thought to notify me of this. I left a note on SlimVirgin's talk page asking her to warn me if she thought I was violating an arbcom decision, preferably before blocking me rather than afterward. I made my views on LaRouche clear to the only person who asked me, at User talk:Astor Piazzolla. It is wrong to accuse me of "promoting LaRouche" when I have added almost no material to these articles -- I have only opposed edits that I thought were biased, or looked up sources and added them when sources were requested. As far as those other people are concerned (Herschelkrustofsky, etc.) I became aware of them for the first time when I discovered the talk page of Eurasian Land-Bridge. Apparently there was a lot of conflict between them and SlimVirgin and Will Beback. I have no interest in reviving that conflict, and it is unfair to somehow involve me in it.
I came to this page tonight to ask further clarification. The arbcom decision that I have read says "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." This is now being interpreted by editors at the article Lyndon LaRouche to include the article Lyndon LaRouche as well, and material is being removed such as a quote from Eugene McCarthy that appeared in an EIR interview, or in this case, a quote from Mexican President Lopez Portillo. Since the arbcom decision explicitly says "other than the article Lyndon LaRouche," I would like to know if you think that this behavior is justified. -- ManEatingDonut 07:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Both the Rachel Marsden and Marsden-Donnelly harassment case articles have been deleted by administrators in the last day (and protected to prevent re-creatin). Some editors have argued that references to Marsden's past controversies are inappropriate for the article.
The Marsden RfA determined that "Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden, may, when they violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, be reduced to a stub by any user or deleted, together with their talk pages, by any administrator. Removal of poorly sourced negative information or of blocks of grossly unbalanced negative material is not subject to the three revert rule. Such material may be removed without limit". It also ruled that the Marsden and Marsden-Donnelly articles, in their existing state, were in violation of BLP.
Questions: (i) Do references to Marsden's past controversies inherently violate BLP, or would a fair and neutral overview be permitted? (ii) Is page deletion an appropriate remedy to this situation? CJCurrie 06:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
More questions: (iii) Interpretation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is often a matter of debate. May speedy deletions of Marsden-related articles be overturned through the usual channel of Deletion Review? (iv) Are we supposed to delete based solely on whether the current version of a page violates WP:BLP, or may we delete based on the existence of previous versions that have violated WP:BLP? Kla'quot 06:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC) (v) Why didn't Arbcom go ahead and delete the articles themselves as soon as the case closed? Kla'quot 07:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Kla'quot 03:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some questions have risen as to the interpretation of that phrase ("can't work out what it's trying to say" [92]). Could the arbitrators clarify what the above sentence means? Or would they say the sentence should be clear in its context ( Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone#Sources for popular culture)? -- Francis Schonken 22:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[...] when a substantial body of material is available [...] the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included.
What's unclear? In the context of the case, it says that, given a large corpus of material on a topic, that has not been subject to scholarly analysis, it is acceptable to quote selectively and with qualification from it. Charles Matthews 10:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm happy to see the 4th vote to accept this RfA. Without some conclusion on the matter Robert Folsom is likely to just keep on reverting any edits that his boss doesn't like. (Un)Fortunately, it is now time for my Christmas holiday, and I will be travelling and doing all those Christmas things for the next three weeks. Is it possible to get this delayed for 3 weeks? I'm sorry if this throws a wrench in the usual process.
Happy Holidays,
Smallbones 09:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Zer0faults, now editing as NuclearUmpf ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is under probation and may be banned from articles he disrupts. A complaint was filed at WP:AE alleging disruption at September 11, 2001 attacks ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (with a related discussion here). I looked into the situation, and found an edit war over the insertion of an external link. I counted 18 insertions of the link by 5 editors (11 by NuclearUmpf) and 17 removals by 7 editors over 7 days, with no attempts made to follow any dispute resolution process (third opinion, RFC or mediation). There was extensive discussion on the talk page but it was fruitless, as it revolved around whether the link met the external link policy, rather than what seems to me the more important issue of even if it does, should it be included as a matter of editorial judgement. I offered an opinion on the link, and declined to enforce NuclearUmpf's probation, as he was only one of twelve people involved in an edit war, including at least one admin, none of whom sought help through the dispute resolution process (I left open the possibility of future action if Nuclear continues to fight the issue after DR). [93] (One other uninvolved editor has also offered an opinion on the link [94].) My judgement has been called into question by two editors, one of whom said (in email) "You have effectively taken the power and credibility from the arbcomm, saying their rulings mean nothing." I request a review by the arbitration committee. Thatcher131 14:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please have a look at Robert Priddy. IMHO User:SSS108 is boldy misinterpreting [95] the ArbCom ruling. It doesn't apply to the article Robert Priddy (as he is neither Sathya Sai Baba nor an affiliated organization). And if I'm not completely mistaken, the ArbCom ruling only applies to User:Andries and User:SSS108. -- Pjacobi 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
It looks like a new case involving these articles is being accepted, so this dispute can be addressed there. Newyorkbrad 18:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it correct for me to assume that the current ArbCom case [96] is going to deal with this issue, as stated by Newyorkbrad? SSS108 talk- email 05:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After his third arbitration case, Instantnood was placed on indefinite (both regular and general) probation. Instantnood violated his probation by POV-pushing at Single-party state. I reported him on the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard, and Eagle 101 blocked him for 24 hours and placed him on 1RR.
My first question: Are admins allowed to place a user on 1RR, or is only the Arbitration Committee empowered to do so? If only the Arbitration Committee can place a user on 1RR, can they only do so as a remedy during an arbitration case involving said user?
Instantnood's POV-pushing sparked an edit war between him, Huaiwei, and several others. During the heated discussion on the talk page, Huaiwei has made personal attacks on Regebro, and Regebro has made comments which are, at worst, personal attacks on all Singaporeans, and, at best, incivili and assumption of bad faith. In addition, Nightstallion's use of rollback in a content dispute may constitute abuse of administrator privileges.
The ongoing mediation will probably fail; in fact, the Mediation Cabal rejected the case. Regebro has filed an RFC against Huaiwei, and Thadius856 has filed an RFAr against Huaiwei (not related to the dispute on Single-party state).
My second question: is this dispute serious enough to warrant filing of an arbitration case? I believe arbitration is neccesary to review the conduct of all involved parties, impose binding sanctions, and put a stop to the conflicts between Huaiwei and Instantnood, as other attempts at dispute resolution have failed, and Instantnood has repeatedly ignored consensus. However, since arbitration is not a laughing matter, and I don't want to waste the Arbitration Committee's time, I would like to get some consensus before filing an arbitration case.
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A finding of fact in the RPJ case mentions the site spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk (founder John Simkin), characterised as propagandistic in relation to uncritical inclusions as factual of material on the Kennedy assassination. The Spartacus site contains unrelated historical material on many subjects. Having heard from John Simkin, and having myself linked to Spartacus pages on numerous occasions, I would like to clarify that (as far as I'm concerned) the FoF in the case is not intended as a blanket condemnation. Editors should exercise good judgement as to tone and factual reliability of these pages, case by case. Charles Matthews 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. An excerpt of an IRC log were placed on and were subsequently removed from the project's talk page. I seek clarification from the Committee as to the extent to which we are we permitted to or prohibited from discussing the content contained in this excerpt (without direct quotations, of course). Since I have already commented on these, I would like to know whether I am in breach of the rules by doing so, so that, if applicable, I could rectify this and remove my comment accordingly. The pertinent comments are here. El_C 00:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)