(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fred Bauder (talk | contribs) at 15:00, 28 November 2005 (→‎Baku Ibne). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland Motion (orig. case) 21 June 2024
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox Motion none 10 July 2024
Clarification request: Desysoppings none none 12 July 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arb Com member votes to accept/ reject/ recuse/ other.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

How to list cases

Under the below Current requests section:

  • Click "[edit]";
  • Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), ommitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
  • Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
  • Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
  • Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template


Current requests

Carl Hewitt

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

User:CarlHewitt has been informed here.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

A significant amount of effort, by a group of editors, over more than three months has been spent trying to resolve conflicts with Carl Hewitt. See User:R.Koot/Request for Comments on User:CarlHewitt and User talk:CarlHewitt for a summary of the conflicts and efforts done to resolve the conflits and User talk:R.Koot/Request for Comments on User:CarlHewitt for the reasoning behind the decision to start arbitration.

Statement by party 1

Too summarize: Two persistent complaints are that his contributions are Original research or Self-promotion (see, for example, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], User talk:CSTAR/Relativistic information science discussion and Talk:Actor model).

Statement by party 2

Please see discussion of Rudy Koot's statement at article section User_talk:CarlHewitt#Arbitration_with_Rudy_Koot_and_Edward_Schaefer (the discussion is gradually beginning to build inline throughout the entire section). Thanks,--Carl Hewitt 02:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the discussion above is based on the original statement submitted by Rudy which may be different from the subsequent versions that he has created at User:R.Koot/Request for Comments on User:CarlHewitt.

Two observations can be made:

  1. From the discussion, it is evident that Rudy's statement often got it's facts wrong.
  2. Many of the recommendations in Rudy's statement are against Wikipedia policy. For example, his recommendation that just about all the articles be lumped into the article Actor model goes against the Wikipedia recommendation on the size of articles since Actor model is already over the recommended limit.

Regards,--Carl Hewitt 09:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

Regarding webcomics deletion

Involved parties

Many, of whom the most notable are:

A large number of people who have left the project with a bad taste in their mouths

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Notification will be left on all talk pages.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

There was a failed RfC on the matter of webcomic deletion broadly. Large amounts of discussion have taken place at Wikipedia talk:Websites and previously on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Webcomics/Notability and inclusion guidelines. No RfM has been attempted, because I can't very well mediate on behalf of the people that have been driven off the project.

Statement by Snowspinner

Several users, most notably Aaron and Dragonfiend, have engaged in a persistent campaign to reduce the number of articles that Wikipedia has about webcomics. In doing so, they have engaged in a consistent pattern of assuming bad faith, biting the newbies, ramming Wikipedia policy through on talk pages with minimal consensus and no outside eyes, and often disregarding the expressed consensus of Wikipedians on AfD in setting their policy. They have, most gallingly, actively declared a lack of concern as to expert opinions on notability in AfDs, accusing experts of having "conflicts of interest" whereby they might use their professional work for the sole purpose of establishing notability on Wikipedia, and thus that their opinion should actually count for less than the opinions of people who know nothing about the subject.

Assumptions of bad faith: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] (Planning a second AfD before the first one has even concluded) [26]

Note particularly [27] where Aaron begins edit counting AfD contributors to discount their votes including Eric Burns, who, although he has 29 edits, has also been around for a year, edited plenty of non-AfD articles, and is, by almost any standard, not a sock. Note also that he signs his edit counts not as himself but instead as the users he is counting the votes of.

Clear intention to disregard established AfD consensus in drafting policy: [28] [29]

I would note also that this issue is doing serious damage to Wikipedia, as evidenced by the transformation of Eric Burns (One of the foremost authorities on webcomics, involved in both of the major webcomics review sites, as well as running his own blog, Websnark, which is huge in the webcomics community) has made regarding Wikipedia. Around a year ago, he wrote [30]. Recently, he wrote [31].

The poisonous atmosphere surrounding webcomics is driving off good-faith contributors. It needs to be stopped.

Trivial clarification by Snowspinner

I don't see this as a case regarding deletion policy at large. I do think it's a case involving assumptions of good faith, the fact that Wikipedia exists primarily for its readers, and the fact that it is not acceptable to try to craft policy under a relative cloud of secrecy and them to use it as a hammer to reshape consensus. I also don't think that any of these principles are remotely in doubt or need of review. Although I object to some of the webcomic nominations - most extremely Dragonfiend's nomination of Checkerboard Nightmare, I am prepared to accept that they were all made in good faith, if not in good judgment. Regretably, this separates them from much of the conduct surrounding this issue. Phil Sandifer 00:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sjakkalle

With all due respect, that's just not true... this isn't a case about a few bad AfD nominations. It's a case about a campaign to rid Wikipedia of undesirable content, conducted without care to who it drove off, on the implicit assumption that people who only contribute about webcomics aren't real contributors anyway. It's about a "by any means necessary" attitude towards deletion that results in trying to secretly change the rules because you don't like consensus, in trying to call suspicion on every advocate of the other side you can, and in continually declaring bad faith on the part of those you disagree with. In short, people are operating under the influence of m:MPOV. That's what's poisonous. Making a dumb AfD nomination isn't - we've all done that. Phil Sandifer 15:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

How about an RfC first? - brenneman(t)(c) 21:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 3

I see no reason to suspect that this issue can't be resolved with the earliest steps of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. -- Dragonfiend 18:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/1/0)

Conduct of User:Reddi with respect to other editors

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Evidence that User:Reddi will not even engage me when I point out this Request for arbitrartion

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  1. Attempt to get response on QSS page
  2. Attempt by Joshuaschroeder to get response on Plasma cosmology talk page
  3. Attempt by Art Carlson to get response on Plasma cosmology talk page
  4. Attempt to get a response from user directly by Joshuaschroeder
  5. Attempt to get a response from user directly by Art Carlson
  6. Attempt to get a response on Ultimate fate of the universe talk page
  7. RfC started: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Reddi

Evidence that User:Reddi absolutely refuses to engage me as an editor and further that he will not respond to other attempts at mediation: [33]

Statement by party 1

I have been involved in a number of articles concerning how to report on non-standard cosmology here on Wikipedia. User:Reddi has determined that my work is trollish and he has made it clear that he will not engage me but instead will simply revert every edit I make on the articles listed in the RfC. He has struck-through my comments on his talkpage asking for him to respond to me claiming that he doesn't deal with trolls. I have no other place to turn to at this moment as he refuses to engage me on the talkpages or on the RfC and seems content to continue his inappropriate actions here at Wikipedia.

--Joshuaschroeder 18:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by party 2

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Statement by admin that protected the article (≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @)

I protected the Plasma cosmology article on November 5, due to editwarring, personal attacks and lack of civility in the discussions at the talk page. After a new editor, a subject expert matter joined the editing process (Eric Lerner User:Elerner), and after what I perceived to be a show of good faith by participating editors, I unprotected the article on November 6. Notwithstanding User:Reddi's behavior in not responding to questions by a fellow editor, as a neutral observer I am surprised this interpersonal problem between User:Joshuaschroeder and other editors has arrived to the ArbCom without exploring other avenues for dispute resolution. I received personal email from some one of the editors involved, stating that he is giving up contributing to this article (and probably others) due to the relentless involvement of User:Joshuaschroeder in the editing process. We need passionate editors that care, but sometimes too much passion may elicit the wrong type of response from editors that otherwise are quite happy to engage and collaborate in the editing process with others. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also note RfC's by User:Joshuaschroeder and User:Joke137 dated Nov 21st against two editors involved in this dispute:
Why do we need arbitration two days after a user's RfCs against User:Reddi has been posted by User:Joshuaschroeder? Let these run their course, and then seek mediation if still unsastisfied. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I escalated this to the RfA status so soon is because User:Reddi refused to engage me on the RfC (he struckthrough my comments about both that and this RfC) while continuing to edit articles. Subsequently, Reddi has been banned for Wikipedia:3RR and has continued to refuse to address me directly. He has gone as far as to change my posts on talkpages to say something completely different [34]. What evidence is there that he will engage me? He has explicitly claimed that he wouldn't. Joshuaschroeder 05:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia's dispute resolution official policy and note that Arbitration is the last resort. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 06:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Informal Mediation
  2. Discuss with third parties (e.g. RfC)
  3. Mediation
  4. Requesting an advocate
  5. Last resort: Arbitration
Maybe you should read the evidence I presented that User:Reddi has out-and-out refused to talk and continues to revert and edit articles without using the talkpages. Arbitration is a last resort when there is evidence that other dispute resolution processes won't work. You haven't addressed the evidence I've laid out above. In fact, you've been fairly unresponsive to evidence I've laid out during this entire fiasco. --Joshuaschroeder 17:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your perceived unresponsiveness to your evidence on my part is based on the fact that nontwithstanding the lack of response by User:Reddi, you have (a) yet to wait to see if the RfC yields changes in attitude; (b) you can explore mediation if the RfC fails to produce such change ; and (c) you can request the assistance of an advocate. Only then, if all three dispute resolution processes fail to produce satisfactory results, you can submit the case to Arbitration. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have evidence that User:Reddi was not responsive to the RfC as he continued to edit articles in the same fashion. He then proceded to cross-out every attempt that I made to communicate with him. I already have other people trying to help me (one of whom User:Joke137 has decided to stop editting due to the interminable conflicts). This has been ongoing for some time, and it isn't the first time that User:Reddi's conduct has been pointed out to this body. There is plenty of evidence above showing why I resorted to this since informal advocacy seems to be getting us nowhere (see the work of Art Carlson and your half-hearted attempt at moderation) did not engage Reddi's reticence. Therefore The RfArb is what is left to appeal to. --Joshuaschroeder 20:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have said all I could in my statement above and in responding tou your comments.. Now it is up to the ArbCom to decide if to hear this case or not. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 21:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pjacobi

While only tangentially involved in this dispute with Reddi, I cannot help but give a supporting statement for Joshuaschroeder and Joke137 which have been harassed by Reddi [[35]], [[36]]. I'd be very sad if they really decide to leave because of this.

Reddi is on mission to give minority or fringe views in science greater weight in Wikipedia. This mission has its legitimate part, as we want to document all knowledge, but it also has (in my not so humble opinion) an illegitimate part, if these views start to invade the main articles in the field and are presented in way, which may mislead our readers. I've met Reddi all over since starting to edit Wikipedia, beginning with Testatika (which I voted to keep BTW), later the Tesla related stuff, recently in Motionless Electrical Generator. Mostly I had the impression of good (bad ill-directed) faith, so his behaviour in this case came rather as surprise.

The background for all this is IMHO, that there is simmering, undecided problem with clarification of NPOV in scientific topics. Is it right for Wikipedia to present the topic as seen by academic science, including minority views, but establishing the consensus view if this is quite clear. Or would this be presenting an academic POV, as Reddi never gets tired to protest? Can we rely on the scientific process, with it's visible results like academic text books, peer-reviewed journal articles, citation counts, or is this censuring?

Pjacobi 11:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Connolley 21:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC) (I endorse Pjacobi's statement (every word of it); not sure if its appropriate for me to; remove if not)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/0/0)


Regarding the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy

Involved parties

Most prominantly User:Kevin baas, although others are involved.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

On his talk page.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
 (If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)

This dispute has been ongoing for well over a year, and is a dispute of wilful POV pushing and revert warring. Among the contributors is Kevin Baas, who narrowly escaped a previous arbcom case. The issue has appeared on the mailing list, and numerous editors have already weighed in.

Statement by Snowspinner

2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and its associated sub-articles have been drowning in original research, POV, and edit warring since their creation. So far an astonishing 50,000 words have been written on the matter, all meticulously sourced. However, the sourcing is overwhelmingly towards nonnotable and POV sources, and the articles have been tightly controlled by their creators so as to stifle any attempts at dissent, including addition of NPOV and original research tags. The result has been to keep mostrously bad work on Wikipedia that stands in violation of numerous policies. Most flagrant in this has been User:Kevin baas, who has added copyvio material to the article and persistantly refused to acknowledge the existence of an NPOV dispute, defending all sources, including things such as treating Ben Cohen, the founder of Ben and Jerry's, as a notable source on election fraud, the use of partisan blogs as a major source, and the production of original research through novel aggregation of facts. Simply put, the articles have grown unmanagably bad, and none of the tools offered to editors are making a significant effort in fixing them - I ask for the arbcom to put some rules on articles that will allow editors invested in NPOV to do the gut-editing these articles need without sparking yet another revert war. Phil Sandifer 18:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ammendment

I would think that [37], Several of [38], [39], [40] (Particularly the second), and some variation on the "cite sources" policy, although none of the listed principles apply.

Particular tactics of stonewalling and edit warring that seem to me greivously offensive are the removal of NPOV tags despite a well-stated dispute (I did not revert war this point) as with [41]. (Note that a list of every problematic citation has been on the talk page for quite a while now). Also problematic is the insistence on leaving bad information in place until it is fixed instead of removing badly sourced and POV material and reconstructing the article from there - in other words, an insistence on leaving the article in its POV and bad form until the task of creating a "perfect" article is finished. Examples of this mentality are at [42] and [43]. Further problematic is the usage of a GAO report as direct source material for the article - paragraphs were copied wholesale into the article. This is not copyvio (The GAO report is public domain), but it's still the importation of original research, and the entire thing was quoted to a Wired Magazine article instead of directly to the report.

Aggressively reverting all attempts to tag an article with a dispute tag or to remove material that is sourced to extremist blogs and ice cream moguls is a violation of policies. Since it's a dispute with quite a few editors, an article content RfC would be most appropriate, which consists of a link to the article - two VfDs on the entire block of articles and a mailing list post have clearly directed enough outside editors. As is usually the case with situations like this, the outside editors made a noble effort, got reverted, and wandered off to do other things.

That enough specific evidence of policy issues? Phil Sandifer 16:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Fred

I do not think it is primarily a content dispute - the case it most resembles is the first Lyndon LaRouche case - in fact, the central issue with the provided sources (Reliance on mutually self-referential sources from a minor and extremist point of view) is identical in both cases. But it is, to my mind, a dispute over the application of several policies - NPOV, NOR, as well as article ownership. It's certainly nothing that hasn't been dealt with by the arbcom before - see [44] [45] [46] [47] and [48] for examples of cases that have similar relationships to content. Phil Sandifer 17:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The question of the reliability of sources remains unsettled. Unreliable sources may not be used, reliable sources may be, but the location of the dividing line is uncertain. It may depend on context. Fred Bauder 19:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at [49] - at least my first post in that thread, in which I go over all 68 of the sources. Among the things being used are Green Party press releases, geocities pages, webforum threads, blog posts, and several citations to Michael Moore, all made without crediting the claims in any sort of "Michael Moore alledges" way. Phil Sandifer 20:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carbonite

The main problem with these articles (see Template:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy see also for a mostly complete list) is that they grew extremely fast and were quickly considered "owned" by a tiny group of editors. Attempts to remove even the most trivial of information are usually met with reverts and demands to justify all changes. I strongly urge the ArbCom to accept arbitration on this matter. Carbonite | Talk 19:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/3/1/0)


EffK, formerly known as Famekeeper

Involved parties

This editor has been engaging in an extended effort to use Wikipedia to present a theory of Roman Catholic Church complicity in and active support of Adolf Hitler. This effort has involved personal attacks on other editors, accusations of bad faith (including that other editors are acting as agents of the Vatican), and using article talk pages as a soapbox.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Defendant's response shows that he is aware of the request. Robert McClenon 12:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Efforts by affected editors to resolve situation:

Several editors who wished to edit the articles on Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, Ludwig Kaas, and Reichskonkordat constructively began requesting the defendant to refrain from personal attacks and to refrain from using Wikipedia as a soapbox, beginning in May 2005. A user conduct Request for Comments was posted in July 2005. The link has been deleted from the user conduct RfC page, but the RfC itself is available at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Famekeeper. The RfC summarizes the previous steps that were taken prior to posting the RfC. Robert McClenon also suggested mediation. Famekeeper then asked Wyss to act as a mediator. After some effort to mediate, Wyss concluded that the mediation was not working.

  • Efforts by the user in question to resolve situation:

The user in question, as User:Famekeeper posted several messages to the talk page of User:Jimbo Wales, asking for his intervention to defend the integrity of the Wikipedia against User:Str1977 and others. On 4 and 5 September 2005, Jimbo Wales advised User:Famekeeper to leave Wikipedia voluntarily because he (Famekeeper) appeared to be the sort of user who would otherwise be banned. He did leave Wikipedia for about two months, but then returned as EffK. On 11 November 2005, the user in question posted a request on the RfAr talk page (not on this RfAr article page, and so not a formal RfAr) to ban User:Str1977. The requests by the user in question for the ArbCom or Jimbo Wales to take action show that any measures short of arbitration have been exhausted.

Statement by party 1

The RfC contains a summary of the conduct in question.

Also see the following diff of a frivolous request by the editor in question to ban another editor: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=27989592&oldid=27748413

Update by party 1

The defendant is posting messages to my talk page and the talk page of Str1977 that I consider to be harassment. The following is the most recent such: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&diff=29160780&oldid=29142597

Statement by party 2

Recent expansion of the charge warrants briefest expansion of my rebuttal . I say that accomodation of Hitler (even by the RC Church ), is not POV [[50]], but NPOV history . I have only shock , not POV . The POV as alleged is actually church canon law[[51]] ,[[52]]. The user's Mclenon and Str1977 , are intellectually dishonest in claiming against me. [[53]] ,EffK 00:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC) Concurrent to this RfA I [[54]] [[55]] [[56]] my sole disputant,[[57]],[58]][[59]], [[60]],[[61]] .[[62]] ,[[63]],[[64]] ,[[65]],[[66]] ,[[67]] ,User:Str1977 ,[[68]] - [[69]],[[70]],[[71]], and to Robert Mcclenon ( talk )(false [[72]],[[73]] mediator [[74]],[[75]],[[76]] ,[[77]],[[78]] , [[79]] ,[[80]] ,[[81]] , [[82]]. See :[[83]] , updated talk at [[84]][reply]

McClenon does not understand ,[[85]],[[86]],[[87]][[88]],[[89]], [[90]],[[91]],[[92]][[93]],[[94]][[95]],[[96]],[[97]][[98]], [[99]] the sources [[100]] of my bulk contributions [[101]][[102]],[[103]],[[104]],[[105]],http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Weimar_Republic&action=edit&section=2,[[106]], and WP corrections , [[107]] ,[[108]][[109]], [[110]] , nor my real disputant : [[111]][[112]],[[113]] ,[[114]][[115]]([[116]] ,, McC thinks or pretends that I represent a vandalous attacker upon the church, when I bring only published source [[117]] ,[[118]],[[119]]

I have never wanted to give an email to WP , and so cookie-loss means I changed name variations.

As to Str1977 , pages Reichskonkordat, Weimar Republic and Centre Party Germany for today 17 November 2005 , will show that an anon & Str1977 , after a 3/4 year edit-war cf: [[120]] ,[[121]], has accepted the gist of my sources [[122]] ,and NPOV [[123]]. I believe that WP has finally/or never enabled me to correct the Str1977 ,and , after irksome discourse (filibustering to McClenon) I repaired some serious fault in WP .

Str1977 by present allowance of my edits which he consistently removed (in provocative manner [[124]] ,[[125]] ,[[126]],[[127]], [[128]]) over 12 months , the same day that Mcclenon starts this RfA , proves the RfA a form of ad hominem ,illustrating the WP faith problem[[129]] better than my supposed crime.

This is McClenon's second case against me (RfC) & I signed , a day late an RfC against him as lying bully . I take no pleasure here [[130]],[[131]] , nor enjoy intellectual provocation and denial of source by means solely of the two users' interpretation [[132]] .

I believe this RfA is last ditch attempt to remove the accusations made by the world [[133]] at large [[134]], [[135]] , [[136]] from Wikipedia , following from my demands that [[137]] ,the opposition ( my good friend nevertheless [[138]], [[139]], Str1977 ]] put up or shut up . The new allowance of my edits to remain within the above articles , is the result.

My blocker ,[[140]],[[141]],[[142]],[[143]],[[144]]/[[145]][[146]],[[147]],[[148]] has always been Str1977, who hopefully has stopped the denialism [[149]][[150]] [[151]] . I was suggested by Jimbo to leave , I did for 2 months, WP deteriorated as I proved and I came back because three users , one Robert McClenon ,started posting "FK research" , my location by country , and shared accusatory condemnation of me in WP, calling me a paranoid schizophrenic conspiracy theorist with writing disability [[152]].

All these users should be admonished .

This [[153]] [[154]] , thorniest historical issue is defended here by actual 'denialism [[[,[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reichskonkordat&diff=next&oldid=27703162][[155]],[[156]], [[157]] ,[[158]] , of source [[159]] ,[[160]][[161]],[[162]] something [[163]][[164]] reflected in greater cyberspace [[165]] . I openly claimed recently there is not one political error I have made so far[[166]] . I unknowingly concurrently of this RfA sought an apology from McClenon and congratulated Str1977 on final good sense in accepting my NPOV [[167]][[168]]/[[169]] ,[[170]],[[171]]. Links may follow. EffK 01:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat

At the moment let me just note

  • that EffK's statement about our agreement are wrong. Some things he has posted I have never disputed, while other things I continue to dispute. To say we have reached an agreement or that I have accepted the gist is untrue, unless he has suddenly withdrawn his theories. Hence I place doubt upon the congratulations.
  • that EffK is far from having made no error (I don't know what "political" means here
  • that I was not EffK/Famekeeper's sole disputant, though the main one. Other editor, e.g. John Kenney were involved with him as well.
  • that I meant no harm in posting "FK Research" - it was basically a reaction to his inquisitiveness about personal details of other editors (Robert McClenon in particular), his own seclusiveness in that matter and his insistence on being a native speaker.

I don't know whether this is the right place to post this. If it isn't, please drop me a line and show where I should place this. Str1977 10:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/1/0)

Requests for Clarification

Requests for clarification from the Arbcom on matters related to the arbitration process.

Checkuser Awilliamson

From WP:RFM/JoA:

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

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

Zen-master race and intelligence ban clarification/justification question

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

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

You have a history of disruptively adding permanent {npov} templates to articles until you get your way. This is part of a pattern. Jayjg (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look at the talk page will show other editors agree with me that the race and intelligence article is fundamentally disputed. Please assume good faith and investigate this issue. The criteria here is not about me getting my "way", the issue is Ryan Delaney and other admins repeatedly trying to deny the existence of criticisms of what appears to be a racism inducing article, aren't you at all concerned about that possibility? How can adding {npov} be "disruptive" if an in good faith dispute exists? zen master T 19:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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


Are arbitration decisions to be taken seriously in climate change dispute?

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

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

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

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

No he shouldn't have to beg but I've been following his postings on AN/3RR and they are clearly malicious in an attempt to get WMC blocked and several blatant violations of WP:POINT as it's gone from listing in good faith to trying to be disrputive just because people refuse to give in to his vendetta to have another user blocked. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion as to whether my faith is good. Any clarification on the questions? (SEWilco 01:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
In what way is an infraction during parole "stale"? Address the above clarification request on the subject. (SEWilco 01:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
It's not necessarily whether the infractions are stale or not but the fact that you are listing numerous (13 at this point so far I think) which is beyond trying to just have the arbcom ruling enforced. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please advise how violations are to be reported. Or are you proposing that the ArbComm approve performing dozens of violations as a method for escaping parole? (SEWilco 04:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Again, please advise how violations are to be reported. Speaking as an outsider, I suggest a four-word answer: "In a timely fashion." --Calton | Talk 06:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In a timely fashion after they are discovered. Certainly. (SEWilco 14:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

Baku Ibne

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

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

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=29486541"