(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 Raul654 (talk | contribs) at 01:43, 7 February 2006 (→‎Checkuser vetting). 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 Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

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 against whom you lodge a complaint.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or clerks 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), omitting 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

Lapsed Pacifist

Involved parties

Lapsed Pacifist has for one year engaged in edit warring, POV editing and provocative behaviour despite appeals to stop, bans and an RfC.

confirmation that LP has been notified.

Given that the user has ignored all appeals and all requests to follow NPOV and even begun editwarring as soon as blocks expired over and over again, there are no grounds whatsoever that any other mechanism but an enforceable ruling of the Arbcom will stop the saga.

Statement by jtdirl

LP regularly adds in POV additions, subtle word changes and POV language pushing political agendas to Irish articles. This has been going on for months. He has ignored appeals to stop, demands from multiple users to stop, bans for breaching 3RR. In Northern Ireland, elements of both communities use POV terminology both to push their own political agenda and to send a "fuck you" message to the other. LP is one of the worst offenders on WP. For example, because elements of both communities use their own POV language to describe the place (Unionists use 'Ulster', Republicans 'The Six Counties' etc) WP follows a strict policy of only using the legal name, Northern Ireland and no POV alternative. LP has spent months deleting references to Northern Ireland and slotting in his own political agenda-pushing replacements, for example [1], [2] [3], [4], [5], He deliberately changes Loyalist (fringe working class Unionists associated with violence) to Unionist (the mainstream community rarely linked to violence) to provoke and offend Unionist Wikipedians [6], adds in unsourced wild claims [7], adds in propaganda for one party into articles [8] or heavy POV editorialising [9], miscategorises other people's edits as 'blanking' in edit summaries. Other examples of his edits include [10], [11], [12] [13], [14]. (Even while I was writing this, he produced this POV edit.[15]) Various articles have become bogged down in edit wars caused by his POVing.[16], [17], [18]

An example of some of his edit warring:

  1. (cur) (last) 22:39, 27 July 2005 Djegan m (revert vandalism)
  2. (cur) (last) 22:32, 27 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv)
  3. (cur) (last) 10:00, 27 July 2005 Djegan m (revert)
  4. (cur) (last) 06:59, 27 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv; please write accurate edit summaries)
  5. (cur) (last) 22:30, 26 July 2005 Djegan m (revert sectanism and vandalism of LP)
  6. (cur) (last) 22:28, 26 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv NPOV)
  7. (cur) (last) 10:15, 26 July 2005 Demiurge m (rv POV term "six counties")
  8. (cur) (last) 08:22, 26 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv NPOV)
  9. (cur) (last) 09:53, 25 July 2005 Demiurge m (rv POV term "six counties")
  10. (cur) (last) 06:59, 25 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv needlessly simplistic edit)
  11. (cur) (last) 21:48, 24 July 2005 JW1805 m (rvt (corrected needlessly complex sentence structure))
  12. (cur) (last) 21:39, 24 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv needlessly simplistic edit)
  13. (cur) (last) 15:37, 24 July 2005 JW1805 m (corrected needlessly complex sentence structure)
  14. (cur) (last) 15:34, 24 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv; Restore context)
  15. (cur) (last) 04:57, 24 July 2005 JW1805 m (simplify sentence)
  16. (cur) (last) 04:08, 24 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv NPOV)
  17. (cur) (last) 00:00, 23 July 2005 Demiurge m (rv POV)
  18. (cur) (last) 23:48, 22 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (Revert edits by Djegan to last version by JavaJive)
  19. (cur) (last) 20:27, 22 July 2005 Djegan (revert sectanism and vandalism)
  20. (cur) (last) 20:20, 22 July 2005 JavaJive m (wikify date)
  21. (cur) (last) 19:06, 22 July 2005 Demiurge m (rv POV)
  22. (cur) (last) 17:37, 22 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv)
  23. (cur) (last) 10:14, 22 July 2005 Demiurge m (rv POV)
  24. (cur) (last) 05:18, 22 July 2005 Lapsed Pacifist (rv)

While many of LP's edits are fine, in among the good ones he buries blatant POVing, provocative terminology and political agenda-pushing. Given that he has engaged in POV edit warring for one year, has refused to pay heed to complaints, refused to tone down his political agenda-pushing, has come back after blocks and picked up where he left off, there are no grounds for believing that any other form of mediation will stop him. He needs an enforceable ruling of the arbcom. Otherwise a host of Irish users will continue to have to spend much of their time constantly NPOVing his contributions and fighting edit wars with him. That is unfair on them and damaging to WP.

(Apologies for the length of above. It is a complex issue running a full year.)

Statement by party 2

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Evidence & View by Djegan

Lapsed Pacifist has continously disrupted wikipedia. In fairness he does give a very few good edits but this is seriously eclippsed by his pov warring on wikipedia. Additionally several good editors have being subjected to his warring across mainly British and Irish related articles, so it is not isolated by any means. What he does is damaging to a professional wikipedia and serious editors.

Some specific examples I would like to cite include[19] whereby he merged the information of two articles into one whilst keeping the source of both (List of universities in the Republic of Ireland and List of universities in Northern Ireland). Yet another example is[20] whereby he copied the source (Abbeys and priories in the Republic of Ireland and Abbeys and priories in Northern Ireland). In these two cases he did not consult anyone for their opinion, simply created unified copies of two exisiting articles. I contend that this is part of his general style to be biased and pov biased; a false United Ireland.

Two recent controversies he is associated in (with me) is that he moved two pages [21] and [22] even though the consensus was against this on the respective talk pages. These two articles are currently subject to a WP:RM vote.

This is only a small example of the warring that he does. Djegan 19:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement and evidence by Demiurge

This user holds Irish republican views, and is of the opinion that Northern Ireland is not a legitimate political entity. Which is a perfectly legitimate opinion to hold, of course; the problem arises when he tries to push this POV on Wikipedia by inserting unofficial POV names ("north-eastern Ireland", "the six counties", "the north-east") instead of "Northern Ireland" and even by using "Ireland" or "Ulster" where "Northern Ireland" would be more specific and appropriate[23][24].

Problematic behaviour includes:

  • provocative edit summaries: "rv, for the hell of it" "Inserting outrageous POV". Very difficult to WP:AGF after seeing these.
  • User_talk:Demiurge#Unionist_paramilitaries_(1912 - ) — discussion on my talk page where he admits that he is changing "loyalist paramilitaries" to "unionist paramilitaries" to push his POV that loyalist paramilitary groups and the police/army in Northern Ireland are equivalent.
  • [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] — revert warring over an unsourced "fact" concerning the Democratic Unionist Party's membership, and refusing to provide evidence when challenged on the talk page.
  • [31]. Another revert war, this time over LP saying as fact that the Stormontgate spy ring was the work of MI5. As anyone with Lapsed Pacifist's knowledge of Northern Ireland affairs would surely know, responsibility for this affair is still hotly debated, with the British government flatly denying that MI5 were behind it.
  • [32] — edit-warring over a period of six months in an attempt to substitute his preferred POV term "six counties" for "Northern Ireland".
  • [33] — another six-month edit war, this time trying to remove any reference to Northern Ireland entirely.

After extensive and fruitless attempts to resolve these issues with this user (relevant talk pages: Talk:Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Ireland, User talk:Demiurge#Unionist paramilitaries (1912 - ), Talk:Demographics and politics of Northern Ireland), I've come to the conclusion that this user has made no serious attempt to follow WP:NPOV, instead viewing talk-page discussion as a delaying tactic.

Demiurge 19:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/0/0/0)

Jacrosse

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Talk:Toga_party#Mediation

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Talk:Toga_party#Request_for_mediation

Statement by party 1

Since December 31, Jacrosse has reverted Toga party to include accusations of sexual misconduct towards various Straussians : According to the book Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire by Anne Norton, a variation on the toga party is rumored to have been practiced by many of the early followers of Leo Strauss, most often designed as a homoerotic re-enactment of Plato's Symposium. Fuel was later added to these rumors by the behavior of Strauss's most famous disciple, Allan Bloom, who reportedly held these "toga parties" among his students at Cornell University. This is not only irrelevant to the topic but also has only been sourced to single passage of a book by an author who herself doesn't believe the rumors. After over a month of attempts to reach a compromise (multiple requests for discussion on the talk page, moving the information to the author's page -- only to have him revert that to remove the correct info, request for mediation)he still reverts the page multiple times a day.

Statement by party 2

No Contest, I have already ceased and desisted.

Evidence added by Ryan Delaney

--Ryan Delaney talk 17:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/4/0/0)

SimonP and the entire source text of the King James Bible

Involved parties

vs.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

SimonP has been informed

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The issue has been discussed-

Despite this, Simon has consistently refused to budge, reverting anyone who attempts to remove it, for example, for Matthew 1:

Behaviour on the other articles involved is very similar

Statement by party 1

The policies and guidelines involved here are

SimonP has included the entire source text of a whole chapter of the bible in each of the following articles

This on its own violates Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, but also violates WP:NPOV since it places one translation above another - Simon consistently uses only the King James Version, which is now regarded as heavily outdated by everyone except the fringe King James Only movement. In some chapters, the KJV even contains text that is now near-universally regarded as mediaeval forgery - for example the Comma Johanneum, and Pericope Adulteræ - and so its use in preference to other more recent or scholarly translations completely violates NPOV - as if Simon is saying that the KJV is the most reliable source.

The text, being part of the Bible, happens to be one of the easiest texts to find copies of in the world. In some parts of the world, you only need to go to a hotel room to find it, it is located in numerous locations on the internet, its in virtually every library, both public and private, in the western world, and it is even on wikisource. If Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources was ever meant to apply to anything, then this is the one text that it absolutely was created for.

Consensus in the wider community is quite clear that including the text violates Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, and that the text should be removed:

Despite this clear consensus for the removal of this text, Simon repeatedly ignores the consensus, deliberately misconstruing parts of the outcome, reverting its removal, i.e. restoring its presence, even on some occasions violating WP:3RR - [37] [38] [39] [40] (as pointed out by Theresa Knott - [41] )

A formal ruling needs to be made by the arbitration committee about both Simon's behaviour here, and what ought to be done with the text, otherwise this will go on forever, as Simon has shown absolutely no willingness to ever concede the matter.

I would like it known, that owing to SimonP's angry comment that discussion should have involved "people who actually work in the area", I strongly suspect that SimonP works for an evangelical organisation of some kind, and thus has an ulterior motive to his/her behaviour in this matter.

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 20:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SimonP

It seems I've now managed to top the ignominy of trying to open a case in my first week as an Arbitrator, by arbitration case brought against me in the second.

I would not object to an ArbCom hearing on Bible verses articles. While I don't think anyone is breaking any policies here, other than some eight month old edit warring, there are some serious issues. It has been almost exactly a year since I added the first of these articles, John 20:16, which was fairly resoundingly kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John 20:16. Since then I have had to deal with no end of strife from a small group of editors who seem to loathe these articles and have employed all means fair and foul to try to get them out of Wikipedia. By my count we have now had 11 VfDs and 6 centralized discussions on Bible verses, all of which have caused a great deal of stress and aggravation, but none of which have ended with anything except the verse in question being kept. The articles are almost universally praised as being accurate, well referenced, and interesting. Yet for almost a year I've been in a near constant battle to prevent them being removed.

As to the more specific debate over source texts, it is based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. That page was created back when we had full copies of Macbeth and the United States constitution on Wikipedia. The policy was created to get rid of those, not to ban the use of example texts. Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry specifically states that full song lyrics and copies of poems should be included in articles when there are no copyright concerns. I see no reason why Bible chapters, which take up less that a single page a piece in most printed Bibles, should not similarly have the full text. That -Ril- is so keen to have the Bible treated differently from other texts is more a sign of his/her particular POV than anything. It should also be noted that more users than just myself have reverted -Ril- removal of the chapter texts. A quick check of the page history will show that JYolkowski was the first to revert him, and that Kappa did so as well. - SimonP 21:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Radiant and Rich Farmbrough
I'm not sure who is giving up here. -Ril- launched his first attempt to get rid of these articles in July and, except for the periods where he has been blocked, he has pursued this cause ever since. - SimonP 15:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marginally outside statement by Doc glasgow

Personally, I’m generally indifferent on the inclusion of text – providing there is no 'ban’ on it. (In a long article dealing with a short text, it would be crazy to exclude it). However, Arbcom should reject this case with prejudice, for the following reasons:

  1. This is a content dispute (and a stylistic one at that) and should be handled by editors working on such articles on the articles themselves. That holds as good for biblical as for any other subject.
  2. A decision on this issue must be solely governed by the principle 'what makes better, verifiable, NPOV, articles on the subject?’ It must not be governed by rules, polls, bans, or worse editors pushing a pro- or anti Bible POV.
  3. I am of the opinion that -Ril- is trolling and certainly pov-pushing. He does not have any interest in editing Bible articles. He states himself I am indeed not a substantial contributor of material to Bible articles. I have little interest in the subject in general …. I am here because I hate sophistry, fancruft, and spam, of which this is a pure and obvious example. [42] (see also [43]). Until recently, his signature tailed with 'help remove biblecruft’ – hardly a declaration that he strives here for NPOV. Yet this non-contributor has edit warred, mass nominated Bible articles for deletion ([44], [45] etc), opened two polls ([46], and [47]), three simultaneous centralised discussions ([48], [49] [50]) and finally attempted to get a policy pre-emptively 'banning’ certain Bible articles from creation - effectively adding them as a special case to the 'criteria for speedy deletion’ [51]. When one scheme has failed, he has tried another to push his obvious POV.

In short, Arbcom might wish to question the faith in which this request is brought. If they do see fit to take the case, I might suggest they consider discouraging Ril from opening further fronts in his obviously ideologically-driven campaign.--Doc ask? 23:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sort-of outside view by Thryduulf

I've been a contributor to some of the debates cited by -Ril- after seing a couple advertised on Centralised discussions and then being invited to express my views by -Ril-. Basically, what I see as the heart of the matter is an apparent refusal to accept consensus by SimonP. The place this is best evidenced is Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew, where SimonP repeatedly sees different outcomes from debates to (almost?) everyone else.

The pratcial outcome of all these various debates, in the opinion of apprently everyone except SimonP, is:

  • Bible verses that are notable in and of themselves, should have their own article.
  • Most Bible verses are not notable in this way, and articles for these verses should be merged/not created.
  • The entire text of the Bible or of Bible verses does not belong on Wikipedia - but does belong on Wikisource (where several versions already exist - Wikisource:Wikisource:Religeous texts).

The result of SimonP's refusal to act according to conses is edit wars, bad feeling and endless polls and discussions that come up with the same answers, which are preventing good articles being written on these topics. In the interests of brevity, I will not cite evidence here, as it has already been provided by -Ril- in his section above.

The arbcom, imho, should accept this case to look into SimonP's edit warring and refusal to accept consensus.

For full disclosure, I do not edit in the area of religion on Wikipedia as I'm not that interested in it. What I am interested in is seeing a comprehenisve encylopaedia, which obviously inlcudes articles on religion. I am interested in harmonious, consensus-driven editing to achieve this. I am also interested in maintaining the separation between Wikipedia and Wikisource, following Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, as this will (imo) strengthen the goal of Wikipedia to become the best free-content encyclopaedia and Wikisource to become the best library of free content documents. I sadly can't see any way to resolve this dispute without arbcom intervention. Thryduulf 00:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC) ps: I would appreciate a note on my talk page if this case is accepted.[reply]

Have diffs for "SimonP's edit warring and refusal to accept consensus"? Dmcdevit·t 01:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links as requested

  • Refusal to accept consensus here, where Inshaneee writes a summary of the repetitive debate backed by Thryduulf and myself, and countered by a wide variety of unsourced objections by SimonP. Simon's claims have included the vacuous truth that "there is no official policy on bible verses", and seem to rely on the fallacy that a "keep" vote on AFD precludes merging. Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources is one of our older guidelines and seems relevant.
  • Some evidence of edit warring here and here. There's probably more. I'm hardly involved in bible-related articles myself but was asked to comment at some point by -Ril- and Inshaneee.
  • For more edit warring, a cursory glance over SimonP's contribs for last month leads us to Matthew 1, Matthew 5, John 15 and John 20. Most aren't full-scale revert wars because generally the other editor gives up quickly after being reverted by SimonP, but it does appear to be an attempt to assert WP:OWNership.
  • >Radiant< 02:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Rich Farmbrough.

Insofar as this is a content dispute it should be rejected. It does however raise the hoary question of one side prevailing because "generally the other editor gives up" (Radiant) which again is not for this forum, but should be thrashed out somewhere. Rich Farmbrough. 09:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/2/3/0)

Requests for Clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process.

24.147.103.146

In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy, anonymous editor User:24.147.97.230, sockpuppets, and any other users identified as them in the opinion of any administrator, were banned from Wikipedia for three months, and from editing articles related to the Kennedy family for one year. Anonymous editor User:24.147.103.146 (same Massachusetts Comcast Class B block) has been blocked twice for violating this ArbCom ruling. My question is: Do these violations reset the subject ban? Robert McClenon 15:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was the intent, yes.
James F. (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the ban is likely to continue for a very long time due to resetting. As long as the abuse continues, continuing the ban is an appropriate remedy. Thank you. A good ArbCom remedy. Robert McClenon 15:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copperchair

From the enforcement: "he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year."

5 week-long blocks or 5 blocks of any length? 5 different articles, or one article 5 times? Sorry to be pedantic, but the wording lacked clarity. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After any five blocks under his probation or banning rules, it doesn't matter which articles. Dmcdevit·t 19:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic

Netoholic has been editing in Wikipedia and Template namespaces, and several people have been complaining on WP:ANI that he's been revert warring and has been uncivil about it. Raul654 has made the vague statement that Neto's been doing good work regaring WP:AUM. Ambi has stated that she will undo any block of Netoholic. I do realize that Neto's contributions on templates (or indeed, elsewhere) are generally useful, but I should also note that Brion VIBBER indicated that WP:AUM is not as pressing as initially thought. This is confusing.

In other words, the "status" of this user is unclear, and for reasons unknown the previous query on this issue was removed from this page. I ask once more that the ArbCom clarifies the issue, as I do believe there are better solutions to the case than banning Neto from those namespaces. However, if the ArbCom declines to amend or rescind the namespace ban, the next time I hear a complaint about Netoholic I will enforce the current namespace ban as written. Let me state once more that I do not want to block the guy, but barring clarification, if there are more complaints I see no other option. Radiant_>|< 13:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't wikilawyer so. I removed the query because nothing had happened in over a week, which suggested that you didn't care any more. The primary rule of Wikimedia projects (and yes, this even trumps NPOV, but only in extremely rare and limited circumstances) is to use common sense. If Netoholic's actions aren't disruptive, but are in fact aiding the project, then I see no particular reason to go ahead and prevent him from contributing so; OTOH, were Netoholic's actions to become disruptive, then the ruling would be appropriate to be used to block him from such actions. The Arbitration Committee is not your mother. It is up to the blocking (or deciding-not-to-block) sysop to come to their own conclusion as to whether their common-sense-o-meter has pinged. If in doubt, don't.
James F. (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA. Nothing had happened in that section because people were waiting for an answer. Both Raul and Ambi have implied that Neto should not be blocked for violating his ban regardless of disruptiveness, hence a request for clarification was made out of respect for them. Radiant_>|< 16:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come, now, Radiant!, how was that in any way a personal attack. If you want a statement from an Arbitrator, here you go: while Netoholic is behaving usefully, he is not to be blocked for a technical violation of the terms of his case. No more needs to be said, and this had been said even before the original request was made. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Radiant!: I'm sorry, whut? How on Earth was that an attack, personal or otherwise? Please enlighten me, so that I can avoid upsetting you in future.
James F. (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Sam. If he's not being disruptive, don't block him. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And if he is being disruptive? — Omegatron 17:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who is being disruptive may be blocked. Netoholic just as much as everyone else. That doesn't mean you shouldn't carefully consider whether he is being disruptive. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And what about this? — Omegatron 00:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:AUM is no longer a policy, not even a guideline (as per edit of Brion), Ambi cannot justify unblocking Netoholic with WP:AUM. So Ambi's argument is moot now. --Adrian Buehlmann 08:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I'm trying to say really is that people have been asking for clarity about the Netoholic case for several weeks, and have not received any clear answers from the ArbCom until Sam's statement just now. I don't appreciate being accused of Wikilawyering when asking for a clear answer on an issue that has received numerous unclear answers, or lack of answers, in the recent past. When JDF removed the query because nothing had happened in over a week, there were in fact several people still waiting for an Arb answer; a quick scan of RFAr and ANI history gives requests for enforcement or questions if the ban is still in place by Bratsche, CBDunkerson, Jtdirl, Omegatron, Gareth Hughes, Adrian Buehlmann, Carbonite and myself, and the only ArbCom response had so far been vague statements by David Gerard and Raul654 that were considering lifting the ban, and a statement by ex-arb Ambi that she would instantly undo any block on Netoholic. Now excuse me if I find that confusing. Radiant_>|< 17:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do agree, there is something fishy going on here, the best for the arbcomm is to define the question in black and/or white. →AzaToth 17:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually Netoholic is clearly disruptive. He is unilaterally pushing by revert warring the method described at Wikipedia:hiddenStructure which clearly breaks accessibility for no good reason. Now that Brion has vaporized WP:AUM there is clearly no reason to break screen readers on thousands of pages and against clear consensus. This method is now sprinkled over hundreds of templates. --Adrian Buehlmann 17:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I wish my comments on the issue weren't archived. Can they be resurrected?

If Netoholic's actions aren't disruptive, but are in fact aiding the project

His actions are disruptive and are in fact not aiding the project. — Omegatron 17:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that this is a most highly disputed claim in itself, and that many of the comments here are from the people who thought that server load was something to be decided by a vote on a talk page - David Gerard 18:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
David, please be civil in your argumentation. →AzaToth 18:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you would refrain from repeating that false claim again and again. We had actually asked for current confirmation of the devs on this (now Brion has and he removed the policy tag, thereby reverting you). Nobody tried to vote away server load. It would be helpful to stick to the matter and not constantly bash people based on errant claims. --Adrian Buehlmann 18:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop repeating that baseless argument. No one was ever trying to vote away server load.
There was never any proof of a server load problem, and server load isn't a valid reason to limit ourselves or create policy, as our lead developer has clearly stated. — Omegatron 20:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that some clarification/advice for Netoholic could be useful.

Comments 1) Netoholic's improvments to the Templates are nothing short of miraculous. Watching him, I have been able to utilize techniques here and elsewhere and all efforts to encourage positive changes should be made. 2) When objections are raised, Netoholic seems to react impatiently and rudely to those that oppose his changes. 3) Attempts to learn from Netoholic, or enlist his help to make improvements to the stylesheet are often ignored or treated as childish questions.
Suggestions 1) Netoholic should make comments on the talk page about the improvements. 2) Netoholic should either educate objectors about the benefits of the change (or inform others such as myself to help him) 3) When the objectors acknowledge the benefits and incorporate the standardizations as best they can, any additional changes should be made using standard wiki processes. 4) If there really is a server load issue, the dispute should be settled by asking the programmers rather than asserting what they mean. This is an edited version of my prior archived comment Trödel&#149;talk 19:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Netoholic's ban from editing in the Template: namespace should be enforced. If he can learn to convince others to make changes that he wants to the templates, instead of making sweeping contentious changes without discussion, the "miraculous" benefits of his knowledge can still be used. — Omegatron 20:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would be a perfect fit. If this doesn't bruise his ego, he will shure love to point out where we are all wrong. And shure he is able to express that as he is very intelligent. What he lacks is just patience and he can't stand other opinions than his own because he lacks the patience to explain. So I would shure hire him as a non-template-editing consultant. But the template-edit-decisions simply does not make he himself. Deal or no deal? --Adrian Buehlmann 21:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I (and many others) have a problem with the 'hiddenStructure' technique Netoholic is using. It seems to me inappropriate to disenfranchise blind users, users with non-CSS browsers, users on non-English Wikipedias, and others... which is what this method has done. It does not work for all users and thus it simply should not be used. This change was advanced under claims that alternate methods cause server load problems and that hiddenStructure would work for almost everybody. Both of those claims have since been shown to be false... making continued efforts to promote this methodology seem wholely without merit to me. Given that there are other methods which work for everyone I do not think edit warring to restore bad code is warranted. Nor running bots (at faster than the allowed rate) to replace Template:Main without even mentioning it on Wikipedia talk:Bots... let alone getting consensus agreement there as required.
Netoholic has done alot of work with templates. Unfortunately, a good deal of that work has ultimately turned out to be detrimental in that it reduces the accessibility of Wikipedia. The longer this continues the worse the site will appear for the minorities Netoholic dismisses as insignificant. --CBD ☎ ✉ 20:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on all points. Yet we are even more powerless to stop him with this quasi-revocation of his ban in place than we would have been if he had never been through ArbCom at all. We're supposed to block bots on sight for controversial edits, but no one feels confident enough to do it with these vague statements telling us we should/shouldn't. — Omegatron 20:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is that detrimental you should be able to find at least one admin who can block him for a day. If not then there must be some reason: are the changes too difficult to understand or evaluate whether they contribute/detract from the project; are the changes not clearly detrimental; or some other reason. My experience has been that some changes have been very helpful and other changes have been reverted, but understanding what should stay and go was not always easy. Additionally, experienced users that I trust suggested that his changes were very helpful, and when I looked into it I agreed, and thus came to see the usefulness hiddenStructure over the use of metatemplates. Trödel&#149;talk 20:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the time since the Arbitration decision, I feel like I've been more open and communicative by orders of magnitude. I feel like there are a few people here that are looking to "shoot the messenger" when it comes to my efforts related to WP:AUM. At the present time, that page's status seems questionable -- we have two very well-informed developers giving different opinions on why we should get rid of meta-templates. Jamesday has said that we should reduce their usage to prevent unnecessary server utilization. Brion has said that the server utilization may not be the problem, but that meta-template schemes are ugly and fragile, and should be handled by built-in functions. It seems like people were tolerant of WP:AUM when server concerns were raised, but aren't being as receptive as to the "ugliness", which can be subjective. Since this ambiguity has been raised, some individuals (especially CBDunkerson), who never liked WP:AUM, are taking the opportunity to go "balls to the walls" and undo weeks of work. At best, all mass efforts, both towards and away from meta-templates, should stop for the time being.
One thing that was mentioned was related to Template:Main. Per the talk page, User:Dbenbenn proposed using separate templates in order to remove the need for any sort of meta-template/hiddenStructure requirement. That is precisely the sort of positive movement we should be making. By using Template:Main articles on a couple dozen pages, it allowed this change. My use of a bot to help with this was entirely appropriate, as it is approved to handle this sort of maintenance. I remain open to anyone who wants to assume good faith and and me for explanations on my talk page, instead of a rant on a more public page, when they don't understand something. -- Netoholic @ 03:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, several of these statements are somewhat less than accurate. First, Brion has not said that all meta-templates should be removed. He has said that they (and any other 'code' method) should be removed if they are 'ugly and fragile'. The 'hiddenStructure' method is rather ugly and so 'fragile' that we don't have to worry about it breaking in the future because it is already broken now. Second, it is inaccurate to say that I "never liked" WP:AUM except in the sense that nobody (I hope) likes code limitations which require alot of work to clean up. The fact is that I did alot of work to implement WP:AUM when it was temporarily made policy based on claims of neccessity for server performance which have since proven unfounded. If meta-templates were a serious server problem then I'd be (actually was) all for replacing them. Since they aren't I'm now still in favor of limiting and improving them, but steadfastly against replacing them with a method which produces bad output for some users. Third, I am not disputing whether we move 'towards or away from meta-templates'... even since WP:AUM was downgraded I have continued to move templates away from meta-templates. The dispute here is over whether we should be 'moving towards or away' from 'hiddenStructure' and other CSS hacks which do not work for all users. The answer to which seems fairly obvious to me... why are we disenfranchising users when there is no need to do so? --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I dryly suggest that anybody who thinks Netoholic is highly disruptive now should reread his case, and see the sort of shit he used to pull. He has improved dramatically, and his current behavior is in no way worthy of any sanction. Phil Sandifer 03:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this here: <tr class="hiddenStructure"><th>Died</th><td><i>not deceased</i><br /></td></tr> (as seen on George W. Bush) is the kind of ridiculous html that Wikipedia wishes to have in thousands of articles, ok then (non-CSS capable screen readers do read "Died not deceased"). WP:AUM is no longer a policy and Brion has stated that there is no danger to the servers by using things like qif, which delivers decent html and will be replaced by MediaWiki built-ins. We even have a solution that does not violate WP:AUM but is also opposed and reverted by Netoholic on sight which would produce decent html (it's called "Weeble code" and it does not need a centralized conditional meta-template like qif). If it seems worth to abolish the reputation of Wikipedia for the timeframe until we have conditionals in Wikipedia, ok then. It's your decision which way to go. Netoholic is now CEO of templates and if you are satisfied with the outcome then I see no point in arguing against that any longer. But at least you have been warned and you should know what you do. --Adrian Buehlmann 08:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying very hard to figure out how this is actually a response to what I said. Phil Sandifer 23:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is what Netoholic pushes to the articles by edit warring and it is pointless to edit war with him. By supporting him, you actually endorse pushing this kind of "solution". So you are indirectly responsible for this kind of html in articles. --Adrian Buehlmann 23:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think this is cleared up now. Netoholic will not be blocked when he's not disruptive, and can be blocked if he is. A quick glance at his contribs shows that he really isn't; if new issues of e.g. revert warring come up, please drop a note at WP:ANI. I should point out that, even if WP:AUM is not as urgent as originally thought, there is no policy to "use meta-templates as much as possible" either. In other words, Neto doesn't need to be backed by policy in order to work on templates. Since there is apparent disagreement on the various solutions, might I suggest that an RFC be opened on what coding to use in templates? Radiant_>|< 08:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Running an unapproved bot and 'yelling' at people for 'not understanding' the mass change which he had not bothered to explain (or even mention) on Wikipedia talk:Bots seems pretty 'disruptive' to me. There are reasons that consensus is supposed to be gathered before bots are run to make such sweeping changes. Splitting 'main' into separate templates to avoid 'meta' vs 'hiddenStructure' issues may well have been a viable solution... I saw what he was doing and wasn't sure it was really neccessary (conditional main could have been done without meta OR CSS) but didn't care much either way. However, there is no cause to be blaming others for 'not understanding' and complaining about temporarily broken pages. Had Netoholic followed the process as required more people would have known about the change in advance and could have helped to minimize page disruption. Instead, he bulled ahead and made a mess of things and then got angry with people for, inevitably, 'not understanding' what he had not bothered to properly explain. Ditto on 'See' vs 'Further' and similar issues. Agreement should, must, be sought in advance... otherwise 'disruption' is inevitable. --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
a few people here that are looking to "shoot the messenger" when it comes to my efforts related to WP:AUM.
That would make some sense if "the message" wasn't something that you wrote, misrepresented as developer-mandated policy, used as justification for sweeping edits that many users find disruptive, and revert warred any attempts to change towards a community viewpoint. You don't get any martyr status for contentiously enforcing your own opinion piece.
Brion has said that the server utilization may not be the problem, but that meta-template schemes are ugly and fragile,
More misinterpretation. Brion said that meta-templates should not be used if they are ugly and fragile. And from there it just becomes subjective; you think all meta-templates are ugly and fragile, I think your hiddenstructure hack and forking of Template:Main are ugly and fragile.
How do we decide where to go from here? Not through consensus, apparently...
It seems like people were tolerant of WP:AUM when server concerns were raised
People were tolerant of WP:AUM when you convinced the ArbCom that it was the mandate of the developers, which it wasn't.
My use of a bot to help with this was entirely appropriate, as it is approved to handle this sort of maintenance.
Um. When was it approved?
I remain open to anyone who wants to assume good faith
"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary."
May I dryly suggest that anybody who thinks Netoholic is highly disruptive now should reread his case, and see the sort of shit he used to pull.
Now there's a great argument. So if Willy on Wheels claims "everyone's ganging up on me; I didn't know I was doing anything wrong!", and cuts back to just posting the occasional autofellatio pic every few days, we should just look past it and give him a pat on the back for improvement?
He's still revert-warring templates, revert-warring WP:AUM, being uncivil, and making sweeping changes (with a bot) without consensus. What more do you want?
might I suggest that an RFC be opened on what coding to use in templates?
Good idea. Note that Brion has expressed an interest in building conditionals into the software, so a large chunk of this would become moot.
Meanwhile, Neto's ban should be enforced and extended. Since he won't listen to consensus, he should be forced to work within it. While banned, he can still make changes to templates, but only by proxy or by convincing others on talk pages that his proposed edits are beneficial. He should not be allowed to use a bot. — Omegatron 00:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Descriptions of edits

The decision of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine was that he, I, and Robert West (who is still having technical difficulties with WP) should collaborate on a consensus version.

Since my return to Wikipedia, Ultramarine is continuing his habit of referring to edits he has made as the "good", "superior", "correct abd complete" version. I find this uncollegial, and ask if it is consistent with the spirit of the arbitration decision. Several diffs of such claims be found in the evidence in the case, and the usage has continued on Talk:Democratic peace theory, and I believe elsewhere. Septentrionalis 21:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]



User:Zen-master

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

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

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

Did Ryan or anyone ever provide "evidence probation isn't working" or evidence probation that attempts to restrict what a user can discuss on a discussion or project page is ever appropriate? It is also (still) unclear how discussing politically sensitive topics can ever be considered a "disruption"? First I interpret an unscientific, suggestive, racist and racism inducing method of presentation in the race and intelligence article and was blocked for 7 days, now I interpret the phrase "conspiracy theory" being at least ambiguous and duplicitous if not subtly yet profoundly tainting when used in a title to describe another subject and a year long block is proposed -- what is going on here? It is also prejudicial to propose an extended block while I am temporarily blocked because it is impossible for me to defend myself during that time. This prejudice should be obvious to see given the fact 5 arbitration committee members voted before I was even able to post this response. This year long block vote is taking place outside of normal aribtration committee procedures for the purpose of attempting to quickly silence my legitimate criticisms. I interpret at least some members of the arbitration committee and/or other users and admins to be at least inadvertently complicit in censorship or obfuscation. zen master T 21:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People have given up trying to explain things to you or give evidence because you never heed advice or accept evidence as correct anyway. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence for what and please list that evidence? Also please list situations where people were ever "trying to explain things"? All claims that lack evidence or an argument that can be refuted are worthless in my interpretation. zen master T 14:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have got to be kidding me. All we've done the last several *months* is explain things to you. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 19:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing a year long ban without presenting any evidence is the joke here. zen master T 22:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a view on Zenmaster as I haven't followed his conduct or otherwise. I do have a view on the above comment "has created or promoted several snarky policy proposals in an attempt to give false credence to his opinions. For instance, Wikipedia:Information suppression, which is a faux addition to WP:NPOV with the underlying intent of not allowing scientific sources to "put down" psuedoscientific articles.". This is both inaccurate characterization of a page, and of a discussion in which Zenmaster has had no involvement other than that of normal WP conduct to a high standard. It is also straw man, and breaches several other conduct policies. If the prime example is inaccurate, it is likely that others hidden behind the weasel words "several snarky policy proposals" in that comment are equally suspect. FT2 (Talk) 20:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't been following him closely lately, but from my experiences with Zen-master, he's a very reasonable and intelligent person. It's totally false that he "causes disruption on practically every page he edits." Also, if bringing information in is disruptive, so be it. Sure, it causes a a "disruption," because people are resistant to accepting new or unfamiliar information. Some of these articles need a little "disruption" of that type, because of their low quality. I commend him. Like I said, I haven't followed him lately, so I'm not familiar with any improper behavior. But, I'd say that he's probably a NET value to Wikipedia. To ban him is the wrong thing the do. RJII 20:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Here we go again

Checkuser vetting

This is not a request for checkuser rights. Rather, the Arbitration Committee has decided to list users (non-arbitrators) here to whom we are considering giving Checkuser rights, to solicit feedback from the community. Note that being listed here does not guarentee arbcom approval - it simply means we are entertaining discussion and wish community feedback.

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)


Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=38551379"