Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Me

I was blocked forever as user User:The-thing. But I am very very VERY sorry. Please forgive me. I'm very sorry for my "Masive user talk spam". But look at all the good things I have done. The.thing 15:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Responded on his talk page. Ashibaka tock 23:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed Vallejo is a candidate to the Presidency and is questioning if Wikipedia is truly an independent source of information or controlled by interest groups. His additions of independent political thinking have been deleted by Wikipedia without even putting his ideas up to a vote. This is not a democratic process and is questionable and considered a type of Censorship by some. www.edvallejo.com

We quote WIKIPEDIA: "Censorship is the control of forms of human expression" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.234.213.124 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC).

Well, before we jump into conclusions, you must take note that WP:POV comments are discouraged on Wikipedia. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Harro5

This guy Harro5 is abusing his admin power, he deletes many good articles in wikipedia, just talk his talk page you will see how many contributors are complaining about this admin deleting their legit good articles for stupid reasons, he deleted my article about my clan that I lead for the last 6 years, clan CHAOS, I planned to revisit that article and add more with time but I cannot do that if this admin keeps deleting my article!—Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteRoy (talk • contribs)

• The article in question is Clan chaos, a non-notable group under CSD A7. I blocked the user for 15 minutes after he re-posted the article for the third time; it has been through AfD. Thanks. Harro5 00:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed images

I propose these (Image:Unbalanced scales.png, Image:Yin yang.svg) images to be the logo on arbcom page. --Cat out 13:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Joel Leyden

I am not sure how to get an issue aired - so I am posting it here in the hope that someone will deal with it.

Consistent with behaviour for which he has been banned from other public forums, it would seem that Joel_Leyden used user:Potterseesall and user:givati as a sockpuppets to establish and edit a page on Dr._Mike_Cohen the sole purpose of which seems to have been to malign his credibility relating to a dispute they had on another forum. (I have edited out the libelous offending lines)

I have also requested a user check.

It would be best to delete the whole article, which is not of public interest - but I don't know how to do this. Hpaami 18:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Portal naming dispute

Does the Arbitration Committee have the power to settle the naming of a Portal? Portal:Taiwan vs. Portal:Republic of China is a current dispute awaiting mediation. "Taiwan" is intended to be NPOV and about the island of Taiwan whereas "ROC" limits this scope and makes the portal ROC-centric as well as raising a whole bunch of politically sensitive issues. — Nrtm81 14:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What to do if an Administrator is a vandal?

More than once, I have met with rude practices from some Administrators, specifically in the Spanish language version of the WP, called "Bibliotecarios" ("Librarians"). They have sometimes acted whimsically and without grounds, as their actions have NOT been based on any rules as set forth in Wikipedia Official Policies, i.e.: they have deleted a part or the whole of an article, or have even obliterated it completely, leaving no trace and without warning, without calling for a vote, etc. That kind of attitude, I believe, may be properly called vandalism.

Moreover, it has happened that after placing a very civil request for justification on said administrator's Talk Page, I have been blissfuly ignored. I've noticed however that other Wikipedians who also have complained have been treated with rudeness or utter contempt. This is the case of Administrator Cinabrium at |Wikipedia en español, the Spanish language Wikipedia.

QUESTIONS: Who can one resort to, in order to place a complaint against an unfair, despotical Administrator? Is that title valid for life? Are Administrators exempt from, or above of, the official rules and policies of Wikipedia? Where may one take a case to? Who takes care of such situations in the Spanish version of Wikipedia?

Any comments / guidelines will be appreciated. AVM 16:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Basically, if it is detirmined that an administrator is engaging in illegal activity, they will lose their admin privliges. They can lose them from a set period of time to permanantely. It all depends on the severity of the incident. --D-Day ^{I'm all ears How can I improve?} 16:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Question for ArbCom members

The Capitalism article provides various citations. In some cases, the reference is an entire book (i.e. no page numbers are provided). An example is:

Since the Industrial Revolution, capitalism gradually spread from Europe, particularly from Britain, across global political and cultural frontiers. In the 19th and 20th centuries, capitalism provided the main, but not exclusive, means of industrialization throughout much of the world (Scott 2005).

This seems appropriate to me as the remark summarizes a key point of the entire book, and is not a specific quotation from a specific page of the book. For what it is worth, this is a common practice in academic journals and books. Moreover, I cannot find where in the Verifiability policy or the Cite sources guidelines it states that specific pages must be provided. In my experience, they are some times not appropriate or necessary.

However, Ultramarine has just stated that

Actually, I have participated in an arbitration case that found that books without page numbers are not verifiable sources. So I will remove them unless there are page numbers so I can verify the claims.Ultramarine 16:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[1].

Has the ArbCom really given him the authority to delete such references? Have you made this policy? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the specific example Slrubenstein uses, I certainly do not object to it and it should be easy to find a source if someone objects. Although it could be less categorical. Some think that technological invention was the main cause. Should be a good discussion if using verifiable references.

Here are two arbitration cases: [2] [3]. This ruling is of course common sense. Otherwise someone may argue that he/she has a source and name an extremely thick book. Now someone else actually tries to read the whole book to find the support. That person does not find anything. The editor then simply states that the person trying to verify the statement missed the support and that the thick book should read again. And so on in eternity. This has actually happened to me. Most academic journals and books require page numbers for books for specific claims so that they can be verified.Ultramarine 18:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine's comments above are misleading. In a dispute over the capitalism article, he is not referring to citations without page numbers for texts that are not "extremely thick books" but for sourcebooks and encyclopedias with entries in alphabetical order. I've been doing academic research long before most Wikipedia editors were born; the common style formats I'm aware of don't require page numbers for entries like (say) "capitalism" in the Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Anyone who knows the alphabet can find the entry on "capitalism" in that text without a page number. 172 | Talk 22:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of your sources are not dictionaries or encyclopedias. You have repeatedly stated that you do academic research but has refused to provide any supporting evidence for this claim and edit anonymously. I regularly read numerous academic books and peer-reviewed articles. All have page numbers when discussing specific facts. Ultramarine 22:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

More specifically they are encyclopedia and subject sourcebooks (e.g., Oxford Dictionary of Politics and Oxford Dictionary of Sociology). Their entries are in alphabetical order. The page number is unnecessary. Frankly, I think your complaint here against the references is an example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. 172 | Talk 22:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

We have had cases where users simply pointed at books rather than specified any page in a reference. This practice has been criticized. Obviously an encyclopedia entry is an exception. Fred Bauder 22:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Obivously. At the same time they are considered inferior according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Many dictionaries and encyclopedias do not cite any sources themselves. Narrow dictionaries should be considered even more suspect, especially if they come from fields where most of the academics have a particular pov.Ultramarine 22:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

An Oxford sourebook? Britannica? Very funny. 172 | Talk 22:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources considers Britannica a reliable source. At the same time it is considered inferior. It does not cite references.Ultramarine 22:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Paper encyclopedias have different standards from academic texts. This discussion has nothing to do with the capitalism entry, and definately nothing to do with the arbcom. I suggest taking it elsewhere. 172 | Talk 22:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Fred, it is not my place to comment on past specific decisions of the ArbCom. But if we are talking general policy here, the policies themselves to my knowledge do not demand that page numbers be provided. Now, I think the policies can be clearer - but also that it would be a huge error to prohibit citations unless they include page numbers. The question is, when are page numbers appropriate or inappropriate? the answer is fairly obvious: when one has a direct quotation, paraphrases, or refers to a specific passage in a book or article, one should provide page numbers. When one refers to a book or article because the book or article as a whole treats a particular topic or expresses a particular point of view, page numbers are inappropriate. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

We have had a few situations where no reliable source was being used, the user simply providing laundry lists of books on the subject. I haven't looked at what Ultramarine is talking about. It might be our business or not. But the answer is that citing a verifiable source means giving enough information that it can be found and checked. I don't think that needs to be written down to be policy. Fred Bauder 12:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Actually, I do think it should be written down in policy or at least a guide line, and I suspect it already is ("citing a verifiable source means giving enough information that it can be found and checked"). I would just add that there are situations where this does not require page numbers and page numbers would be inappropriate (examples: where the book as a whole is being provided as an example of a trend or point of view). I am in no way questioning the ArbCom decisions. I do however think ArbCom sometimes needs to be more careful about when it is applying a principle to a particular case without claiming that it would be applied the same way to all cases, versus when it is invoking a universal principle. Also, if ArbCom is invoking a universal principle, it should be explicit about from which policy or guideline it is deriving the principle. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I will again point out that page numbers are common sense. Otherwise someone may argue that he/she has a source and name an extremely thick book. Now someone else actually tries to read the whole book to find the support. That person does not find anything. The editor then simply states that the person trying to verify the statement missed the support and that the thick book should read again. And so on in eternity. This has actually happened to me. Most academic journals and books require page numbers for books for specific claims so that they can be verified.Ultramarine 14:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about "specific claims." As far as specific claims are concerned, we are all in agreement. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we agree on everything? I do not think that page numbers are needed for encyclopedias, if the article is stated, or if making a very general statement about a book.Ultramarine 14:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Appeal against ban: Gibraltarian

I am unaware of the procedure for such matters, and would appreciate any relevant guidance. I had been assured that an appeal was already under consideration, but this does not appear to be the case. My ban was and is totally unjustifiable. My "crime" was simply to edit the lies, fabrications, and trollish behaviour of a racist user Ecemaml. He had taken to editing Gibraltar related pages (and has declared himself de facto sole arbiter of content in .es) by adding regurgitated fascist inspired anti-Gibraltar propaganda, showing no regard for truth, accuracy or NPOV. His racist attitudes and maliscious intent were clear from the outset, but he had the cheek to complain about me calling him a racist....which he was proving himself to be. WP is NOT a place for racists to thrive. At least it should not be. WP articles should not only be truthful, but also NPOV. This has been my sole concern when editing. My ban is totally unjustified, and I therefore request it be rescinded. I may be contacted at (a_gibraltarian@hotmail.com). Many thanks. Gibraltarian.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gibraltarian: For a start, would you agree to quit using sockpuppets? fredbaud at ctelco.net Fred Bauder 18:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Since my ban was totally unjustifiable in the first place, and only imposed to satisfy the whims of a racist troll, I fail to see why I need to agree to anything at all. I DO agree to abide by the rules of WP, and ensure any edits I make are accurate and NPOV, BUT expect this to apply to ALL. If the unjustifiable ban is lifted I will of course have no need to post under any other name. Gibraltarian.

This user is engaged in constant blanking vandalism and harrassing of other wikipedians (i.e. User:ChrisO). He is obviously not ready to abide by the rules of wikipedia. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltarian is one of the most persistent vandals I've ever seen (and I've seen a few) - he's been vandalising Gibraltar-related pages and now user pages on at least a daily basis for the past seven months. I suggest that this appeal be folded, spindled, mutiliated, set on fire, thrown out of a building from a great height, buried, doused in acid and vaporised. (Simple rejection isn't enough.) -- ChrisO 07:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, this is the rant he posted to my talk page before repeatedly blanking it and the talk pages of several other users:

Bollocks to the both of you! I HAVE appealed, but the appeal has been ignored so far. My "ban" was totally unjustifiable in the first place, and only implemented to apease a racist user, and allow him to peddle his poison. You will FAIL in your mission to make me bored and frustrated, I WILL NEVER GIVE UP! EVER! I will NOT allow WP.en to become a forum for regurgitated fascist inspired propaganda, like WP.es has. NO WAY.

That doesn't sound like a repentent user to me... -- ChrisO 11:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as various articles need to be semi-protected on a almost permanent basis, no way. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 08:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have NOTHING to be "repentant" for! Those who DO need to repent are the ones who allowed a racist bigot like Ecemaml peddle his poison with impunity. FACT: My original ban was totally unjustifiable. I did NOT vandalise ANY of the articles........I have been forced to take drastic action recently due to the unacceptable behaviour of some WP admins, who appear more concerned with persecuting me than eradicating the fascist inspired propaganda and racism that comes from so many against Gibraltar. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. My ban MUST be rescinded forthwith. There was no justification for it in the first place. I will of course obey the rules of WP.....but expect them to apply to ALL. Gibraltarian.

People might take you a little more seriously if it wasn't for your continuing vandalism and abusive tirades against other editors (e.g. [4]). As it is, you're just behaving like a petulent little girl who stamps her foot and threatens to scream until she gets her own way. Stop vandalising, stop abusing and stop wasting people's time - until then nobody is going to take any notice of you. -- ChrisO 17:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

My original ban was TOTALLY unjustifiable. I have had to resort to extreme tactics in order to get the issue noticed, and the blatant injustice reversed. I have made perfectly valid and good edits, which have been Rv'd on sight regardless of content. This is NOT acceptable. Now that you have been forced to sit up & take notice.......REVIEW the initial ban, realise that it was not remotely justified, and only imposed to satisfy the whims of a racist.....and REVERT IT! Gibraltarian.

We don't take orders from banned users. Let me make three points to you. First, WP:BAN is clear on your "perfectly valid and good edits": "All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion." Second, you've destroyed your own case by continually committing acts of vandalism from numerous anonymous IP addresses over the past few months. Vandalism and evading blocks are serious offences in their own right - if you hadn't already been banned, you would have been blocked for a substantial period for those abuses. Good conduct is normally a prerequisite for parole, and your conduct has been anything but good. Third, your abuses have been so continuous and your "plea" so blatantly unrepentent that I suspect you've probably entered a category mentioned under WP:BAN#Decision to ban: "Some editors are so odious that not one of the administrators on Wikipedia would ever want to unblock them." You've done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that you've had a change of heart since you were blocked. -- ChrisO 00:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The only "odious" thing here "Chris" has been your behaviour, AND WP's apparent support for a bigoted racist. If my unjustifiable ban had not been implemented in the first place, none of the rest would have ensued. WP has itself to blame for this........by allowing Ecemaml's racism to prevail. Making valid posts is NOT vandalism. It is NOT acceptable to label an edit "vandalism" simply because Ecemaml or another disagrees with it's content. I am NOT requesting "parole" as the original ban was totally and completely unjustifiable, and I have been forced to revert to extreme measures to at least get people to take the issue seriously. The original ban should and MUST be revoked. Parole is not necessary when one was innocent of the original charge. Gibraltarian.

A situation

Some users, usually less experienced ones (anons, newbies), seem to be making a confusion: since becoming a Bureaucrat, I keep receiving e-mails of people requesting me to perform oversight actions (usually they don't call it that, but they ask me if I, as a Bureaucrat, could do something about something that, usually accidentally, got on Wikipedia and that they feel might disclose their identity). Granted, from what they write, about 60-70% of the requests, maybe more, are not suited for oversight intervention. In any case, I just keep referring them to Special:ListUsers/suppress, so that they can contact a user with oversight rights, which I do not have. I understand that oversight is not requested in the same manner as CheckUser is, but I'm starting to think that it would be useful. Should I ask for this? Redux 17:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been putting together the Wikipedia:Oversight page for a while and am quite interested in this situation, as I've just posted a slight (possibly erroneous) description of the request for oversight permissions work based on the Requests for Permissions description on Meta. If you don't mind, Redux, I'd like to keep tabs on your request to determine what steps of that section may need revising. This being a new tool, the more information I can add (without having an accident involving legumes in my nasal cavity) the more accurate I can make said page. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 06:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Voice of All has just informed me of a set of criteria about which I didn't know. I don't really have a problem with it, but I would still like the ArbCom to consider the factual reality I've mentioned. It may be because Bureaucratship is still far more visible than....hummm..."oversightship" (did I just make up a new word??). Maybe users are confusing the Rename tool with the ability to affect a user's edit history. But my experience in the almost two months as a [active] Bureaucrat is that I keep getting those requests. If the ArbCom would prefer to maintain the present criteria of assigning oversight only to users with CheckUser rights and members of the ArbCom itself, I'll just keep referring people to the list, it's not a problem, although maybe an inconvenient. Whatever you decide. Redux 21:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There is, to my knowledge, no such requirement to have checkuser. Raul654 22:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Not anymore, it was expanded to include several current/former arbcom members. Having checkUser was the initial requirement before it was expanded from 17 to 23 users.Voice-of-All 23:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't.

James F. (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I did talk to Mindspillage :).Voice-of-All 02:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

And I didn't say it was; possibly a misunderstanding. :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Would this logic apply to all Bureaucrats? ie should all Bureaucrats receive oversight rights? My preference would be for this, but to add other constraints to reduce accidental damage like a requirement for two authorised people to effect a change. And obviously fix the bug where edits can be wrongly attributed without indication. In the mean time, I have no issue with this particular request. Stephen B Streater 23:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but that's not really an issue for all users to debate, at least not in this thread. Right now, under our current policy, the ArbCom decides about Oversight status. Voice of All mentioned to me that, initially, the ArbCom had decided to grant the tool to users who already had CheckUser and members and former members of the ArbCom itself. By Raul's latest comment here, perhaps the CheckUser thing was more of a practical coincidence, rather than an active option to give the tool to all users with CheckUser. Redux 23:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC) P.S.: (edit conflict): written before Voice of All's latest post.

I think the question for you is whether you have the time, energy and desire to respond to the requests you are receiving. I don't think anyone will oppose you having the status. Fred Bauder 00:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Whenever someone asks me about a situation where they believe sensitive information might have been exposed, I look at any diffs provided, or the rationale given, and in my response I explain about oversight (as I said, very few people know it exists), and how what they are asking could only be achieved by means of this tool, as well as that Bureaucrats do not have this access automatically. I then explain that not all situations will warrant such a measure, and that, dependind on the situation, they should not expect to have their requests fulfilled — currently, I do refrain from saying "yes" or "no" to any request specifically, since I don't have the tool. Then I explain to them that they need to contact a user with Oversight rights, and explain where they can get a complete list os those users.
All of this is to say that, as long as people are asking, even though I'm not using the tool itself, I'm already doing work related to those requests. If I had the tool, I would be able to either grant or deny the request at once, instead of all the explaining I'm doing currently. In other words, the deed is [being] done, at least as far as me doing extra work related to Oversight. If I got the tool, the only thing that would be different is that part of that work (that related to whatever requests can be granted) would change inasmuch as I would be able to carry out the request, instead of sending people over to the list to contact someone else — since when denying a request (which is in itself also something that would be new) I would still do the explaining as to "why not". Redux 04:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The Requests for Permissions on meta verbiage for oversight has been modified to reflect the status quo, as has WP:OVER. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to thank the members of the ArbCom for taking the time to go through my request. And at the same time, I will also apologize to them for giving them extra work ;). I would also like to thank everyone who took the time to comment on this thread. I am much obliged for your time and attention. Thank you. Redux 02:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Congrats, Redux! I'm updating WP:OVER with the suggestions you posted, just so you know. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So, whats the current process for requesting oversight on en: then? WP:OVER is a great page but it wasn't clear to me from it what the process is. I THINK it is "talk to an arbcom member to see if it even makes sense, then make a formal request with some explanation of what sort of stuff you've been involved in and why you want the priv and what you'd do with it" or something similar... (and post it on?? the arbcom mailing list as a write only post? post it here? mail it to a particular member?) yea/nay? (once it's requested and approved, the process from there is clear, someone from arbcom posts on the proper meta page stating the request is approved and a steward flips the bit) Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The catch here is that so far any method of contacting an arbcom member should work at the moment, as arbcom hasn't clarified the process yet (and in a case like requesting oversight, you'd think the people who needed to have the permission would know one of the arbcom people personally anyway) so I haven't clarified the page yet. It's still all quite new, and when they decide on how to proceed, assuming I find out, I'll update WP:OVER. Fun huh? :) ~Kylu (u|t) 17:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The main issue is that we don't have an established, formal format for requesting (yet?). What is clear is that you need to ask the ArbCom. In theory, you could email an ArbCom member and ask him/her to forward the request to the mailing list. For transparency reasons, I would say that the preferred format would be to request here, on this talk page. If necessary, you might email a couple of ArbCom members to let them know you've posted here requesting something. The ArbCom will likely take a couple of days to see if there would be any objection to granting the tool to the requestor. After that, if approved, someone from the ArbCom will go to Meta and post at the local Requests for Permissions (then the question becomes finding a Steward online to carry out the request). This seems to be the better, more transparent way of requesting the tool, at least until, as Kylu has said, the ArbCom decides to specify a format for requesting. Redux 17:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm half tempted to request oversight just so we can see how a denial would work, since we already know how it'd work if it's approved... Would ArbCom deliberate first, or could an individual arbitor simply state "No"? Does approval work "majority rule" or in similar means as cases, or would granting require a unanimous decision? Anywho, while I'm posting this, I may as well ask if anyone in ArbCom has looked over the proposal for RfO? ~Kylu (u|t) 20:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ohyeah, by the way... for those interested (since I know you all check this page daily for the latest oversight information?) There's a oversight-l mailing list now, plus you may want to check out WP:RFO -> Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Brand spankin' new. Also terribly ugly. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Iff needed

After I was given Oversight, it has been suggested to me that I could be used on WP:RCU. Cause for concern is that there seems to be only 2 users handling 99% of the requests, and a backlog could form if one of them were to take a leave of absence. I don't know if this feeling is general, or if the ArbCom is willing to grant CheckUser to more people. All I can say is that, as far as I am concerned, I'll help where I'm needed, so if you build, I will come. Naturally, this is at the ArbCom's full discretion. Redux 17:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I support this, Redux can be trusted. It seems that checkuser can be a time intensive and thankless job, why not spread the burden? I would encourage ArbCom to actively seek out people they trust to be checkusers, such as the many oversights who are not checkusers (surely they can be trusted), but others as well. I'm sure some well qualified people haven't asked to be checkusers just because it hasn't crossed their mind to do so. NoSeptember 17:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd be a bit worried about looking like I were "flag collecting" myself. Easy to have people point at multiple requests like that and decide that you're being greedy instead of helpful. :( At least everyone knows Redux is just being his usual helpful self. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 01:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

As you said, the only goal is to help out more. This flag (if I'm given it), as it is with the Oversight bit, brings more work, and one that I wouldn't describe as "fun". NoSeptember made a good point about the present situation of the CheckUser tool (and the duties associated with it), so I thought that I should offer to help with that.
"Flag", "bit"... those names don't really describe the work and the responsibility that one takes on by being given a new level of access. No one should ask for something like this without being fully aware that what they are really asking for is not just a "flag", but rather more responsibility, to the project and to the community. Redux 02:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

If there's as much work involved in +oversight as there is in +sysop, you can keep it for me, okay? As far as +checkuser goes... come near me with it and I'll be on meta the same day getting it off! Eww! Still, as far as "big deal" goes, everything, even Steward, is just one bit in a status byte in a database. One little 1 or 0. Doesn't seem so threatening when you think about it like that. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot more oversights (25) than checkusers (14) but the shortage appears to be in the checkuser area. If flag-collecting were a concern (and I'm sure it's not), I would ask that some oversights to trade in their flag for a checkuser flag.<end of nonsense> Checkuser seems to be the more pressing need. NoSeptember 17:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering the amount of requests for +checkuser, I'd personally like to suggest that the ArbCom review User:Voice of All as a potential candidate. He's rather active and pays attention to numerous important pages, is technically minded, plus has shown me thoughtfulness when I've asked him (privately) for opinions on matters without having spilled the details of those matters to others. I'd volunteer myself, but I'm far, far, far too new. :D ~Kylu (u|t) 01:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've also been an RFCU clerk for a while and am active at WP:OP. Still, I doubt that is enough to convince arbcom to grant the right.Voice-of-All 02:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Report of Personal Attack

User:EnthusiastFR has attacked me personally for disagreeing with him, yet he is not addressing my points on Talk:Monster in My Pocket. He isnists, for example, that a line that began in late 1990 should be placed in the category "toys of the 1980s" because, in his opinion, it's a rip-off of another line that was introduced in the 1980s, and he's been swearing and calling me names for addressing his points specifically and disagreeing. Scottandrewhutchins 13:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The correct initial form for requesting community help to address this issue is by placing a Request for Comment. If things were to deteriorate further, requiring immediate intervention by an Administrator, you might report it at the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents. Redux 14:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds cool

Sounds fantastic - where do I apply? SoaP 01:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean to become a member of the ArbCom? Arbitrators are appointed by Jimbo Wales following an advisory election (see WP:ArbCom#Selection process for more details). In general, one needs to be a highly trusted, very experienced user in order to stand a realistic chance of becoming an Arbitrator. Redux 02:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Does a non-admin with a checkered past (such as myself) stand a chance in hell? ~ Flameviper 22:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The results of last year's election are here. The top 11 were approved by Jimbo, all over 66% approval. Looking at the list of candidates, where do you think you would fit in? Thatcher131 22:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

4 vs. majority

I'm confused; why is the threshold for hearing a case hardcoded at 4? With 10 ArbCom members active at this moment, and a potential for almost twice this many, is there a specific reason it doesn't go with a "majority of currently active ArbCom members?" -- nae'blis 18:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It would take ages to get all active arbitrators to vote on every case. Four seems like a reasonable number to ensure that more than a tiny clique within the committee thinks the case is worth hearing at this stage. --Tony Sidaway 18:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahh. That's related to the rapid delisting/deleting of failed RFAr, then? -- nae'blis 23:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This is perhaps an overblown comparison, but it take four justices to agree to hear a case before the US Supreme Court even though a majority is 5. Also, if you required a majority of arbitrators to agree to hear a case, someone could argue that it has already been decided. Requiring 4 leaves the option of the others to outvote any proposed decisions. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool, learn something new every day. -- nae'blis 17:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Kudos

I just wanted to drop a quick, but huge "Thank You" to the Arbitration Committee for the hard work they do, and their diligent efforts to be fair and impartial in the face of the so much troubling Wikipedian behavior. It is a job not many could do, and which doesn't garner enough positive recognition. Good job, Arbitrators! Powers ^T 00:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Publicgirluk - Arbcomm should investigate

I strongly suggest the ArbComm decides OF IT'S OWN VOLITION to investigate this debacle. See User talk:Publicgirluk, and the associated Wikipedia:Publicgirluk photo debate and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_27#Publicgirluk.27s_images. Quite frankly, the attitudes and actions of some of the editors and admins during this farce have been unbelievable. They've managed to drive away a user who attempted to contribute in good faith, and I've quit the project as I can't justify contributing to a project that treats people so shabbily. The Arbcomm should consider sidestepping the bureaucratic process usually required for an RFA on the grounds that this situation is very serious for contributors and Wikipedia. exolon 14:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are frustrated, but this talk page is not the appropriate place to request community assistence to handle a contentious situation, and it will likely yield none of the results you are expecting. I suggest you start with a Request for Comment. See how it progesses; if necessary, it will be taken to the ArbCom, as a last resource to solve the issue. If there is a need for immediate intervention by Administrators, please report it at the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents. Regards, Redux 23:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RCU may be at a crossroads

I'm a little concerned with our forum for public requests for CheckUser. Used to be that Mackensen and Essjay were sharing the bulk of the work there, but with Essjay temporarily inactive, Mackensen is doing most of the work alone (with occasional help from UninvitedCompany). I would urge that some of the users with CheckUser access (most of them are arbitrators, hence my post here) start visiting that forum every now and then. Alternatively, I would urge the ArbCom to appoint more CheckUsers. Maybe VoA and Thatcher, the more active clerks, could provide us with a more accurate scenario, but IMHO, it is never advisible to have 90% of the work (sometimes 100%) on the shoulders of just one user (or even two, when Essjay returns). Redux 23:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Demand is increasing. Vandalism and edit warring are becoming the hard currency over here. Many times i changed my mind before i could request for a "CheckUser". In fact, i've never done such a request just because it's unworthy related to the amount of time lost. -- Szvest 22:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Since checkuser is not, nor should be, a large group, its unlikely for the page to be managed with checkusers just passing by. We need more "regulars", a group of people, who as a whole, can manage to fit in some time every day or two to run some checks. Most checkuser are often busy with other tasks, often ArbCom related, as that tends to be quite a "time suck". Even for two regulars, it can still be a lot of work, and recently, Essjay has been away. Now that Mackensen is also away around Labor Day, there is no one left to man the page. It only takes about three "regulars" to comfortable run the page, or even two given that enough other checkusers will chime in from time to time. Given that, I think we should focus on a) getting another user checkuser to focus on RFCU, and b) encourage all people with the tool to, if they have the time, occasionally chime in and check up on it, even if only to do one of the simplier cases. If there really is not the time for this, then perhaps another CU can be appointed, though en Wikipedia already has quite a handfull of them.Voice-of-All 02:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, of the 14 users with CheckUser access, only three have used the tool to answer public requests with some degree of regularity: Essjay, Mackensen and UninvitedCompany. And of these, only the first two were indeed regulars on RCU. Then it was one, and now, as it seems, there are no regulars there. As Voice of All said, people who are already involved with time-consuming tasks, such as the Arbitrators, are less likely to get involved in yet another "dog work" (as Cecropia might put it) such as RCU, but Arbitrators are the majority of the users with access to the tool at this point, so it could be difficult to get someone to become a regular on RCU. Redux 04:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think ArbCom members know enough people who can be trusted that they can invite them to apply for CU. Not everyone invited will want to do this sort of unpleasant work, of course. If ArbCom doesn't act, then at some point dissatisfied users will start making requests directly on the talk pages of ArbCom members. Sooner or later it will get taken care of, it's just a question of how proactive ArbCom will be about this issue. If people see this as a major issue, it may be perfectly appropriate to ask candidates in the next ArbCom election about how much attention they will devote to CU, and base their votes in part on the answers they get. NoSeptember 01:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

User:FCYTravis Abusing Admin priv?

I believe user:FCYTravis is abusing his admin priv. First he began an edit war on Advocates for Children in Therapy and most recently he edited the article, which is protected. I have attempted dialogue, to no avail. I have suggested mediation and he has refused. What can I do? Please advise.DPeterson^talk 01:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I edited the page to implement a part of the version preferred by DPeterson in a show of good faith and consensus, as I dropped my objection to that section being included. Because DPeterson apparently felt it was an abusive action, I thereafter reverted to the originally protected version to negate the "abusive" edit. FCYTravis 04:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the appropriate place to be arguing about it. Either open an RFC or some other mode of dispure resolution, or solicit outside opinions at WP:AN. Dmcdevit·t 00:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Zoe has abused her Admin Privileges

Please note first of all that I am writing on behalf of User:rueben_lys who is blocked from editing, and who I personally know. This user name is not a sock puppet.

User:rueben_lys was blocked for ten hours by User:Zoe while creating the article Raid on Jaffna University. User Zoey insisted on placing a tag stating that the article lacked context while the article was being developed (see User talk pages under heading Raid on Jaffna University). User rueben_lys insisted that the taster to the article was short but clear and the introduction that he was writing at the time would place it in context. He removed the tag at the time and proceeded to carry on expanding on the article. User Zoey however, reverted to re-instate the tag and engaged in a revert edit war with user rueben_lys. She reverted the page three times (in violation, rueben_lys believes, of the three revert rule) to include the tag which rueben_lys had removed while building on what he believed was adequate introduction, and proceeded to caution rueben_lys that any further removal would lead to Zoey blocking rueben_lys. Rueben_lys removed the tag at this time since an adequate introduction had already been made. However, Zoey blocked the editor for ten hours.

Rueben_lys observes that Zoey

• Has herself violated the three revert rule.
• Has blocked an editor who was not vandalising the page but attempting to contribute.
• Did not invite a discussion on adequacy of the introduction "before blocking" the editor.
• Has essentially enforced her personal views as to wether the introduction is or is not adequate.
• Has blocked rueben_lys to essentially gain advantage in an edit war, when an appropriate course of action would have been to protect the page.

rueben_lys has made extensive contributions to wikipedia since his entry a few months ago, and believes that Zoey's actions are an abuse of her admin privileges (if any) . He therefore requests that Zoey be disciplined and measures be taken to ensure that she does not repeat such actions in the future. rueben_lys would also recommend to the Arbitration Committee that Zoey's admin priviledges be revoked.N Watson 00:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Addition to User:Zoe has abused her Admin Privileges

The submission to the Arbitration committee by N Watson at 00:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC) that has been noted above under "User:Zoe has abused her Admin Privileges" was removed from this page by user User:212.120.226.20 at 11:00, 9 October 2006 without posting any reply either to myself or to N Watson.

Please note that my grievance that User:Zoe has acted in unfair and arbitrary manner still holds, and from the user's talk page, sher has a history of acting in a similar manner. I believe as such that she is unfit to be an administrator and request that such privileges be revoked.Rueben lys 11:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Further more, she failed to inform me, on repeated requests, to inform me of the due process or forum where I could air my grievance.

User:Zoe has been notified of this arbitration.Rueben lys 11:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not think this was malicious but a big mistake. The article had context but not in a fully understandable manner unless you read the news. The LTTE is quite infamous for its activities, especially recently. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam, and the IPKF, Indian Peace Keeping Force, are very much real things. I think Zoe just made an honest mistake and hopefully everyone can move on from here in a positive way, this was a real battle and Rueben did a wonderful job creating the article because there is much content to be added and hopefully he will expand it to create an article on Operation Pawan in its entirety. So in closing Zoe could have googled LTTE, but the article didnt say who LTTE is (I fixed this) or who the IPKF were, so it may have not been clear, the context that is. Just my 2 and a half cents. --NuclearZer0 17:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, the background section was already down apparently when Zoe added the context tag, the background specified it was about the IPKF, LTTE (listed as Tamils) and Sri Lanka and listed all that in Wikilinks. I still think it was an honest mistake though, but the block was obviously not warranted and should be noted in the users block log as such as context was apparent. Just my 3 cents. --NuclearZer0 17:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This was the version I was complaining about. Rueben lys refused to make a change to explain what the heck he was talking about. Like I said, from the first paragraph, it could have been about some fictional universe if it wasn't explained. All I asked for was context, and he refused, but insisted the context was there, and kept removing the tag. I kept telling him all he had to do was to supply context, and the tag could go away, but it is not the reader's responsibility to have to dig through links to figure what the article is talking about. One sentence would have done the trick. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I have no idea who User:212.120.226.20 is. I would not hav edeleted the complaint, myself. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I know what you were looking at I seen the dif's and that is why I changed what I was saying. The background section points out Indo-Sri-Lankan accord, Sri Lankan Civil War, Tamil rebels and Wikilinks all of them except Tamil but does wikilink Operation Poomalai and IPKF. I am just saying you obviously made a mistake as the background section says quite a bit and mentions plenty and provides wikilinks for further information. Considering they were still adding sources, also which you could have checked, and information during the time you aded the first and last tag, its obvious the context was there and it was all just a mistake. --NuclearZer0 21:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It wsn't a mistake. It was a lack of clarity in the article, and all I was asking was a topic sentence which explained. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure where the lack of clarity is, it says the Tamil rebels fought the IPKF breaking the Indo-Sri-Lankan Accord during the Sri Lankan Civil War and that the raid on the school was part of the Operation Pawan ... I mean the information was there, I am starting to worry now that you cannot even admit to being wrong. The article was being worked on by the editor and the background provided plenty of information, enough so for me to google Operation Pawan and easily find information to add. LTTE and IPKF could have been defined, but LTTE is so common now in media and was wikilinked ... --NuclearZer0 01:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence needs to clearly say what it is. We don't even have an article on Operation Pawan, so without an explanation as to what that is, the first sentence, the topic sentence, which is supposed to explain what we're talking about, tells us nothing. It is not the reader's responsibility to dig through the article, the links and anything else the editor may think doesn't need to be explained, to understand an article. It is the editor's responsibility to be crystal clear. And you don't do that by removing a context header. Repeatedly. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to sit here and argue with you, The Raid on Jaffna University was the first of the operations launched by the IPKF aimed at disarming the LTTE by force and securing the town of Jaffna in the opening stages of Operation Pawan seems pretty informative. The article is about a raid on the school by the IPKF to disarm the LTTE at the beginning of Operation Pawan. Yes there is no operation Pawan article, however the user was still editing and the intro sentence isnt responcible for defining everything, it doesnt say who the IPKF or LTTE are either. The War on Terrorism article doesnt explain who NATO is and what 9/11 was other then an attack. That is the purpose of the rest of the article, to go into more detail. As I keep saying, you should have just waited and it seems to be more of an issue of you not know who these groups were then it lacking context as you even thought they were fictional. Your ability to gauge context when you refuse to click a wikilink is kind of disingenuous. Like me putting the same tag on the WOT article stating the sentence lacks context because the opening sentence doesnt say who NATO is or what happened in this "September 11 attacks" --NuclearZer0 02:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Please move this discussion to the proper place (i.e., WP:DR). This is the page for discussing the Arbitration Committee. Dmcdevit·t 06:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Sussexman, Robert I, et al

Now that the Gregory Lauder-Frost page has been deleted will the numerous Users who supported his position be unblocked? I mean, they cannot all be sending the same letter can they? From what I can see their "legal threats" amounted to what they saw as firm advice. Has any clear evidence been provided showing they sent letters to anyone at all? But anyway, given that the GLF article has now vanished presumably they could be placed upon probation again? 81.131.14.8 08:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note that exactly the same message has appeared, word for word, on numerous Administrator talkpages (User:Pschemp and User:Fred Bauder are just two of many examples) accross Wikipedia. This chap is a flamer, hoping that somebody will take pity on his/her friends and unblock them.--Edchilvers 17:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That and I'd just posted the notice (and nifty template at the top of the talkpage) saying to please not try to make cases here. Lovely. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution and location

Wikipedia:Resolving disputes contains the official policy on dispute resolution for English Wikipedia. Arbitration is generally the last step, when a dispute cannot be resolved by any other means including informal or formal mediation, or by asking the community its opinion on the matter.

This page is focused on discussing the Arbitration Committee itself (specifically, the information on the project page attached to this talkpage). Requesting that a case be taken up here isn't likely to help you, but those of us in the dispute resolution community would be happy to assist. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Concur. I suggest a bolded heading at the top of this page, indicating that this is not the place to raise disputes or bring new arbitration cases, and providing links to the dispute resolution resource pages and RfAr. I would be WP:BOLD and draft the language myself, but in this instance it's probably more appropriate for an ArbCom member or clerk to do so since it's ArbCom's page. Newyorkbrad 23:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Being blatantly Bold brings bountiful blessings, Brad! {{Arbcom-talk}} ! ~Kylu (u|t) 03:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The Scarlet Letter

I would like some help in understanding the position of Arbcom and my ability to respond to a situation. I was put under an Arbcom ruling under a previous username, zer0faults, which stated I edited articles tenditiously. Since then I have been the subject of much animosity and often instead of discussing counter points, people have taken to responding solely by stating my Arbcom ruling, as some means of pacifying my points, or possibly arguing that my points are not valid. I have taken this to AN/I numerous times about a specific editor however the admins simply state we "both need to cool it". I have expressed that I feel this is being done primarily to bait me, and secondary to harass me. I have some examples:

1. You can see Derex made a vote on an AfD. I asked them if they felt google hits was a good enough reason and if they would include youtube.com videos then. They responded by citing my Arbcom ruling. [5]
2. Under zer0faults I participated in an article titled Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America, there was an agreement from my understanding that all items in that article would be sourced with an actual allegation being made. On October 9th I added source tags to 3 sections [6] [7] [8], on October 13th a user changed my tags and I reverted them back, clarifying that the sections were not disputed to have happened, but lack sources stating allegations. This user was involved in the original decision, so they were aware that the section were to be sourced appropriately. I returned 10 days later to see the sections had not been sourced, noone had edited the article at all, and I proceeded to remove the items,[9][10][11] 10 days seemed like more then enough time and noone responded to even say hold on I have sources coming. That same user who had changed my tags then reverts and cites a straw poll as reason why the unsourced material should stay[12]. I reverted the article after explaining that the sections need allegation in them and asked them to provide the sources if they have [13], they simply revert [14] with no edit summary, I revert again asking for sources and at least a summary, as they didnt respond on talk [15] and in comes the Arbcom mention, they then attempt to toss at me my Arbcom ruling, still at this point not offering any sources or even participating on the talk page anymore [16] stating: Third revesion, looks like you started a new edit war--am I going to have to contact the mediator on this site and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zer0faults#Enforcement? Probably. I find this idea that people feel they no longer have to address my points or can simply ignore me all together and threaten me to be totally outside the bounds of what Wikipedia is about, and further what was hoped to be accomplished by the Arbcom ruling. An admin chimed in telling the user they should not have "wielded like a sword" my Arbcom ruling.[17]
3. Users contacting eachother off wiki after I have a dispute with someone: [18] [19] [20][21]
4. I am not even sure what to call this other then harrassment. This user just kept posting the Arbcom ruling and even using it in their edit summaries, it was extremely hostile [22] [23], the last one bearing a semi threat. I want to clarify that this is after they had posted in twice on my page to harrass me and it was removed both times. [24][25]

I know this is not what Arbcom intended, or at least I hope its not. However if its not, then what is my possible recourse for this? I feel as though this users actions are constant attempts to bait me, and others users are simply ignoring me because of the ruling. I am not a disruptive editor and I have written 5 articles for Wikipedia so far, John Matos, Kimberly Osorio, Jaysh Muhammad, Al-Abud Network, Operation Sinbad, and have participated in improving numerous other articles. So I ask Arbcom what can I do about this, and is this really the intended purpose of an Arbcom ruling, as some brand of stigma? --NuclearZer0 13:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit late a reply, sorry. I think you'd do better to request clarification of the ruling at Wp:rfar#Requests_for_clarification, that way you can have the opinion from the horse's mouth. This talk page is generally for discussing ArbCom as an entity, not specific cases. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

New logo

Arbitration Committee beta logo

Hi! I am TrackerTV. I once was a backstander figure in an RfAR that closed 2 months ago. I tried to develop a logo for the Arbitration Committee. My idea's not up yet, but here it is:

• Wide, blue kerned text saying WIKIPEDIA at the top.
• A Venn diagram style circle overlap, one showing part of an A and the other showing a part of a C. Where the circles overlap, the letter W is on top of the letter P.
• Two lines of wide, grey kerned text saying ARBITRATION on one line and COMMITTEE on the other.

I will upload this logo soon. Happy arbitrating!

TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 19:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

When will the new arbitrators take office

That says it all. Thatcher131 02:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't guarantee the accuracy of my answer, but since Tranche Gamma's terms expire December 31, 2006, I'd guess that the new arbitrators start either the same day (if the switch isn't at midnight) or the next day (if the switch is at midnight.) Þicaroon 21:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Large checkuser backlog

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser is backlogged, with 14 requests. Please deal with this issue. —Centrx→talk • 08:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

New arbitrators and old cases

I would imagine we'll handle it like last time: where arbitrators no

longer in office have voted on a case, they count as extra arbitrators for those cases only, and majority is adjusted appropriately.
New arbitrators will be counted as recused for all currently open cases unless they declare themselves un-recused for an individual case; this saves them from having to read up on all open cases

immediately.

— Morven [26]

Based on the above, pending correction from the committee, the clerks will interpret this as follows.

• As of January 1, the number of active arbitrators will be adjusted downward to seven (less recusals), to reflect the departure of Jayjg and The Epopt, the only arbitrators currently on the active list who are leaving (except in cases where they have already voted). The majorities will be adjusted accordingly.
• Case opened after January 1 will reflect the state of the committee at that time (14 active, majority of 8).
• New arbitrators are not expected to vote on cases already under consideration, but if they do, the majorities will be adjusted upward as needed, depending on who votes.

Thanks, and arbitrators please correct this if I am wrong. Thatcher131 08:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RCU

There is a backlog accumulating at requests for checkuser. Perhaps a couple people with checkuser privileges can take care of it. Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu 19:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

5 closures

Great job on closing five cases in the last week! It's good to see the new arbiters working hard. Keep it up! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community noticeboard

It's been suggested that this new noticeboard would be a good place to post arbitration closures, perhaps instead of WP:AN. Arbitration decisions are of interest to the entire community and it's easier to reference a lower traffic noticeboard. Relaying the idea for consideration. Durova^Charge! 23:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

At this time we are posting closures to both AN and CN. Newyorkbrad 04:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevant discussion

Contributors here may wish to see/comment on Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Clerks_of_all_types_need_to_be_deprecated --Durin 17:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Mentorship Committee

Hello, I understand that mentorship can be an alternative to longterm blocks/bans, if mentors are available. So, I would like to try to revive the dead Mentorship Committee. I started making some changes in a proposal here, but I am not really sure where to go from there. Anyway, would the Arbitration Committee consider this useful? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, forget about it. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFO

As these are primarily handled though the mailing list, not sure if there are backlogs. But if there are, I'd be willing to help in this area. I am familiar with the process and policies relating to this function, as well as the GFDL ramifications of removing a revision. I am an admin here and on meta:, and am in the bot approvals group (listed as reference only). I am generally active from 5 to 6 days a week, typically between 22:00 and 06:00 UTC. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 04:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Typically only bureaucrats or arbcom members can be considered for getting checkuser/oversight rights. Voice-of-All 19:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is reiterated at a RfA talk page. Cbrown1023 talk 23:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the initial comments, I've seen the "typically" messages before, and am fine either way, just offering services if desired. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also replied at Xaosflux's talk page, but want to copy that response here: Thanks for letting me know. I don't think we are in the process of doing so, but I will point out your request on the ArbCom mailing list so that others are aware, and if we do decide to do something. Thanks again. Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A 'me too' comment, oversight is something that I could have used on several occasions, if I had the ability to use it. I personally believe oversight should be made a little more available, and that the requirements to possess it not be anywhere near as constrictive as they should be for CheckUser. I understand that it is the current position that oversight will be limited to a very select few however. I am not going to send an email unless there is an actual possibility of my request being granted, which I doubt at this point. Prodego ^talk 01:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

When MW 1.11 is released, if things remain as they are, revisiondelete would be given to all usersadmins, even the "hide from sysops option". However, only oversight users can see the oversight log and can view revisions hidden from sysops.Voice-of-All 17:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Either I'm not understanding you right or that could cause some seriously destructive vandalism. Could you clarify and/or point me to the place where I can protest that change? Picaroon 19:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, apparently you meant "all admins" when you said "all users." Right? Picaroon 19:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course, it must be that. Take a look if you want. Prodego ^talk 19:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant admins only. Voice-of-All 20:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for checkuser permission

I would like to request CheckUser status. I understand that this is only ever granted if blessed by the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, it may very well be that you are only interested in granting CheckUser status to people already on the Arbitration Committee. It is not my intention to join the committee, only to help out with CheckUser requests.

I was granted the admin bit in January 2006. With over 35,000 edits (mostly vandalism reversion), I am one of the more active editors on the English Wikipedia. I would not expect to be given CheckUser access without first answering questions such as my familiarity with IP addresses and general network functioning. I can tell you exactly how I expect CheckUser would work (actually, this information is publicly available or obvious to people with any sysadmin knowledge), or answer any other questions. However, if you already know I won't qualify, there's not much point in doing so. Also, you may want the details not discussed publicly, in which case I can answer the questions by email. --Yamla 22:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still interested in this. --Yamla 15:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how actively the arbitrators watch this page. You might want to send an e-mail to one of the arbitrators with a request that he or she distribute it to their mailing list. Newyorkbrad 16:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. --Yamla 16:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(No email has been received by the list yet, FYI.) I will point this request out (along with the one above it) to the ArbCom mailing list, although I don't think that we're in the process of doing so for anyone at this point in time. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Renaming banned users

Is there any policy to rename a permanently/semi-permanently banned user on WP:CHU? A person may legitimately want to exercise his or her right to vanish. Then again, another may want to evade the ban if and when a ban is lifted. Note that all user logs are wiped clean when renames are done. If ARB is against the renaming, we could probably have a blacklist to prevent such renames. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that at least one banned user has been renamed at Jimbo's request. Don't know how common this is. Thatcher131 12:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The only time I can think of when this would make sense is when the user has been editing under his or her real name, and wants to remove the name from Wikipedia pages at the time he or she is leaving. Newyorkbrad 13:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the best thing would be to come up with a Right to vanish policy. At the moment, we're relying on the page at meta, which doesn't actually say much. The right to vanish has been abused a few times recently by users who want certain accounts to vanish so they can turn up with new sockpuppets and a lost trail; the example that prompted Nichalp's enquiry is a clear abuse, in my view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've put up a proposal at Wikipedia:Right to vanish. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that a blocked/banned user should have the right to be renamed, subject to their ability to confirm that this is their wish (using their user page). This last section is to prevent some user from faking a request from a blocked/banned user. Expressing such a requestr should not be considered violating the ban. Eli Falk 13:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The right to vanish is a right reserved to users in good standing. I see no reason that banned users should be extended this courtesy. Raul654 23:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wording

Inactive - on an unknown absence (no AC participation in the last fortnight). Should that really say fortnight? How many people know that fortnight equals two weeks? Its not a common word. I recommend we change it to two weeks instead of fortnight. If no one replies to this within a day I will go ahead and make the edit. Thanks! Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 02:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Either way is fine with me. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "fortnight" (short for "fourteen nights") is more commonly used in British English versus American. Out of curiosity, who wrote that part of the policy? Newyorkbrad 20:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Usually, I'd be opposed to such an edit. However, I believe it is much more important to use language that most readers would be familiar with. --Aarktica 22:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This should be added

As of April 19, 2007: In the event that the ArbCom makes a ruling against Jimmy Wales, overturning any decision he has made in his traditional capacity within Wikipedia, the ArbCom's decision shall be final.[27] - 4.250.33.138 14:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC) (User talk:WAS 4.250)

Well, but Fred replied that the committee would never engage in that kind of circular process. I think that until you have a committee whose members would seriously entertain overruling Jimbo, adding this would only lead to confusion and misinterpretation. Thatcher131 15:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Role of AC relative to policies like 3RR

Hello all, recently I made a suggestion to include the precedents set by the WP:AC regarding the WP:3RR. It has been suggested that the AC precedents are not related to the policy itself. It's my understanding that the precedents clarify the rule because should a very similar issue come before the AC again the precedent would be applied. The proposal and the pro and con points of including it can be found here: Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule#Arbitration Committee precedents. Thank you for your time, Anynobody 02:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As clarification, the suggestion was not that "AC precedents are not related to the policy itself", but that ArbCom precedents should not be used as a reference for a policy. This is because ArbCom uses the policy as reference, and if the policy were to use ArbCom as reference, we would have a circular argument. Crum375 03:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not saying that precedents are policy, I'm saying they may serve to answer editor questions about the nature of what a revert is, what counts, etc. WP:AP/PD states that the precedents are not policy, but they can be useful to illustrate policy. Anynobody 03:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As noted on the thread at Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule#Arbitration Committee precedents, ArbCom decisions are very important and useful as input to the community when discussing and creating policy, but should not be relied upon in the policy itself as references or precedents, due to circularity and non-precedence. Crum375 11:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps an example of what I mean would explain my intentions better, WP:3RR states:

A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, undoing page moves (sometimes called "move warring"), undoing administrative actions (sometimes called "wheel warring"), or recreating a page.

An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted.

Note that consecutive reverts by one editor are often treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule.

Question

"Do minor changes count as a revert done through the history page?" This question is not addressed above, but the arbcom said that:

The term "revert" as used in Wikipedia policies and guidelines is intended to include both absolute reverts (where versions differ not at all) as well as de facto reverts (where versions are only very slightly different). Attempting to avoid being accused of reversion by making very minor edits that are then edited out again is in bad faith and against Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Answer

Based on what the committee said above, a revert can be full or partial to count toward the WP:3RR policy. Anynobody 22:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. If the community likes ArbCom's definition of 'what constitutes a revert', they are more than welcome to include it in the policy. The ArbCom definition can be discussed on the Talk page, and if the community agrees to it by consensus, it can be made part of the policy, perhaps with some changes. The point is that the policy cannot quote or refer to ArbCom as a source, but instead must build on the community's consensus, which may in turn use ArbCom cases and decisions as an input. Crum375 23:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I assure you, that I understand your point. However if the community finds itself disagreeing about 3RR the committee makes the final decision. Therefore how they have interpreted the rules might answer some editors specific questions. Anynobody 23:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Using ArbCom's decisions and interpretations as an input to productive Talk page discussions, and to help tighten or clarify the policies, is highly encouraged. But it should not be the sole input, nor should ArbCom decisions be quoted or referred to from the policy itself. Crum375 23:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration committee is not even bound by their own precedent. While the committee may write principles that seem useful, they almost always arise out of current practice and policy, but may contain language that makes them unique to a particular case. It would not really be a good idea to pick one particular restatement of the 3RR rule (or principles on civility or anything else) and cut and paste it into a policy document. (In fact, I am somewhat distrustful of the need to write everything down in minute specific detail. Edit warring is bad and reverting is bad; admins should generally have the discretion to interpret this to fit the needs of a particular situation. Thatcher131 02:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Policy?

This page was recently added to Category:Wikipedia official policy, based on the fact that it is listed on Wikipedia:List of policies. Seeing as this page is really more focused on the composition of the committee and how it works, as opposed to how requests for arbitration, the actual process, runs, I will shortly remove it from the category and list. Picaroon (Talk) 21:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think either way is fine; whether or not it's in a category really doesn't impact anything, although personally I would favor it being in the category. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me expand on my earlier comment. In my view, policies, even ones as short and to the point as Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, should be around to give guidance to editors, to clarify something, or do something of that sort. This page doesn't really do any of that, and, when coupled with the fact that the related Wikipedia:Arbitration policy is tagged as such, I think marking this as policy would be overkill. Pages need not be sorted into the categories of policy, guideline, or essay to exist in the Wikipedia space; they can also be related to the processes which drive the encyclopedia, even if they make not statements of their own. I agree, it isn't a big deal, but, short of a need to tag it as policy, I think keeping it as just an undefined process-related page is the best. Picaroon (Talk) 02:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the cat, but it was only to make it consistent with the list. As long as it is in neither the cat or the list, I am fine. Thanks. UnitedStatesian 13:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

New category

I've created a new category, Category:Wikipedia Arbitration-related templates, for housing templates related to the arbitration process, because they were crowding Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. Picaroon (Talk) 22:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking for an arbitration case

Admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise claims [28] that a case is studied by ArbCom on Transnistria-related issues. He is using this argument to postpone scrutiny in other editor's sockpuppeteering.

Is there such a case filed with ArbCom? I looked for it, but was not able to find it. Dpotop 09:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• The case is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria and is currently in the evidence phase. All currently active cases are listed on the main WP:RFAR page via the transcluded template Template:ArbComOpenTasks. Thatcher131 16:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Dpotop 18:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hughes Network

If these god damn admin don't stop banning me because I simply have Hughes Net I am going to scream. I have been banned at least 1000 times because of this not once is it ever me.

Is wiki going to ever stop this or do I have to take this up with people in charge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.17 (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please email me if this problem continues Fred Bauder 19:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Or, you could create a user account.

--FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 01:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Topic bans

I am in need on clarification of topic bans. Usually, editors are banned from a topic and its related articles. What exactly is a related article? What is the rule of thumb to determine whether it is related or not? How broadly or narrowly is such an injunction interpreted? Does this need to be raised under the clarifications section by user and case on WP:RFARB? Sorry to be a pain. I am just trying to be clear on the issue. Thanks so much! Vassyana 19:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that no one noted your query here before the present. In general, these issues are addressed on a case-by-case basis with the ultimate goal being to avoid a recurrence of the problems that led to the need for the arbitration case and the remedy. It is hard to say more as a purely general proposition. If you have a more specific question, please let me know. Newyorkbrad 19:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Formatting

On my computer (using a standard 1280x800 resolution) the text in the third paragraph between "all serious disputes" and "with the authority" is blocked by the infobox. I don't know anything about formatting, but that seems to be a fairly important piece of text so... can someone fix it? Bduddy 04:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I see neither of those sections on this page. And what's an infobox? Do you mean the table of contents? If so, it's likely a problem with your web browser mis-interpreting CSS, not something WP can fix. What browser are you using? Ceran 11:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Other languages

Some Wikipedias in other languages, like the Chinese Wikipedia, does not have an ArbCom. Would the foundation mandate all of them to have one. Regards. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 01:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. While the English Wikipedia's ArbCom was established by Jimbo, those of other language editions sprouted up independently, and are not required by the foundation at all. See also m:Arbitration Committee. Picaroon (Talk) 01:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

interwikis

From the source of the page (WP:AC):

ru:?????????:??????????? ???????

there is an error: the cyrillic letters replaced with the question marks. Why? the correct iwiki is: [[ru:Википедия:Арбитражный комитет]]

Please correct this. --89.1.33.123 05:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

complaint

I wish to make a complaint against an arbitrator whom placed a request that I be subjected to an exceedingly heavy punishment without providing evidence, reason or even loose explanation of why he felt such a punishment was necessary. His request was made in an arbitration in which he recommended that users who had committed multiple violations of POV, civility, 3RR etc (for which he provided evidence of their wrongdoing) should be subjected only to probationary punishments. In fact it was among the heaviest of the punishments that was requested anywhere in the arbitration, despite the fact that I was not actually cited as being disruptive to either entries or other users.

He request came within 1 hour of my reverting an edit that he made to my user page, which I believe was the catalyst for his request. As such, I believe it was an abuse of his position as an arbitrator and request that the case be looked into with the objective of having his request struck from the record.

perfectblue 20:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It is unlikely that anything will be "struck from the record," but you should probably re-post this to the proposed decision talk page of the particular arbitration in question, where the other arbitrators may be likely to see it before they vote on the different proposals. Newyorkbrad 22:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales

Per this, I would like to know: how deeply involved is Jimbo Wales in day to day matters? A.Z. 03:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Very, very little. Raul654 03:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 may be a little out of touch. --Tony Sidaway 14:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say about 95% of the arbcom discussion occurs on the arbcom mailing list. It is true that I have not been reading the arbcom mailing list with any great regularity lately. However, to be blunt - I have access to it, and you do not. I can say with great deal of certainty exactly how much involvement Jimbo has - it's, to be frank, it's not all that much. Maybe an email or two a week, on a list with a very high volume. Raul654 14:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As someone who reads that list daily, Raul's characterization seems reasonably accurate. Paul August ☎ 22:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, did someone mention the arbcom mailing list? I don't have access to that. I was referring to Jimbo's involvement in day-to-day matters on English Wikipedia, which in my experience is quite considerable. I don't think those matters are the business of arbcom. I would expect arbitrators, however, to be a little better informed. --Tony Sidaway 23:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the context of the question -- i.e., the talk page of WP:ARBCOM -- led Raul to think that just maybe the question related to ArbCom day to day matters; why would someone ask a question about general Wikipedia matters on this page? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Jimbo's comment was ambiguous. Perhaps he expected arbcom members to back him up on his fairly strong (but not overwhelming) commitment to Wikipedia matters. Well obviously he was wrong there. On the other hand from other mailing lists that I'm on he's obviously involved, and his recent editing history suggests that he's really in the thick of it, particularly on policy formation. Two pretty radical changes to deletion-related policy in the past month, too. A nice bit of nick-and-tuck on a BLP mid-month. And he was on his hols, too! --Tony Sidaway 00:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can also attest that Jimbo is deeply involved in many aspects of our encyclopedia. However given the page we are on, I assumed — and I would suppose that so did Raul — that the question was about Jimbo's involvement in ArbCom matters. The answer to that question is that he rarely gets involved in individual cases — which is as exactly as it should be. Tony's insinuation that the remarks here imply some sort of lack of support by the ArbCom for Jimbo is simply preposterous. Paul August ☎ 03:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope I didn't appear to make any such insinuation, but if I did I apologise. I thought I was expressing surprise at an apparent case of ignorance, which has now been fully explained. --Tony Sidaway 05:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as Paul surmised, I assumed from the location he asked it that A.Z. was asking about Jimbo's level of involvement in the arbcom (which, as I said, is not all that much) Jimbo is definitely heavily involved at the Foundation level, but I wouldn't have called the Foundation-level stuff he does "day to day" operations. ("Day to day" wikipedia stuff, to my mind, means editing articles, clearing, AFD backlogs, fulfilling rename requests, promoting users after succesful RFAs, and a million other little-jobs that nobody notices unless they go unfulfilled). Raul654 20:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain this? Concerning the Paranormal arbitration.

Can someone explain to me why the arbitrators working on the Paranormal arbitration have yet to even introduce the key issues to be voted on by the arbitrators? Minderbinder started the case due to the disruptive actions of specifically Martinphi which arose from sockpuppeting, disruptive editing and a RFC which resulted in a huge consensus agreeing that his edits are disruptive. So far none of the arbitrators have introduced any remedies concerning Martinphi. There were also many issues with other editors including but not limited to Davkal and Tom Butler. There has been a substantial amount of evidence presented implicating all of these users in disruptive edits and there have been numerous proposals put forward in the workshop by various editors however so far none of the arbitrators have even introduced these remedies concerning these users. It seems they are missing the entire point of the arbitration and focusing on 1 or 2 editors who's edits have been a minor problem at most but ignoring the most disruptive editors who use sockpuppets, engage in edit wars, etc. I have left messages on the talk pages of most of the arbitrators and this has led nowhere as far as I can tell. All I am asking is that the arbitrators working on the case present some drafts from the workshop concerning these aforementioned editors and introduce remedies concerning them. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The major remedies are article probation and the revert parole. Further proceedings are anticipated with particularly troublesome editors. Fred Bauder 14:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you introduce remedies concerning those specific users? Martinphi in particular, there is overwhelming evidence of his disruptive edits which should warrant a ban from paranormal articles or wikipedia all together. Martinphi has made meatpuppets, edit warred, been blocked for 3rr etc. Here's his meatpuppet case Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Martinphi which confirmed he had made a deceptive meat puppet. He initially claimed that it wasn't him but his "roommate/girlfriend" who was making the exact same edits and then he admitted that it was indeed him. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Martinphi for further evidence of his disruptive edits. Martinphi is probably the most troublesome editor followed closely by User:Davkal who has also created meat puppets and engaged in edit warring and 3rr etc. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else want to comment? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally, this page isn't used for discussion of specific cases, but for the functioning of the committee as a whole. Newyorkbrad 19:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My posts on the specific pages concerning this Arbitration seem to be overlooked or ignored. I've also tried talking to all of the arbitrators directly and still no response. The case itself seems to have gone stagnate the past couple of weeks without out any arbitrators making any edits to it or voting or introducing new proposals. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Another checkuser?

There seems to be a small consensus forming here that we could use at least one more checkuser. (I'd be willing to do it, but I'd need a bit of coaching. Probably one of the checkuser clerks, or someone like that would be ideal.) Thoughts? Volunteers? Grandmasterka 17:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Three users agreeing is not what I'd call a "consensus". But we'll take it under advisement. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that wasn't a good word to use. But thanks. Grandmasterka 18:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • We just need to get more checkusers involved in the page. Often 1 or 2 people run it entirely, get tired and do less, and the page falls behind, until someone else comes. Probably we should get a balance of checkusers maintaining the page, which we can do, rather than 1-2 people, that way no one burns out. Voice-of-All 22:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Tom harrison comes to mind as one who is judicious, widely trusted and uninvolved in wiki-intrigue; however, I'm not at all certain he'd want to do it.Proabivouac 23:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree--Sefringle^Talk 03:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do it if there is a need, but getting more existing checkusers involved per VoA above, or rotating in some of the checkuser clerks, seems like the easiest way to go. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ban enforcement?

There's a request on WP:BOTREQ to create a robot which will watch for edits from people who ArbCom has banned from editing certain pages, or who ArbCom has banned from reverting, or so on. I've made some code, but I'd like ArbCom's and clerks' opinions before I request approval - is this necessary? Would it help? How many levels of blacklisting would we need - i.e., banned from all articles, banned from certain articles, banned from reverts on certain articles - anything else? Does ArbCom ban from certain namespaces? --ST47Talk 14:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This strikes me as a bad idea. It would be extraordinarily difficult to keep the bot accurate and up to date. There are three general classes of restrictions; revert parole, article or topical bans, and probation. Revert parole limits editors to one content revert (obvious vandalism excepted) per article per time period. The time frame varies; in different cases editors are limited to one revert per day, or one revert per week, and sometimes even more complex formulations. Some reverts must be justified by discussion on the talk page; how will the bot determine whether there actually was discussion, and will it be possible to make null edits to the talk page to fool the bot? The bot would have to distinguish between content edits and reverts, and would have to be able to detect "sneaky reversions" as defined by the 3RR policy. Some revert paroles are indefinite, others have expiry dates. Article and topical bans are sometimes imposed by the Committee; usually editors are banned from editing "[[Article X]] and related articles;" where related can be open to interpretation and admin judgement, and would have to be coded into the bot some how. Probation would be the most difficult to enforce by bot. Editors on probation may be banned from articles or topics they disrupt for an appropriate period of time by any admin. To police this by bot would require the banning admin to edit the bot code somewhere in addition to logging the ban on the case page, the user's talk page and the article talk pages, as currently required, and then removing the code when the ban was lifted or expired. For example, I recently enacted a one-month ban on a user from editing certain templates or editing how those templates were used on articles; enforcing that ban by bot would require someone listing all possible templates he was banned from, and all the articles those templates were transcluded on. And then I lifted the ban early, so even automatic expiry in the bot code would not be helpful here. Finally, I'm not sure what problem this is meant to solve. There are relatively few complaints posted at WP:AE, at least compared to the volume at WP:ANI, and at best the bot would be advisory only (I hope no one is suggesting to give the bot blocking ability!). Thatcher131 15:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of Thatcher's points. Your desire to help out with enforcement is appreciated, and the idea for the bot is a very creative one, but it would extremely difficult to keep the bot up-to-date and accurate for all the reasons already mentioned. Also, a large part of ArbCom decision evasion is done through sockpuppets, which the bot wouldn't pick up anyway. What we really need are a few more admins watchlisting the arbitration enforcement messageboard. Newyorkbrad 16:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand. --ST47Talk 17:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Recusation of James F. as an arbitrator in my case

moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus

"all Arbitrators serve at Jimbo's discretion"

Is this still true? Doesn't the ultimate formal authority for Arbcom (& everything else in Wikipedia) now rest with the trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation rather than with Jimbo personally? This is consistent with the comment in WP:10T that "Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales occasionally acts as a final arbiter on the English Wikipedia, but his influence is based on respect, not power; it takes effect only where the community does not challenge it." Now that the board has a majority of members elected by the community, this point is no longer moot. If such a change has taken place, some significant text on this page now needs updating, e.g. also the suggestions that Jimbo has the power to overrule Arbcom in his own right. PaddyLeahy 17:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the arbitration system has changed, however, even if the Board has. While the Board is now the highest authority for all Wikimedia projects, the English Wikipedia still seems to have a special relationship with Jimbo as a person, unconnected to his role as board member and Chairman Emeritus. He is still the one who appoints arbitrators, and to my knowledge nothing else has changed about his role, either. Maybe ask him, since he probably knows better than everybody else. ;-) Picaroon (Talk) 19:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it really matters; Jimbo (or the Foundation) would respect the opinion of the community if it loudly disagreed with his removal of an arbiter. Grandmasterka 07:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom's power doesn't come from the Foundation; it's entirely a community-based body. Jimbo has the role he does in dispute resolution as the benevolent leader of the English-language Wikipedia, and because most people accept his decisions, not because of any formal role. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser backlog

Can we have a couple of checkusers over at WP:RFCU/IP please? There was another WoW attack today, not to mention the other stuff wanting to be dealt with. MER-C 13:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Bump. MER-C 12:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend emailing the committee if you want to get the attention of more checkusers. Picaroon (Talk) 21:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser backlog part deux

I imagine most ARBCOM members check the admin noticeboard, but just in case, an FYI about a relevant thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#More CU's.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

ongoing disputes around pedophilia, users getting blocked.

I am concerned about the ongoing disputes and differences centred around the article pro-pedophilia activism. Users seem to get indefblocked and suspended from creating accounts, with little to none visible reasoning behind this. It seems to go against the wiki principles. All those blocked accounts userpages have a notice to contact the arbcom for questions. Some visible cases are User:Samantha Pignez, who is indefblocked for 'Extreme disruption', where I couldn't come to the same conclusion reading the contribs (yes, I am aware of the previous block regarding the 3rr user:Jim Burton', also indefblocked, for 'Pattern of Pedophile advocacy' which I can find no policy against, User:Farenhorst for a really strange sockpuppetry case here [[29]], where all I read that it's not confirmed that he is not a sockpuppet of Voice of Brittain. Users are saying that self-identifying pedophiles are getting indefblocked as a standard procedure, and that there is no policy about it, but that it is done behind the scenes by invisible consensus in the arbcom (paraphrasing User:SqueakBoxs words). As I said, this concerns me. I believe that Wikipedia should indeed be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and that this shouldn't rule out people that are self-identified pedophiles, as it doesn't rule out rapists, murderers, those who commit ensurance fraud, etc etc. Writing this, I am even afraid that I myself might end up being infedblocked, and I hesitate to make any edits that would put me in the bracket of pedophiles/defenders of pedophiles/people who advocate pedophily/people who defend people who advocate pedophily. I don't know if this post, together with a previous break of the 3rr in the past [[30]], would constitute to 'Extreme disruption' aswell. I really hope that policy and reasoning behind these blcoks can made clear. Martijn Hoekstra 12:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I am getting more and more concerned about possibly getting indefblocked if I keep active in this discusson. this block, an indefinate block for a user that 'might' disrupt the project seems unreasonably harsh. The deafening silence that this post received is not a good sign either. Martijn Hoekstra 12:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Martijn, in case you haven't, take a look at Equilibrist's request for unblock [31]. It was swiftly deleted (within hours) and in spite of the fact that Equilibrist was asked to email the ArbCom his email was already blocked, along with the rest of his account and his talk page protected from being edited with no prior warnings or any complaints whatsoever. 193.217.56.20 05:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the moderator of the mailinglist will soon approve my email. Martijn Hoekstra 11:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Please contact the Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org> if you need to discuss specific concerns about your account. Take care, FloNight♥♥♥ 13:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I hadn't found that particular mailinglist before, and previous emails have not resulted in an answer. I have to admit that I have become sceptical about seeing this issue resolved, but I will try nonetheless. Again, thank you for the information! Martijn Hoekstra 14:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A complaint?

How do I launch a complaint about this user - Scorpion0422 (is that how it works?)? He's abusing power for no reason other than to feign importance and is nothing but a dictator. Please stop him, he is ruining people's abilities to give information, perverting the entire truth and distorting images. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Multiplebraininjuries (talk • contribs)

You haven't posted enough information for anyone to evaluate your concern, but please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for information on raising issues and concerns regarding another user. By the way, please consider changing your username, which is problematic under our username policy. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 16:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment from outside observer: The dispute in question consists of Multiplebraininjuries insisting on adding language to the lead of Chris Benoit to make the claim that there is no confirmation that Benoit killed his wife and son, and other editors reverting to the version that was hashed out by consensus on the article's talkpage some time ago. Would not recommend going forward with any further RfAs on this, as MBI went straight here without any attempts at less drastic methods of resolution. Rdfox 76 17:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Who requested Essjay to ArbCom?

Since the notice is no longer standing, could the members of the ArbCom around January/February 2007 please respond to the question -- did Jimmy Wales or did the Committee "request" the installation of Essjay on the ArbCom? This is referencing a possibly non-NPOV source being used on the article Essjay controversy. Thank you for helping! Libertyvalley 15:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As I type this I'm at work, so I don't have access to my personal email archives to confirm this. If memory serves, Jimbo approached us asking for recommendations for replacement arbitrators, as there were several vacancies on the Committee at the time. We, the committee, put our heads together, and come up with several unanimous recommendations (Unanimous in the sense that nobody objected; that's generally how the committee mailing list works - e.g, "I'll proceed with this is nobody objects in the next XX days"). Jimbo then appointed them. Raul654 16:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate your recollection, Raul654. Please provide more info when you get to your home-based archives. It was my understanding that there was only one appointment -- Essjay -- but that doesn't mean there weren't other recommendations made. And I would be wrong. Wales made the announcement, "I hereby appoint Mackensen and EssJay to the Arbitration committee. After consulting with the existing arbitration committee and others, I decided to appoint Mackensen to Dominic's seat (Dominic is retiring), and EssJay to an expansion seat in the shortest tranche." But it appears that Mackensen declined the position. Libertyvalley 16:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen accepted the position and has been an arbitrator for most of this year. He had been previously elected as an arbitrator and served for a short period once before; his current term expires on December 31. For a history of membership of the committee, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 02:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Libertyvalley has been banned as one of Jon Awbry's many, many sockpuppets; however, based on my email I have compiled a partial timeline answering the above to the best of my ability. I sent it to the rest of the committee asking (a) for them to fill in the holes, and (b) if it was OK to release it. Raul654 04:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it called *Arbitration* Committee?

Hi,

According to arbitration:

• Arbitration is a legal technique for the resolution of disputes [...] wherein the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons such as [...] by whose decision [...] they agree to be bound

Emphasis mine.

If I understand correctly what the ArbCom does is not really arbitration, since one can be dragged through the process against their will.

(This came up during the discussions in HuWiki: we're trying to set up our own ArbCom.)

-- nyenyec ☎ 22:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You have a good point. This came up once before, and someone suggested it be renamed to the "Inquisition Committee". Maybe users agree to be bound by ArbCom decisions in advance by joining Wikipedia, and whether they are eventually involved in an arbitration case is merely a matter of whether there is anything to be arbitrated? That's all I can think of. Picaroon (t) 22:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think in many ways it's analogous to mandatory arbitration under the terms of a contract; by editing Wikipedia you agree to the terms. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was because we get to be arbitrary. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Desysoping for a time-period

For example, for user:Alkivar, the usual means are prohibited. But desysopping for 1 or 2 year(s) would be more appropriate. After 1 year he can RfA, but if he wish to become admin before 1 year time period - he will have to ask/apply to arbcom. Barring usual means for the whole lifetime would be too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msft rocks (talk • contribs) 07:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sunder King

Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, please let me know the right place to do so if I'm wrong. I have just noticed that this guy Sunder King got blocked. As far as I could tell from his edits he was a decent editor, he has edited a number of articles on my watchlist. The template on his userpage says refer to checkuser for evidence. It took me a while to figure out how to find the Molag Bal archive (as there are no clear instructions on how to do this on the checkuser page), a look at the page history tells me that no new evidence has been added since September 2007 and there is nothing on there relating to Sunder King (blocked November 14). The Sunder King talk page has been redirected to his user page and protected, so it is impossible to have any debate about it there. This looks extremely dodgy to me, even if he is this guy Molag Bal, surely blocking people should be more transparent and less misleading. Can someone look into this case and give me some feedback please, kind regards, King of the NorthEast 21:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The right place would be WP:ANI, but it might be an idea to read the responses to this same message that you left on 3 admins' pages as well as here. Martinp23 22:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Past and Current Cases

Is there a specific place for finding past and current cases? Thank you. Nice (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests. Mackensen (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yep, that's for the completed cases, and a list of current cases with links is at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)