Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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. --S iva1979^{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!—The preceding unsigned comment was 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. Harr o5 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/oversight, 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? ~ Flame viper 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) ^{Wiki me up ®}

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. --Nuclear Zer0 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. --Nuclear Zer0 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. --Nuclear Zer0 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 ... --Nuclear Zer0 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" --Nuclear Zer0 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:

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]
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]
Users contacting eachother off wiki after I have a dispute with someone: [18] [19] [20][21]
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? --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/b/Wikipedia_talk%7EArbitration_Committee_Archive_3_c018.html"

Category: Wikipedia talk archives