User talk:Kelly Martin/Archives/2005 November

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Your Vote 2 Injunctions 3 An invitation 4 Tray 5 You are one of the subjects of an RfC 6 Alkivar 3's adminship 7 Procedural Guidance Requested 8 My RFA 9 VfD talk 10 Recusal 11 Requests for arbitration: Joshuaschroeder 12 Requests for arbitration: Ben v FeloniousMonk et al 13 Why Quit? 14 Appreciation 15 Request for legal assistance 16 141 17 TDC Arbitration 18 My e-mail 19 Checkuser board? 20 Short Comment 21 Blocking policy 22 Right to remove content from Arbitration pages 23 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WoW_takeover 24 Sockcheck request 25 Another sockcheck request 26 Licensing for community images 27 My Green Day comments. 28 Sockpuppets 29 Request for IP check 30 Messhermit 31 EddieSegoura 32 YASR 33 vandal 34 AN/I 35 ArbCom case -- any preferences for making it easy reading? 36 Pigsonthewing and Karmafist 37 Reply required as per Wikipedia:Arbitration policy for Requests 38 Wilkes, Wyss, 141 39 Fair use and comics

[edit] Your Vote

You voted to delete all associations promoting a POV edditing style. Well mine dosen't premote POV edditing. From day one we opposed information exclusion in addition to administration exclusion. My association fought the Association of (Im)moral Wikipedians from day one. When the those Wikicons got deleted, I planned mainly to focus on inclusion of information. The Exclusionist Party's establishment was annoched on the Deletionist Association's talk page. My association would outpace them. However, it appears as if nobody, except me, has voted to keep my association!

Canadianism 00:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Injunctions

Hey Kelly, I thought I'd take this here so the ANI doesn't get more clogged than it already is. With regards to [1], I hadn't looked at the arb case, but I was talking in generalities. I'm interested in what you think on the general principle of protection vs. blocking (or injunction, as the case may be, same function). When I come across a request at WP:RFPP for protection of an article involved in an arb case, I always think that I would prefer the offending parties in an injunction than protect the article. The more common scenario is that I look for 3RR blocks to hand out (depending on the situation, obviously) rather than protect. Other admins take protection much more lightly (at least more lightly than protection). What do you think? Dmcdevit·t 04:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've always had that problem with 3RR too. But I can't really think of a better way to do it, and I do think it is useful at least to have some firm policy in your defense when blocking. On a related note, one of things I've been thinking about recently is making arbcom injunctions more recognized as an option in edit wars. It might seem like the handful of arbcom cases would only relate to a small number of serious edit wars compared to the rest of Wikipedia, but a glance at WP:PP is quite striking. Of the ~24 articles currently protected for edit wars or vandalism, two relate to the Ultramarine case, one to the Zephram Stark case, one to the Bogdanov Affair, (which does have an injunction), one to DreamGuy, all six of the Star Wars movies for Copperchair, two for REX, and these are just the ones I remember off the top of my head (yes, protected articles worry me). Not saying these all need injunctions, as many are in the voting stage right now. But to me, these indicate cases where injunctions should have been considered (they may have been, but I bet they weren't). I think REX and Copperchair are the only ones early on enough for injunctions to still be a consideration now. But as a general point, it makes sense to me that more admins should be encouraged to try proposing injunctions as an alternative to protection. It should be institutionalized. Thoughts? Dmcdevit·t 05:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] An invitation

I notice you seem to have a negative opinion of my, and no doubt you still have some lingering questions. I would welcome your comments on these matters should you wish to join me in a discussion on my talk page. I wish to find the reason for your negative opinion as I have tried my best to observe WP:FAITH and WP:NPA, as you no doubt have good faith reasons for these opinions it would help tremendously if you would discuss them with me so a compromise can be reached. TheChief (PowWow) 17:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tray

Hi Kelly. I was about to remove the Alice in Wonderland reference from the Tray article, but noticed on the edit history that you'd already reverted someone else's removal of this.

The reference in the Mad Hatter's poem (or was it someone else at the tea party?) was clearly meant within the context of the book to be taken as nonsense, and I don't see how including it in a short encyclopedic article on trays is of benefit. Trays aren't really like bats, and anyone who has come to this article because they want to find out what a tray is is only going to get confused!

If this was a much more detailed article which warranted a trivia section or a "literary references to trays" section, then sure, this is interesting enough for inclusion. However, in a stub article, I really don't think it belongs here.

What do you reckon? Best wishes, CLW 11:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Cool - thanks for getting back to me. I'll ditch it - this won't leave much more than a dicdef, so maybe someone will put it up for deletion. Cheers, CLW 12:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You are one of the subjects of an RfC

You have been named as one of the subjects of an RfC at [2] --Silverback 06:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

That is not an RfC, it's a rant by a known troublemaker. I see no reason to participate in such a clearly broken process. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alkivar 3's adminship

I think I agree with your views regarding Alkivar's adminship. However, I believe that under the 80:20 rule, an oppose vote matters, so I disagree with your idea that you are resigned to approval of his adminship and have voted "oppose" rather than "neutral". --JuntungWu 06:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Procedural Guidance Requested

As I have been preparing the Evidence for my Arbitration case, I have made three TALK posts on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Polygamy/Evidence.

• My unique problem, Guidance Requested
• OK to "Yield" DIFFs in DIFF-Count?
• Items Still Pending in Preparing Evidence

While I wait to hear back from my AMA advocate, your procedural guidance on those issues will be very much appreciated. Thank you. - Researcher 21:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

I'm sorry you found reason to object to my adminship, but now that I've been promoted, I'd like to clear the slate. If you have any specific issues/problems with me, please feel free to state them on my talk page so that I can work to prevent them in the future.  ALKIVAR™ 07:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD talk

Hi there! I've left a response to a comment you made in Wikipedia Talk:Articles for deletion#rôle of the nomination on AfD. Please respond. With respect, I feel that you have mischaracterized my actions, and I would like to discuss it. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Howdy. I know you must be busy with all this other stuff, but I'd really appreciate it if you could take a moment to either respond here or participate in the discussion in AfD Talk regarding the reversion you made to Afdfooter and the charges you made against me after your inaccurate surface reading of my proposal. Considering that you've essentially suggested that I vandalized Wikipedia, the courtesy of a response would be appreciated. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello! It has been 8 days, and I would really appreciate the courtesy of a reply on this matter. You made an allegation that I made changes against consensus, and that is false. I will not edit war and don't plan to add my change back without hearing from you as you obviously have a concern that led you to bypass a good faith consensus. If your opinion outweighs the consensus that we worked out a month earlier, then I would like to understand why. Awaiting your reply, CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, it has now been 14 days. I see you are active on your talk page, could you please take a moment to respond to this? If it's not convenient, I can bring this up on the wikiEN-l mailing list instead if that's a better medium to discuss this. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, it's now been almost a month since my first request. I continue to assume good faith in the absence of a response from you, but I am increasingly puzzled as you have responded to other requests and not this. Please respond. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recusal

Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Silverback. Thank you, Sam Spade 17:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for arbitration: Joshuaschroeder

I hope I'm allowed to contact you though I initiated the RfA. I may have misunderstood, you mentioned that you could not find the RfC I mentioned; it is Section 3 on the page at Plasma Cosmology talk. But I note you mention a "user conduct RfC", and I am not sure if this is something completely different.

I don't know if it is now admissible, but there was also a suggestion of Dispute Resolution (Section 19) at Electric Universe talk, but my suggestion of a survey was turned down by Joshuaschroeder.

And third-party input has resulted in comments such as this from professional plasma cosmologist, Eric Lerner.

--Iantresman 13:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for arbitration: Ben v FeloniousMonk et al

Noted. I assume my RfA[3] will stay pending on the main page until ➥the Epopt makes his decision (i.e. when the RfC is concluded), but please let me know if I can re-file if it gets moved to "rejected requests" before then. --Ben 03:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why Quit?

Why are you quitting.. you're one of the good ones?--Irishpunktom\^talk 19:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I meant a Good Admin :( - Maybe you could think again come December? --Irishpunktom\^talk 19:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciation

Kelly, you should know how much you are appreciated on Wikipedia. You are one of the best editors by far on the project, and your care and diligence puts many, many others to shame. As such, I award you these two barnstars. I award you the Original Barnstar to symbolise how you are the ideal Wikipedian. I award you the Working Man's Barnstar to symbolise how you go far beyond most people in the service of Wikipedia.

I, like many, many others, am deeply grateful for your activity on Wikipedia. Have the strength to keep going, for all our sakes.

[[Sam Korn]] 22:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for legal assistance

Hi Kelly. Recently, a very interesting question was raised regarding the legality of including rearranged or otherwise modified lists of data which originate from outside sources. According to User:BD2412, an IP attorney and fellow Wikipedian, the two lists in question, Newsweek's List of the 1,000 Top U.S. Schools (2005) and Newsweek’s List of Top High Schools (2003) are not in violation of any United States copyright law, citing the Feist v. Rural case as precedent. If it is not too much trouble, would you please weigh in with your comments over at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2005_November_11? Thank you for your time. Bahn Mi 09:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 141

Would you be so kind as to examine my edits to James Dean and Nick Adams? As one of his assigned mentors, I have attempted to distill onefortyone's edits, which I consider, in these two cases at least, to be well-sourced, balanced, verifiable and encyclopedic discussion of the actors' sexuality. They are repeatedly being reverted (and I've now been taken to WP:3RR as "violating the ArbCom order." I do not consider them to do any such thing. I would appreciate your input. FCYTravis 22:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TDC Arbitration

Just curious about the specifics of the Arbitration case.

1. How long does this take?
2. Is the decision making process public or private?
3. How much input will I have during this process to defend myself?

Thank you. TDC 01:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My e-mail

Hi Kelly, did you get my e-mail? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser board?

Now that there are a group of new Checkusers, do you think it'd be useful to create a central page (e.g. WP:AN/CU) where others could go to request a check on an alleged sockpuppet, and to hear the result (or, of course, hear "request denied" if inappropriate)? Or would that be overdoing it? Radiant_>|< 17:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Short Comment

While I under stand your frustration here[4], and let me mention I too would be frustrated, perhaps you shouldn't let your frustration get the better of you. Doubtless the users involved were trying to be destructive or vandalize but does that really excuse an administrator from WP:CIV? Many users look to administrators for a model of accepted behavior, which is why it is important to follow WP:CIV at all times. Just my thoughts. TheChief (PowWow) 22:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, shouting for someone to "GET THE HELL OFF THE INTERNET" is not civil by any reasonable definition. TheChief (PowWow) 22:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

While you are of course entitled to your opinion on what is and is not civil, I would encourage you to reread your comment with the eyes of someone unfamiliar with you personally, or ask someone else to read the comment and give you their feedback. I am just suggesting reflection on your future choice of words. You can choose to consider or discard my advice as you see fit of course. TheChief (PowWow) 22:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking policy

I edit conflicted with you (about an hour ago, I got sidetracked) at WP:BP, when I was about to put in something else. Rather than do anything, I decided to write my response to Piotrus at ANI. Basically, I would have changed your words to:

• "(Where the premise of a block is disputed,) In virtually all cases, you should at least notify the blocking admin on his or her talk page and the rest of the administrator community at WP:AN/I and get community consensus before unblocking a blocked user."

More explanation I think in my comment at ANI [5]. What do you think? Dmcdevit·t 22:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes of course, that's what I meant by "Where the premise of a block is disputed". For instance I recently unblocked someone who had been blocked under 3RR, when they promised to me that they weren't going to revert abain (and I was more lenient since it wasn't in the article space). I didn't dispute the original block, but I don't the the unblock was controversial either, and it ended amicably. However, when someone thinks that another was wrongly blocked is the situation I was going for. ("virtually" is not a clincher for me either. I was just, rather carelessly, adapting your words.) Dmcdevit·t 23:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Right to remove content from Arbitration pages

You have no right to remove my clarification for the Arbitration Committee's benefit. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 01:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I most certainly have not only the right, but the obligation to clarify my complaint when a member of the Committe, Fred Bauder as I stated, said it wasn't clear. You stated it was misplaced in your edit summary, which is wrong because some Arbitration Committee members already voiced an opinion based on a false assumption, for which I apologized. Because of that, there is no place else to insert my clarification than where I did. Further, your sudden enforcement of the 500 word suggestion is not applicable and would be discrimination against me because the committee has acted upon mine and numerous other requests with far more than that. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 02:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Except that my clarification is proper abnd an integral part of my Request. You certainly do not have the right to deny me clarifying my request. If I have acted improperly in this matter, then file a complaint against me with the Arbitration Committee. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 02:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

A week seems a bit heavy handed, especially for munging with a request for arbitration that was clearly rejected anyway. It isn't like he was messing with an accepted case in the middle of procedures. I seem to recall a number of editors inserting improper comments on an RfC against me and even though it was against RfC procedures, no admin did anything to the editors in question. I also filed a vandalism in progress report since one of the editors moved an endorsement/vote of mine to the talk page on the same RfC, and no one did anything to them either. Violation of RfC procedures doesn't appear to be a blockable offense. Arbcom cases may be slightly more serious for violating procedure, but again, the case appears to be clearly rejected anyway, and to be a stickler for procedures, Fred Bauder should have recused himself from voting on an RfA against him, but it isn't a blockable offense. How about 24 hours for Wilkes? FuelWagon 23:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WoW_takeover

I am extremely displeased with the tone of the comment that you posted in this section of AN/I, and I felt it would be appropriate to let you know that I have commented on it there. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockcheck request

I would like to request sockchecking of Jtmichcock (talk • contribs), whose edits consist almost entirely of AFD votes and minor touchups. In particular, his recent voting behavior might indicate he might be a sock of Arniep (talk • contribs), who went on a WP:POINT deletion spree yesternight and was only supported by Jtmichcock, e.g. here. Radiant_>|< 12:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another sockcheck request

User:Novembre 19 is doing a darned good imitation of User:Lightbringer. Edits on Freemasonry are here -- he complains about links being removed with no explanation when, in fact, User:Jachin was clear on the talk page about why he was doing it.

Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 00:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I was going to ask that he be checked as well. Not a normal way to make your first three edits. Dmcdevit·t 01:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Possible, but not confirmable at this time. Same ISP, but different address, and I think this ISP issues IPs on a "semistatic" basis. If it's him, he took steps to cause his ISP to issue a new IP. I recommend a watch and wait posture for now. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

How about User:The Brotherhood? His last edit summaries follow Lightbringer's pattern. (And no, I'm not going to ask if every one who edits those pages is a Lightbringer puppet -- just the ones who follow the same pattern.)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs).

The Brotherhood (talk • contribs) is the same editor as Novembre 19 (talk • contribs) and also Vitamin a (talk • contribs). At this point I am reasonably convinced that these users are all sockpuppets of Lightbringer (talk • contribs); all should be blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets used to evade an ArbCom injunction.

Thanks for checking: I appreciate it.--SarekOfVulcan 17:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Licensing for community images

For your information:

I have used template:CommunityUseOnly in a proposal I have created: Wikipedia:Licensing for community images.

I had actually created a very similar tag a month ago, but it was deleted and my user page image deleted for being non-free. Hence the policy proposal. Thue | talk 18:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My Green Day comments.

I did not say in my edit summary "rv faggotism", I said "Revert faggotism." Big difference. It was not an attack either, because faggotism is not a word and is thus gibberish. I also reverted it for a reson too. My comment, "You're fucking retarded." was an observation conducted by me based on witnessing Drdr1989's actions. He deleted it for no reason. And this was not a personal attack, just an observation, the same observation that he had when he said that Green Day was punk rock. The mere fact that you would take this as an insult is truly disgusting and shows how you truly feel and think about mentally handicap people. Much love, Gold Stur.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think somebody just killed their Wikipedian-editing career? And unless Gold Stur has invented a time-machine he could not possibly predict my deleting his derogatory comments to substantiate his "observation". Nonetheless, you're an admin, Kelly. Do what you must, if you have not done so. Drdr1989 05:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets

Hi Kelly,

I hope you're well. A few days ago, you were the admin who investigated my use of sockpuppets and found that I was indeed using them in a correct and proper manner; within Wiki rules. However, another admin is telling me I should stop or my accounts will be deleted.

I've made my intentions very clear. I use sockpuppets only because my opponents would revert every Christian-oriented contribution of mine in one fell swoop if I made them all from one account. They've already vanadalised my user page about 5-10 times a day since it has been up.

Please speak to the admin who wants me to delete these accounts. We are having a conversation here.

Thanks for your even-handed objectiveness.

Sincerely,

Jason Gastrich --Jason Gastrich 20:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for IP check

Hi,
I don't know which page to leave this request on, so I hope you don't mind me leaving it here, as I know ArbCom members have run checks like this in the past. Its an informal check just to put my mind at rest.

A while ago, in January 2005, a user named User:Ciz (AKA User:DrBat) was prevented indefinitely from editing the Zoophilia article, a controversial topic which had taken much NPOV work to gain consensus. We have just had some talk page discussion from a user user:ShadowH, and although it is early days, the nature of changes he wants to make and something about his style and the pages he edits reminds me of Ciz. Is there any way that you could informally confirm whether user:ShadowH and user:DrBat appear to be different people, so that bona fide editors know if they have another sock-puppet by the same person, or a genuine new request? Thats all, and thank you.

In case you are busy or unavailable, I have cross-posted this also to Fred Bauder, and if there is a correct place for this kind of request and you would like me to go there, please let me know. Lastly of course, there is no offence intended to user:ShadowH if he/she is genuine, hence the informal nature of this request. It's just to up front confirm he/she is not yet another sock-puppet of the same guy again.

Many thanks for your time. FT2 23:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Evidence Ciz == Drbat as requested:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz#Ciz_is_a_secondary_account findings of fact #4: "Ciz is a secondary account: Ciz edits under another account, DrBat, that he does not wish associated with zoophilia topics" (8-0) FT2 01:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Drbat (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and ShadowH (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) are the same person, with a very high degree of certainty. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I have considered briefly how to handle it. Of course I don't know what (if any) action you will take or have taken. Wikipedia assumes even vandals can rehabilitate. So I have not told him your information, rather I have posted a note on the article talk page simply stating that it is suspected he is the vandal formerly known as Ciz, and asking him to confirm he is not (if he isn't), or cease editing the subject (if he is). My hope is that this will be fair warning, and he will cease editing which will amicably remove the need for future enforcement action against him. I figured if he himself chooses to leave it will be more desirable than if he is enforced against. Many thanks again for your help. FT2 11:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Messhermit

Hello there ! It's being a long time since I don't write to you asking for help :P. Well, the motive of this message is that I need your advice in grammar (since I'm not too good at it) by looking at a new article that I have created: Shahnawaz Tanai. Since I'm not a native speaker of English, it is a little difficult for me to see if some words or paragraphs are ok and understandable. Thanks a lot ! and keep in touch. Messhermit 02:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EddieSegoura

Sorry to barge in here, I'm sure you get this all the time. EddieSegoura appears to be a troll and a very sophisticated vandal. I'm not sure how to deal with him but since I saw on Jason Gastrich's talk page that you have access to IP numbers you seem to be the right person to mention this too.

Here is a little of the history to date. Despite having being a user for only ten days he has had two Rfa's Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/EddieSegoura and now Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/EddieSegoura_2. He appears to be making up content, for example, the word Exicornt. It is also apparent that he is running several socks possibly of users with a permanent ban sock puppets.

Possibly the above can all be explained but he is also making very disturbing edits such as to the BMT Sea Beach Line article. In this case his edit summary was "The term 'exicornt' was spelled incorrectly." whereas the word never existed in the article prior to that edit (this is of course his made up word). Additionally most of his major edits are labeled as minor edit. It certainly looks as if he is trying to fool users who have that page on their watchlist?

Viriditas who put together the sock info above is assume good faith and willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, nevertheless it might be usefull to nipp this in the bud early or if everything looks OK mentor him. David D. (Talk) 02:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC) I'm probably jumping the gun here. He could be a legitimate newbie since he has compromised. Sorry to jump in like that. David D. (Talk) 03:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Sockcheck was inconclusive as EddieSegoura (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is an AOL user. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

A huge Thank You from EddieSegoura for settling this peacefully. I hope My time spent on Wikipedia is productive. EddieSegoura 11:50 PM, November 25, 2005 (EST)

[edit] YASR

I would like to request a sockcheck of STopCat (talk • contribs), because all his edits are either reverting CalJW's categorisation of articles, or votes on WP:CFD to oppose (generally without a reason) CalJW's proposals for cat standardization. I suspect it may be a role-account, or a wikistalker. Radiant_>|< 10:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Inconclusive finding; editor in question is using AOL. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks. Radiant_>|< 19:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] vandal

please block 216.185.69.97 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) for vandalizing tool. he's been blocked before, and he's talk page is full of warnings already. Borisblue 16:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AN/I

Thanks for letting me know. karmafist 04:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom case -- any preferences for making it easy reading?

Hi Kelly,
I am putting together the ArbCom evidence for the Neuro-linguistic programming article (POV warfare/CIVILity/meatpuppet group). There are some 7 or 8 individual nominal defendants and 5 months of constant POV warfare breaching many of the major policies and guidelines.

I am happy to summarize and present the evidence, but I'm not sure what format is going to be easiest for ArbCom members to digest, with so many users involved. I've considered:

• In time order (earliest to latest, article and talk page) - but this doesn't make clear *every* nominal defendant has been active, since some were far more active than others
• By defendant - but this misses the way they work together with one often reinstating anothers posts to avoid reversion
• By policy (evidence of NPOV breaches, evidence of CIVILITY breaches, etc)

Can you point me to another such case or layout that such an evidence page could follow, so that the work I and other editors put into the evidence page is easy and helpful to ArbCom members? I don't think extra wordage helps anybody, but I'm at a loss how to document it most usefully and efficiently. Many thanks.

FT2 13:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pigsonthewing and Karmafist

Sorry, to bother you again, but I have to ask.

How does the 'standard personal attack parole' deal with situations where, after the injunction is imposed, the enjoined person is called "rude", "abrasive", and "a douchebag" by the person they are prohibitted from attacking? --CBD ^T _C ^@ 15:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

If i'm not mistaken, that sounds like a personal attack, at least in Pigsonthewing's view of things. karmafist 16:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

If the enjoined party is being attacked by another party to the RfAr, then perhaps the ArbCom needs to enter another injunction. Feel free to make a motion to do so. I would, at a bare minimum, need a diff to look at. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Motion filed. Thank you. --CBD ^T _C ^@ 17:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply required as per Wikipedia:Arbitration policy for Requests

I have not yet seen your reply as required by Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Requests to my request here as of 15:39, November 24, 2005 re with respect to this process. Please provide a rationale for your vote that was rendered while I was prevented from responding on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone in accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration policy for Requests which states "Individual Arbitrators will provide a rationale for their vote if so moved, or if specifically requested." Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 23:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I felt that the complaint, as presented, made a prima facie case that one or more users engaged in conduct which was not in the best interest of Wikipedia, and which was within the power of the Arbitration Committee to remedy, and that the matter was sufficiently developed as to be ripe for review by the Arbitration Committee. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The question I asked was: On what authority did you base your decision to deny me due process and render an opinion? Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 23:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have mistaken Wikipedia for a legal system. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

No, no mistake, just fact. I quote Jimmy Wales: "The arbcom is a judicial sort of body." In fact, it is my dedicated effort to help make Wikipedia an encyclopedia, not a gossip magazine, that brought me to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 16:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wilkes, Wyss, 141

Why did you accept this RfAr when no efforts, nor evidence of any efforts, to remedy the alleged issue by other means have been made or presented? I ask because this seems to be contrary to both the template instructions and WP policy. Could you please cite the documented section of Wikipedia's written policy which you used to make this extraordinary exception? Thanks. Wyss 23:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see my talk page for my response and please follow Wikipedia policy, however uncomfortable or inconvenient that may be. Thanks. Wyss 16:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use and comics

Not sure if you have had a chance to glance at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fair use and comics, but as I feel you are someone who has an interest and also relevant experience in this area I would appreciate it if you could find the time to read it and comment, as I think it is important to clarify the situation. I would dearly value your input and insights, thanks in advance, Steve block talk 14:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)