Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:09, 8 December 2005

• ]

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

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

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

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

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

• Arbitration policy
• Administrator enforcement requested (shortcut WP:RFAr/AER)
• Developer help needed
• Arbitration template
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Precedents

How to list cases

Under the below Current requests section:

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

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act

Involved parties

• Benjamin Gatti 22:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC) - objecting to Protection for Censorship (PfC)
• user:Dmcdevit - for protecting a page without cause or due diligence.
• user:Woohookitty - for initiating a request for protection while being an interested party.
• Such as wish to participate

Prayer

The arbcom is requested to concur:

• that interested parties should not initiate page locks under the rubric of an edit war, and
• that page locks for "edit warring" should not issue without a prior discussion of the need for same and should at least request a cooling off period before seeking the nuclear option, and
• that four or five persons each making three or so constructive and original edits, intermixed with partial reverts is not an editwar, and
• to unlock the page.

Summary

The Article has been protected without valid reason. There is a legitimate content dispute, no anonymous vandalism, with ineffective, inconsistent, and sparsely attended mediation(s). I object to the Protection as it sanctifies a given version without substantial factual evidence in favor; moreover, the subject is a current event and recently amended.

Specifically, the page as protected prominently asserts a falsehood: "Some environmental, consumer and taxpayer watchdog groups, as well as one federal agency, have criticized the act as a government subsidy to the nuclear power industry and argue that it does not adequately protect the public." Which is false in this way - that no federal agency has ever been shown to have criticised the act, nor to have argued that in does not adequately protect the public. In conflating a longer, but technically accurate introductory sentence, the editors have settled for a lie, and the sysop has sanctified it with his seal of protection.

In this diff , zen-master makes a constructive edit, then Woohookitty reverts summarily without giving a reason, shortly followed by a complaint of edit-warring.

Fully 6 persons made edits on Dec 5, 3 of which had 4 separate entries. This is lively and constructive editing, none of which is fully repetitious. Bearing in mind that the Supreme Court disagreed with the Appellate Court on this topic, the editing is more than reasonable. Reasonable minds disagree; they do not censor.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

DmcDevit - Woohookitty -

Confirmation of Alternate resolution attempted:

• The article is already under its second Mediation and has been for over 6 months
• Has undergone several RfC
• Interested parties have initiated protection for the purpose of censorship some five times ]

Statement by party 1

Page locking to enforce a cool-down period is contemplated by the policy, Censorship is not.

• Locking a page indicates a lack of trust in the outcome of community results. Protected_pages_considered_harmful Wiki makes the point:

"As I see it, the philosophy Misplaced Pages is based on is trust in the public and locking a page indicates a lack of trust." "Surely in most cases there are alternative ways to resolve a problem." "Besides, if we can show most pages would eventually stabilize into a fairly acceptable version in the long run, this would increase the faith of skeptical or curious people about the Wiki concept."

• Locking to assert the POV of an involved party is particularly suspect. Protected_pages_considered_harmful"... What if the protecting sysop was involved in the edit war?"

• The policy at Misplaced Pages:Edit war draws a distiction between interested parties and users and further says that " ... users may request protection of the disputed article to enforce a cool down period." It is argued that interested parties (those fully engaged in the reparte) are explicitly not authorized by policy to request page protection in order to advance their opinion and censor their opposition.

Protection is inappropriate for the purpose of solving content disputes. George W Bush gets edited three times a minute, while a piece of energy legislature which has just been passed is Protected after a single day of minor editing by no less than 5 parties? Perhaps Wiki need to find ways to deal with content disputes, but censorship is not the wiki approach. Benjamin Gatti 22:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Of the 15 Edits on Dec 5, I suggest only three are interesting:

The Supreme Court has found that the risk of nuclear energy is "substantial", moreover they use the term "Catastrophic Nuclear Incident" to describe the category of event contemplated by the Act. Some of the edits (3) revolve around the use or non-use of accurate and sourced language vs. Euphemistic propaganda pushed by the Industry such as "radiological incident". Another contrast is the accurate phrase "take all appropriate and necessary action to protect the public ..." vs. the unsourced, dumbed-down (and misleading) version: "...must appropriate more money." In protecting the article with misleading statements, the sysop has prevented the process. Have a look at all 15 edits. I suggest you will see an awkward introduction trying to improve itself, and will not see a two-party edit war.

True Dmcdevit is not an active editor, however Dmcdevit is aware that the block is protested and has failed to justify it here - or reverse the block. It is by one account the 5th time the page has been blocked (during a current event I might add), and is in it's second mediation. The repeated locking of the page is ripe to be addressed. Dmcdevit is not the issue; repeated locking - initiated by interested parties - to forward their preferred point of view is the issue. The same is rank censorship and should be condemned accordingly. Benjamin Gatti 01:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Evidence

The RfPP:WP:RFPP#Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

Statement by party 2

I see no basis for an arbitration here, and in fact think that this could have been resolved amicably if Ben had come to me or asked an impartial admin. I absolutely admit to mistakes and even errors in judgment, and gladly submit myself for review by other admins frequently, but I don't see evidence of either of those here. I'm not a party to this dispute. Adding the protection tag was the first edit I've made to the article. In fact, Benjamin Gatti never even told me that he disagreed with protection, or that he wanted it unprotected, and never made a request for unprotection, or commented on the request for protection on WP:RFPP. That is all this is. I'm a regular patroller of RFPP, and Woohookitty made the request. At the time there had been around 15 reverts in 24 hours, from many parties, not "minor edits". Benjamin's statement here shows a profound misunderstanding of the protection policy (and one which I would have been happy to explain to him if he'd asked). This is not "censorship" (it was protectied in the state I found it) but an inducement to discussion. A quick look at RFPP on a given day is evidence enough that I'm extremely conservative with protection, too. Dmcdevit·t 22:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 3

Completely inappropriate use of this page. Ben, if you objected to this, you should have commented on either requests for page protection or on the administrator's noticeboard. That's what those are there for. We've told you a few times now that the arbcom does *not* take content disputes nor do they take objections to things like protection. --Woohookitty 22:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not asking them to change the content. I'm asking whether or not they will permit administrators to dictate content (and thereby censor community-based editing) by the raw exercise of power. To be (a wiki) or not to be... that is the question. (borrowed). Benjamin Gatti 05:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, this is not the place for this. --Woohookitty 08:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Um Ben. What is this? "for initiating a request for protection while being an interested party."? What exactly was I supposed to do? Admins can request protection just like any other user. It would be a policy violation if I protected the page myself. But I didn't. This is just disruption, pure and simple. About 1/3rd of protections come from people requesting them on RfP and most of them are involved. And it's not as if al requests are approved. Most are not. It's not like dmdevit looked at the talk and went "Oh he's says it's an edit war, so it must be". No. Dmc looked at the history, saw the huge amount of edit warring and then protected the page. And btw, "using other methods to resolve this dispute" means THIS dispute, not the article in general. Again, arbcom does not take cases involving content of articles, so we cannot include medition or RfC or anything else. You didn't do a thing to work out this dispute. You didn't go to ANI (and you still haven't) nor did you go to RfP (and still haven't) nor did you talk to dmc or I about it directly or anything else. --Woohookitty 08:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

• Reject. There's no case here; use the administrators' noticeboard if you have this sort of problem in future. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Reject ➥the Epopt 04:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sortan

Involved parties

Sortan (talk · contribs)

User:jguk

This is a request that ArbCom rules (1) that accounts that are not being used to help improve the encyclopaedia can be banned on request to ArbCom; and (2) that User:Sortan is one such user and should be blocked.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Sortan informed of case against him

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This is a request that, based on an edit history lasting a number of months, a user should be banned from editing. The dispute resolution process does not allow bans otherwise than imposed by ArbCom.

Statement by jguk

The biggest cause of major contributors leaving Misplaced Pages, aside from personal circumstances, is accounts that make very little or no positive contribution to the encyclopaedia, but who are content to argue, harass, harangue and/or make occasional personal attacks. Often they attach themselves to one or two users. This makes it difficult to remove them - they are not clear vandals or widespread trolls (and so do not qualify for automatic bans), however, they are trouble and bring no benefits to the encyclopaedia. They prevent editors with long edit histories that show a long record from making productive edits. They often tend to be litigious, demanding of their “rights” - which itself creates a problem, especially as our writers are here because they wish to write, not because they wish to defend 200+ of their edits in a RfC or ArbCom case. To my mind, it should be clearly stated that where ArbCom finds an account is not here in order to better the encyclopaedia, then it should be blocked.

I invite ArbCom to do this in the case of Sortan (talk · contribs). This account’s contribution history constitutes evidence demonstrating that this user has made no real contributions of note, but has been involved in many disruptive disputes is in the edit history. I think it is so self-evident that if ArbCom members were to open 10 or 12 of this accounts edits at random, and consider the purposes of those edits, they will see what I am referring to. The underlying principle is Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia (which, although semi-humorous refers to our fundamental purposes. I urge ArbCom to take this case to determine (1) that accounts that are not being used to help improve the encyclopaedia can be blocked on request to ArbCom; and (2) that User:Sortan is one such user and should be blocked.

Statement by Sortan

I would agree that the cause of contributors leaving Misplaced Pages is persistent trolling from POV pushers, who do nothing but edit war to enforce their particular POVs. Such is the case with Jguk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has made no significant contributions to history articles, yet has engaged in hundreds of edit wars, and thousands of reversions with editors who do contribute. One only has to look at the histories of such articles such as Sino-Roman relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where jguk has engaged in revert wars spanning months against the article creator PHG over date styles. A similar situation occurs at History of the alphabet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where jguk revert wars with article creator Kwamikagami. This pattern is repeated over hundreds of articles where the contributors commit the cardinal sin of disagreeing with jguk over his preferred styles.

Dates are not the only matter with which jguk revert wars over, but other stylistic differences, including U.S. vs US, styles for royalty, and spelling styles (British vs American spelling).

Jguk is apparently claiming that my reverting him here ] (where he changes start of the Common Era to 1 BC, and which is against his arbitration case and for which he received a block (see WP:ANI#Jon_Garrett_removing_references_to_Common_Era)), constitutes "harassment" and "stalking".

I too would urge acceptance so that Jguk's disruptive history of edit warring over styles can receive greater scrutiny.

Addendum:

Jguk's summary is without diffs or links of evidence. He claims I'm litigious, yet I've never started an RFAr (I added myself to Jguk 2, which was started by someone else). Jguk, on the other hand, has been involved in numerous RfArs and RFCs, even when he doesn't edit the subject matter concerned (eg. Instantnood 2). I would please ask for evidence where I've been litigious, or where I've hindered, in any way, Jguk infrequent constructive edits.

Addendum 2:

Perhaps David Gerard could enlighten me how my "trolling" jguk caused him to make these edits: , ?

Perhaps David Gerard could also enlighten me how he "missed" jguk's edits as an anon during his first arbcom case?

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

• Accept, Jguk continues to engage in edit warring over notation, accept to consider further action Fred Bauder 22:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Fred, Sortan's been riding Jguk and trolling the hell out of him. That's what the RFAr is about and it's a problem - David Gerard 22:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing: Request for recall

I strongly urge a recall of the Pigsonthewing case, currently pending a close, to consider Karmafist's recent actions in releasing a block made on him, and subsequently engaging in block wars on this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the block was made under the temporary injunction and announced on WP:AN/I. I know no more about it. The details of his actions are in the block log. Having chatted to Karmafist online this afternoon, I think he's in a bad state, and unable to exercise good judgement in the Andy Mabbett case or, it appears, in general operation of his administrator powers. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been able to chat to Karmafist since then. I still think there's going to be an ongoing problem with Karmafist, unless he's able to let go of the Andy Mabbett thing properly, but if most arbitrators disagree with me, and you obviously know far more about the case than I do, well no problems at the moment. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Karmafist (talk • contribs • page moves • block • block log)

I believe this situation may now have resolved itself peaceably. It might be good for Karmafist to talk about/review this some more, but further outside intervention may not be warranted. What do you think Tony? --CBD ✉ 17:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Why was Karmafist blocked in the first place? Fred Bauder 15:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a little bit hard to find now, but the original block cited the message Evilphoenix left on his userpage. At the time it was at the bottom and obvious. It cites this diff as the reason. And here's the diff where Evilphoenix added the message. --Phroziac _. o º 17:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

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

1. Need more information Fred Bauder 15:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
2. This is the third time in as many weeks we close a case only to have someone request we reopen it less than 24 hours later. Like all the previous ones, nothing substantive has been presented here to warrant reopening the case. Raul654 17:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
3. I've reviewed the block log and while it's definitely true that Karmafist unblocked himself twice (and was reblocked twice by Phroziac), I don't see the sort of block warring that we saw with Stevertigo. At the moment, I don't feel that we have a well-conditioned complaint against Karmafist as an administrator to justify a review at this time. There are certainly a lot of disconnected pieces that are troubling, but nobody has put them together. And I don't think we should delay closing Pigsonthewing for this issue, which should be considered separately if and when it is properly presented. I therefore recommend rejecting this request. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Brazil4Linux and the GoldDragon War

Involved parties

• Doom127
• Brazil4Linux
• GoldDragon
• A_Man_In_Black
• Brian0918

Dispute resolution attempts

Both A_Man_In_Black and Brian0918 have attempted to calm Brazil4Linux down, to no avail.

Statement by party 1

A huge revert war has begun by Brazil4Linux on the Ken Kutaragi and GameCube pages, both on the pages themselves and on their respective discussion pages. Both GoldDragon and Brazil4Linux seem to be pushing their own points of view, but only GoldDragon seems to be doing it in good faith; Brazil4Linux, on the other hand, seems to be concerning himself with posting things that are anti-Microsoft and pro-Sony. He's even posted a statement blatantly saying that "everyone should hate Microsoft". I've reverted several of the more standout alterations, which of course has him calling me a sock puppet. Both A_Man_In_Black and Brian0918 have tried unsuccessfully to end this dispute.

That's why I'm here. I believe that this constant bickering by these two users is severely damaging the spirit of Misplaced Pages.

Statement by party 2

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

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

• Reject without prejudice; please try earlier steps in the dispute resolution process first. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Reject, concur with Kelly ➥the Epopt 14:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Reject as above. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Haiduc

Involved parties

• User:Nlu (RfAr requester)
• User:Haiduc

On October 30, 2005, Haiduc created the category and began populating it. When he added Gaozu of Han and Emperor Hui of Han to the category, I objected (on his talk page) and then look at the category's current occupants. Feeling that the category had a number of flaws, I added a CfD -- which led to a lengthy discussion that I feel needs ArbCom intervention. Pages involved: mostly Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 30, but also User talk:Haiduc, the two pages above, and Talk:Gaozu of Han.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AHaiduc&diff=29990792&oldid=29986304

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

No other steps, other than trying to talk it out with the other party (as evidence on the CfD page and on Talk:Gaozu of Han) has been attempted. The reason is that it appears to be inappropriate to request mediation over a CfD, nor, based on the tone of the discussion, would it appear likely to be fruitful.

Statement by party 1

During this discussion, Haiduc has repeatedly accused me of homophobia -- which I let go a couple times -- but I feel has been way too overused to let stand. I have made genuine efforts to try to explain my position -- including translating a passage from Shi Ji, which Haiduc himself indicated that he was unable to read due to his inability to read Chinese -- and explaining why, based on the context of the chapter of Shi Ji where the passage came from, I hold the position that I'm holding. I believe that I got no good faith response out of him. Further, he has called, if not me (I feel that implicitly the statement included me, which he later disavowed, to his credit), other people who participated in the discussion "juvenile." Both of these are, I believe, violations of WP:NPA. He has also further threatened to circumvent the CfD process by simply renaming the category -- which was only one of the objections that I raised with regard to the category and not per se the "meat" of the objection. --Nlu 05:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement by party 2

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)

• Reject without prejudice — this is (at least as currently described) an issue of content, not behavior ➥the Epopt 05:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Reject without prejudice — premature, use earlier steps in Dispute resolution. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Reject as premature, as with others. James F. (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Reject, as per the others. -User:Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 21:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Reject as above. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Requests for Clarification

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

InstantNood

InstantNood has continued his revert warring tactics since the closing of the ArbCom case. Rather than revert him and continue the game, I've reported it on WP:AN/I as instructed in the notice put on our talk pages .

InstantNood is filibustering there on the plain meaning of "any article which relates to China which you or they disrupt by inappropriate editing".

Can ArbCom make a statement that:

1. "Any article which relates to China" means exactly that, and is not somehow restricted in scope to previous articles brought up in the case
2. "disrupt by inappropriate editing" includes slow revert wars. Reverting once a day on schedule, or even returning weeks later to some old dispute to start reverting again (without discussion, of course), is inappropriate editing.

The filibustering makes any admin loathe to make a strong decision and enforce the terms of the probation that all parties to the case were put under. SchmuckyTheCat 21:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

IMHO there is little reason for the probation, as a decision of our ArbCom case, to extend to all China-related entries, including those that are not, or marginally, relevant to the issues that led to the case. If my action were disruptive, actions could be taken against me (and/or the other party/ies) no matter the problem were China-related or not. As for " InstantNood has continued his revert warring tactics since the closing of the ArbCom case ", the matters around the articles that SchmuckyTheCat has listed at WP:AN/I has been surfaced before the ArbCom case was closed, and are not relevant to the ArbCom case. — Instantnood 21:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood placed on probation

4) Instantnood (talk · contribs) is placed on Misplaced Pages:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article which relates to China which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. Instantnood must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. They may post suggestions on the talk page of any article they are banned from editing. This remedy is crafted to permit Instantnood continuing to edit articles in these areas which are not sources of controversy.

Any article related to China. Any administrator using their own judgement. You have wide discretion. Any of the mentioned examples could fall within that wide discretion. Fred Bauder 21:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Fred. Does that mean any of us (user:Huaiwei, user:SchmuckyTheCat and I) could be placed on probation according to the ArbCom remedies as long as there's disruptive behaviour around any China-related entry, even if the entry/ies are not relevant to our ArbCom case? — Instantnood 07:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I must confess to being baffled: what part of any article which relates to China is unclear? I don't see a "but" or "except" or "other than" attached to that clause. --Calton | Talk 07:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. As it was within the context of the remedy of an ArbCom case, it's reasonable to expect it refers to entries which relates to China that are relevant to the case itself. — Instantnood 08:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master

The ruling against Zen-master seems to be very specific regarding Race and intelligence, but he's currently editing in the same disruptive manner at Conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): editing against consensus and when he can't get his own way, slapping the NPOV tag on it, replacing it when he's reverted, and making complex, partial reverts so that it's hard to see whether he's violated 3RR. Given that the same behavior seems to be involved, can the ruling be extended to this article too? SlimVirgin 00:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm happy for it to be so extended, given a brief look. James F. (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Ok, but probably should be made general and indefinite Fred Bauder 02:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

How is adding the {npov} tag to a disputed article a disruption? I assume that most of the recently active editors of Conspiracy theory (of which Slim is not among them) would agree with the statement that we are making some progress with the article NPOV wise, so what is the basis for her complaint exactly? Please provide citations and an explanation of how a particular wikipedia policy is being violated. zen master T 02:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think, despite Zen-master's Race and Intelligence block, that you need to Assume good faith - especially Fred Bauder, who, as an administrator, should try to be more objective. For example, on the mailing list, he apparently called a number of authors 'POV-pushers', 'POV-warriors', etc. (myself included) , , etc.

"Exactly, excellent parallel; although, this POV bunch is a bit bigger and better organized. And intimidating."

"Exactly, but are we all going to be bullied by POV warriors?", etc.

I fear that a belief in a 'POV cabal', of which Zen-master is apparently a member, may color Fred's opinions unduly. Indeed, what does the addition of an NPOV tag to an article violate? It happens a great deal on the other side of many of the ideological 'conflicts' I've seen Zen-master and others involved in. Ganging up on Zen-master without a clear idea of what's been violated just doesn't seem fair, nor objective. Just my $.02. And I am not trying to blame, nor accuse - just to remind folks of the need to be objective.

Last, extending the block to 'all articles', and making it 'indefinite', is, in my opinion, completely unwarranted and disproportionate to Zen-master's behavior, and I would hope such actions were not taken lightly against such users who are not fundamentally ill-intentioned, nor intentionally destructive to Misplaced Pages. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I don't know that I have ever considered your edits regarding any matter, but certainly we should be fair to Zen-master and not overdo it. Fred Bauder 03:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. I am one of the editors that was being (imho, maligned) in that mailing list conversation, which is why I was aware of it having transpired. Honest thanks for exercising your best judgment, Fred. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master has been relentlessly POV pushing on the subject of conspiracy theories for many months. A block on his editing conspiracy-related pages for three month would be a modet and appropriate response to his disruptive actions. SlimVirgin has bee a saint trying to deal with Zen-master.--Cberlet 03:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet, I'm not surprised at that - SlimVirgin has shown herself to be a well-intentioned, even-handed editor and colleague. The issue here, however, is whether Zen-master should be indefinitely, totally blocked as a result of his behavior. While I disagree wholeheartedly with a lot of what I saw on Race and Intelligence, I cannot see the rationale for such an action on that basis. He's an editor with very strong opinions, an aggressive style and a lot of passion - but not an intentionally disruptive, nor destructive editor. I think there is a fundamental difference there, that necessitates discretion by the administrators. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet, I don't think our positions on the Conspiracy theory matter disagree all that much, take a look at my most recent tweak of your intro changes and let me know either way on the talk page. I think we are making progress towards clarity and NPOV there. zen master T 03:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of who's POV pushing, or if anyone is, I'd like to point out Zen-master's edit warring. It doesn't show any sign of slowing. In fact, ZM has violated 3RR on Conspiracy theory recenlty, for which I *almost* banned him from it (except for the little fact that I couldn't). I don't know about indefinite, but I think it is certainly fair to extend probation to all articles, especially considering probation does not restrict contributions, that's it's point: it only restricts disruption. Dmcdevit·t 03:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master, you asked for examples of policy violation. I'm alleging violations of WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:NOR, and WP:V. You've been engaged in a vigorous campaign for months to stop the phrase "conspiracy theory" being used in Misplaced Pages. You tried to have the term banned as a page title, and lost the vote decisively, posting dozens of repetitive posts, refactoring the voting page to change comments or the sequence of comments, fabricating (with no hint of irony) conspiracy theories of corruption between the editors opposing you. You edit-warred around the same issue in the same way at AIDS conspiracy theories, with 3RR violations; complex, partial reverts; reverting over what tag should be on the page; and making accusations of bias against everyone who disagreed with you. You're now doing it on Conspiracy theory, where you're opposed by Carbonite, Willmcw, Tom Harrison, Jayjg, Adhib, BrandonYusufToropov, Shoaler, Rhobite, Cberlet, and Calton, whose edit summary of "been there, done that, got the t-shirt" when he reverts you tells the whole story. You've posted 40 largely repetitive posts to talk in the last three days; edit summaries saying you're "cleaning up" the intro, when in fact you're changing it completely to reflect your inaccurate and unsourced POV in violation of Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability ; adding the two-versions, NPOV, or totally disputed tags and revert-warring when people try to remove them making personal attacks in edit summaries, and at least one recent 3RR violation. There's more, but I hope that's enough. You're a handful, Zen, to say the least. SlimVirgin 03:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Slim, I admit to 3RR (and served my time), though most recently the cases were me trying to add the {npov} tempalte to the Conspiracy theory article to merely signify the existence of a neutrality dispute, which I am still surprised my fellow wikipedia editors aren't/weren't willing to allow (even if they disagreed with my content changes). It may seem like I am repetitive on the talk page but I am indeed vigorous, as you say, trying to understand your and everyone's POV and either logically convince you and others of my interpretation or understand yours to the point where I could become convinced of it. I apologize if I have riled you up, you may not believe me but I can only assure you I am interested in improving and working toward a bipartite version of the article. zen master T 04:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not a question only of POV, but of accuracy. Your versions (the ones I've read) are inaccurate. It's not true, for example, that "Conspiracy theory has a literal definition and a popular culture usage ... Literally, the phrase means exactly what its individual words mean, a theory alleging a conspiracy." That is your fabrication, and it would mean that the accepted story of 9/11 (that al-Qaeda hijackers flew planes into buildings for the reasons stated by Osama bin Laden) was a conspiracy theory. But that term is in fact always used in a way that's a great deal more complex and more loaded than that (always used that way; not just in what you're calling popular culture) and it's recognized by, I think, everyone else editing that article that "conspiracy theory" is a very particular narrative genre. In any event, even if you were 100 per cent correct, you're editing disruptively against consensus, and it's your behavior that's objectionable, not your beliefs. You should also bear in mind that the editors opposing you have very different POVs from each other, and yet they've found common cause in opposing you. That alone ought to tell you something. SlimVirgin 04:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

To be honest (and I don't mean to minimize your points in any way), the subtlety of the issue as you present it doesn't communicate 'Zen is disruptive' to me, as a completely outside viewer. It communicates to me that the issues are deep and exactly the kind of thing that well-intentioned editors struggle with. The fact that other editors oppose his perspective doesn't make it disruption. I've seen a lot worse behavior tolerated a whole lot more around here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, take a look at the histories of Conspiracy theory, AIDS conspiracy theories, and Misplaced Pages:Conspiracy theory, and also look at the talk pages. It may take you a few hours unfortunately to get the full flavor of it. I disagree about your view of what counts as disruption. If I'm opposed by ten or more good editors (and that's the point here: they are all good editors) over a period of months on multiple pages regarding almost every edit I make, and if I find myself unsupported and left to post 12 posts to talk every day that say the same thing, then at some point I have to ask myself whether I might be wrong. Zen-master never does that, and that's the problem in a nutshell. SlimVirgin 04:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If that's what's happening, I agree it's indeed disruptive. I've dealt with that kind of thing from other editors as well - but my personal experience with Zen was that he was a lot more even-handed than that. If not, an RfA should/will lead to a formal expansion of the probation he is under. I'd just hate it if Zen, whom I have seen edit in a constructive and cooperative way, is blacklisted. It would make me question whether there was a grand conspiracy afoot against him.

Yes, I was being both ironic and facetious. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Slim, I have seen how the phrase "conspiracy theory" has been used on wikipedia talk pages. For example, editor A has said "let's include allegation X" but editor B comes along and says "No, allegation X is a conspiracy theory!" with no regard to whether allegation X is cited or otherwise appropriate for article inclusion. Misplaced Pages policies should be exclusively used to determine if something is appropriate for inclusion, not alleged association with some genre, right? Misplaced Pages policies should be exclusively used to neutrally present a subject, and be unaffected by alleged association with a genre, right? The first paragraph's definition we have in Conspiracy theory now is actually synonymous with the literal definition (says the same thing with more words, a theory that alleges a conspiracy). At this point, the only change I would recommend to the intro is we should specifically note the two definitions/meanings are often confused, do you agree there is confusion? Separately, I've been wondering what do you mean by "narrative genre" exactly? In my interpretation this issue we are trying to find a bipartite way of describing is best thought of as an "allegation" and not as a "story" nor "narratives" nor anything related (at best it is indeterminate what they are and relevant places should make that point clear). If someone believes, even subconsciously, that a particular theory is a story or from the narrative genre or should be categorized within the conspiracy theory genre the article is still required to cite exactly who is counter claiming that about the theory, which is why I believe we need to have a sufficiently clear definition in Conspiracy theory to make that point/requirement as clear as possible. zen master T 04:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again. "Narrative genre" means "type of story". There is no "literal definition" of "conspiracy theory." That's like saying the literal definition of kindergarten is a garden for children. But that's not what it means, either in German or in English. Meaning has to do with the way words are in fact used in the world, and "conspiracy theory" is always used in a certain way, which I have explained to you a thousand times, as have others, so I'm not doing it again. But you are missing my point, I assume deliberately. The problem is your behavior, not your beliefs. You are editing disruptively, have been for months, always do, show no sign of stopping, show no indication that you even understand what is meant, show no remorse, feel no concern about the amount of time you waste, give no indication that you do any research into the topics. Your presence at a page invariably signals deterioration, both in terms of quality of content and in terms of relationships with other editors. I'm sorry to be so blunt. SlimVirgin 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The literal definition is important to note and understand because people may be confused into unconsciously assuming that any theory that alleges a conspiracy is a member of the "conspiracy theory" genre, they have the same name. Recall that editors argued in favor of "conspiracy theory" in wikipedia article titles because, they claimed, some subjects are "literally conspiracy theories" so it seems to me the implied literal definition is the exponentially key source of the confusion here, and we should fix it or at least clearly point it out. zen master T 05:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master, please do not extend your battle over "conspiracy theories" to this page. The issue at hand here is whether your conduct amounts to disruptive editing within the ambit of our previous order. Regretfully, I would say that it does not; clearly our previous order was insufficiently broad. At this point, I concur with my colleagues above, in that we should definitely consider expanding the scope of our order to all pages. I would have to say that you have demonstrated quite clearly your capacity for disruptive editing, just with your edits to this page. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

How are my edits to this page disruptive? I've just been trying to explain the issues. zen master T 06:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a problem at Conspiracy theory, but it's one of those mothcandle articles that will always be at the sharp edge of such problems so long as Misplaced Pages retains its open-armed stance, which I take it we here all support. So it would seem to me to be wrong to exclude Zen-m for insisting that his rare views be respected by the article. If he goes, someone else will stand in his place (see Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations for a related article suffering identical problems without Zen-m's input). I agree that Zen-m's mode of insisting imposes a heavy burden, and approve of the suggestion on his talk page to try to limit edits to one per day. Wouldn't it be nicer still if we could just informally agree with him that all parties should back off, say until the New Year, to do their research and come back to the fray with substantial new cites and materials, the better to illuminate the current impasse? Or, perhaps, give SlimVirgin and her 'co-conspirators' the month off by locking-down the article. But picking Zen-m out is no solution, besides being unkind. Adhib 21:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I have restored this as we are now receiving a complaint about Zen-master's editing at ]. Fred Bauder 00:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to explain. It's about the Price-Anderson Act article, which has been highly contentious. We've gone through 2 mediators and we're on our 5th protection. Well I had shown zen the article 3 weeks ago while on IRC. I didn't even really say much about it. Yesterday, out of the blue, he started to get involved in it. What bothered me is that he made this edit where he added just a few words. I warned him about it. Basically said that he needed to get up to speed before diving into this. So what does he do...he joins the revert war we had yesterday on the article. We literally have 600K of talk on this article. It's not something you can dive into. Despite 3 warnings from me, he got into it anyway. I'm not sure that it violates anything, but it does bother me more than a bit that once again, he doesn't seem to listen to others real well. --Woohookitty 00:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I did revert that article one time, so what is the violation or issue exactly? What are you specifically saying that I should be listening to? I reverted because I thought others may have confused my small change with Benjamin Gatti's much larger change (I tried to apply my change to both competing versions of the intro), though I should have expected I would get sucked into the larger dispute after only trying to add my 2 cents to an article already in the middle of an edit war. zen master T 01:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not the one that put a complaint in about it and it's not my decision as to what was violated. I was just reporting what was happening. --Woohookitty 03:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

When you say "he doesn't seem to listen to others real well" that is doing a lot more than mere reporting. When you are ready to present a non-nebulous complaint or point to a specific policy violation please let me know. I interpret the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act article to be mistating or understating the critics' view in the intro, it also seems as if some subtly pro nuclear industry editors are the ones who have engineered this but I am not yet certain. zen master T 06:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As dmc says below, you are missing the point. I told you 3 weeks ago when I showed you the article that it was contentious and that we had gone through 2 mediators and 5 protections. And yet you came into the argument without reading any part of the 600K in archives we had and then you engaged in edit warring, including doing a revert. What are you violating? You are being disruptive. Disruptive is walking into an article that you know is contentious and yet, even after 2 warnings, flying right into it and engaging in a revert war. That's disruptive. That's adding tension to an already tense situation. --Woohookitty 07:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Formal motion to extend the scope of the probation

Following Kelly Martin's suggestion, I'm making this a formal request. Zen-master's response here seems to be clutter and muddling the point with content issues. The main issue here is that Zen-master has a fundamental misunderstanding of conflict resolution in Misplaced Pages, and views edit warring as a viable means of accomplishing it. The previous arbitration has shown that, and the recent edits at conspiracy theory especially, violating 3RR for something as petty as a tag, demonstrate no change. Zen-master has shown a propensity to be disruptive in any article where a dispute arises, and extending probation to all changes would curb that. I think it's important to note that probation shouldn't be a restriction, unless he's being disruptive. Both SlimVirgin's and Woohookitty's pleas are good enough evidence for me that disruption occurs outside that one article, and it needs to be addressed. I was also worried that his response to my reminder to refrain from edit warring yesterday was basically that probation didn't apply there (rather than addressing my real concern of edit warring). Dmcdevit·t 06:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm with dmc. What bothers me with this whole thing is sort of what dmc said. Zen was put on probation...he was banned for a week...and yet...here we are again. We need to broaden the scope of the probation. Hopefully, eventually we'll get it through to him that he needs to reform. --Woohookitty 07:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Votes by arbitrators

• Extend to all articles Fred Bauder 07:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Extend to all articles Kelly Martin (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Extend to all articles Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Please show me evidence of edit warring on Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act? I came upon a previously existing edit war and merely tried to add clarity to both of the two competing versions of the article, then moved to the talk page. In my interpretation that article currently misstates or understates critics' views, is that what you actually find to be disruptive here? Are you pro nuclear industry like many editors of that article seemingly are? I followed the 1 revert rule on that article just like other editors that have definitely been engaging in edit warring, why the double standard? Please point to a specific policy violation on my part?

In my interpretation the NPOV policy is not "petty", when the neutrality of an article is disputed the {npov} tag is generally added to it, but since I was the only one a number of weeks ago on conspiracy theory I eventually digressed. Though, it is worth noting that since then I and more than a handful of other editors have made significant progress on the talk page towards a consensus NPOV intro of conspiracy theory (a little work still needs to be done).

I am starting to detect a pattern here, I criticized a seemingly racism inducing and unscientific method of presentation in race and intelligence and I was blocked for a week and put on article specific probation (full disclosure: I was blocked for personal attacks, I labeled that article's method of presentation as being "nazi-esque", I subsequently apologized for not making myself clear and for using labels that detracted from my point that I interpret a highly biased and biasing article, but those criticisms remain unaddressed). Then you called me disruptive for trying to add clarity to a subject and article in dire need of disassociation: conspiracy theory. Now you are proposing expanding the scope of my earlier race and intelligence probation after I criticized the misstatement or understatement of critics' views in an article about an act passed by Congress that is basically a massive pro nuclear industry government subsidy which also eliminates or lessens the public's right to seek civil law recourse in the event of a nuclear accident. I repeat, what policy am I violating here? I am trying to work towards neutrally presented articles. zen master T 07:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It's considered disruption, because you made these changes to the article without discussing them first. You even had an edit summary of "rv, i think the "consensus" version is mistating critics' views". That's joining an edit war. You seem to like to get into these things just to stir the pot up and I would consider that disruptive as well. You basically joined an article that you were told was contentious and had a long history (it says right on the top that we have 8 archives and that combined it's over 600K) and yet made a change...was told that any changes are contentious on this article...you said well you don't see how this could be contentious and did it anyway. And in the end, you ended up making the edit war much worse because if you look at the history of the article, a bunch of the reverts that led to protection were reverts of your addition. What should have happened here is that you should have said hey...I'm new...get me up to speed and I'll see what I can add here. Instead, you hopped right into an edit war on an article you had never posted on before. Again. it's disruption. And the pattern here is that the only thing linking these 3 articles (race and intelligence, conspiracy theory and P-A) is that they are controversial. You seem to get taken off of one article and then you go right into another one and do the same things. That's why probation is warranted for all articles. --Woohookitty 18:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

How is that "joining the edit war", I was the first person to note that specific point about the critics' view misstatement? I learned the article was contentious after I tried to add a small bit of clarity to it. How will I know if something is contentious or not unless I am bold and edit it? I did not support either side in the edit war. I am ok with the article being reverted if my fellow editors disagree with my changes but it's not my fault that other people are reverting to my version of the article. I applied my changes to both version of the article because I thought people were confusing my small change as being Benjamin Gatti's version. Anyway, all this detracts from and discourages improvement of Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act which needs to include a much more accurate and complete synopsis of the critics' view and position. zen master T 19:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen, you need to learn that it's how you do things that matters on Misplaced Pages more than anything else. You added the text, which is fine. But then I warned you. And then you readded it and then you did the revert. You need to learn to discuss things like that first. I almost wonder if the mentorship program would be appropriate for Zen. --Woohookitty 19:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You warned me against getting involved in the edit war which from my standpoint I did not. How is one revert to an article (when I assumed there was confusion) considered an edit war? After my last change was reverted I understood fellow editors disagreement with my specific proposed change so I headed to the talk page where fellow editors have yet to really directly address my point about critics' views being misstated. Also, some editors seem to be subtly arguing a very pro nuclear industry position (stating the act is "better") even though they separately claimed to be "flaming liberal", it doesn't add up. zen master T 19:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Zen. It's called arguing for a NPOV on an article. People can believe one thing but push for another because they are trying to make the article neutral. There is a principle here called writing for the enemy. It basically means that you believe one thing, but you write another in an effort to make an article NPOV. Ben's never understood that and I don't think you do either. It's a very good thing to learn. Am I a flaming liberal? Yes. But I want articles on here to be neutral, so I will write things into an article that I might not believe in an effort to make it NPOV. And by the way, what you did is considered getting involved in an edit war because you clearly said in the revert you did that you were reverting the consensus version because you didn't agree with it. So you were admittedly bucking a consensus. If that's not joining an edit war, I'm not sure what is. --Woohookitty 23:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV policy can't be used as some sort of justification for mischaracterizing or downplaying cited arguments. The core issue here is presentation accuracy for any summary of the critics' view. It's also worth pointing out the fact that misstating a cited source is a direct violation of NPOV policy. Feel free to argue on the talk page the act is "better" for the public in some way but don't mischaracterize the position of critics, they specifically argue forcing civil law (and presumably criminal violations too?) out of state court and into federal court was wrong, for multiple of reasons. Whether you claim to be a flaming liberal or not is irrelevant as far as understanding your argument and apparent duplicitous advocacy is concerned. I did revert the "consensus" version one time to specifically note my complaint that the intro was and is misstating the critics view (which is itself an NPOV violation). When that was reverted by someone else I become aware that you and others either disagree with my interpretation or you want to preserve the misstatement of the critics' view for some reason. zen master T 23:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

This page is not for content disputes. --Woohookitty 00:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, this page is for arguing some sort of policy violation has taken place, when you are prepared to do that please let me know. In fact, it seems to me supporters of that article are the ones violating policy here, mischaracterizing cited sources is not good. zen master T 02:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Um zen? Look at this. It's one of the things you were blocked a week before and put on probation for. it's the exact same thing here too. And if I wasn't making good points here, why would the arbcom be extending your probation? And you were also blocked/put on probation for misusing sources. It's all right here. Like I said, i wonder if you'd be a good mentoring candidate since it's clear that you still don't realize what's acceptable here and what isn't. You reverted a consensus version. That is edit warring no matter how you argue it. And I'm sure the arbcoms haven't seen this yet, but zen is now arguing for compiling a list of NPOV violations on Price-Anderson. I have a feeling we're going down *that* road again. This is the diff. --Woohookitty 08:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Woohoo, please point to specific edits of mine that violate policy. One possible explanation is some members of the arbcom are complicit in censorship etc. I was actually blocked for a week and placed on probation for interpreting an extremely biased, biasing and even racism inducing race and intelligence article. If there are two editors who disagree with your version of an article you can't claim there is a "consensus" version, see definition of consensus. What is wrong with compiling a list of NPOV policy violations? zen master T 11:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Parole

Just thought I'd bring this page to your attention: Misplaced Pages:Parole. It was not really sanctioned by Arbcom (and was started by a current party to the climate change dispute). I'm not sure what you'd want to do with it, it might be a good idea to have, but currently, it's not really in anything near a useful state. Dmcdevit·t 09:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It should not be deleted but improved to reflect what the arbitration committee means by parole, revert parole, personal attack parole. We could use another on ban and any other remedy we use regularly. Fred Bauder 13:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Everyking

Everyking has already begun exploiting a loophole in his ruling to spread his usual uninformed comments on RFAr talk pages. I know the ruling indicated that he was welcome to comment on non-editorial actions in an RfC or an RFAr, but surely that did not mean that he was free to continue making accusations and personal attacks on the talk pages of RFArs he is not even involved in? I'm referring here to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Evidence, where he is, quite strikingly, taking a complaint about evidence submitted by Tony Sidaway and concluding that the evidence shows that the case is about my trying to win a content dispute. When I asked him to look at the situation, he replied that he is not talking about particulars, he is talking about "the basis of it."

Everyking is not party to the case. He has not involved himself at all in the dispute. His only presence in the case is because, under the current interpretation of his ruling, he is still allowed to engage in this behavior on arbitration talk pages.

Can we please clarify this ruling to only include requests for arbitration that he is party to or submitting evidence in? Or should I just throw up my hands in despair and submit EK4 in pursuit of a ruling that finally actually ends this harassment? Phil Sandifer 08:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• I am not an arbitrator but I think this clarifies the issue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I am not comforted particularly by his belief that it is only probably not reasonable to suggest that I am responsible for Tony's thoughts, actions, and/or desires. I feel it is the sort of thing on which certainty is not inappropriate. Phil Sandifer 08:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I'm not going to get too worked up about this. I'm confident that things will work out fairly though I may be abused in the short term. Look at my previous two cases—severe penalties were imposed on me for a while, but now none of those penalties are left. We go to extremes, but with time we balance out. Everyking 08:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Our intention was to permit him to edit arbitration pages where he was involved in the arbitration. Not to harass you. Fred Bauder 13:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to harass him. Honestly, I don't know if harassment has any meaning left as far as we're concerned—how can what he's done to me not be harassment, but me making a few comments about questionable things he does is harassment? Snowspinner happens to be very active in arbitration matters and, seeing as I've been a victim of that, I feel inclined to comment when I think he's wrong about things. That is not a bad thing. Everyking 13:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Fred - the exception applies only to cases in which Everyking is a party. Raul654 18:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I do concur with this. The exception was meant to allow Everyking to speak in his own defense or when he is brought up explicitly. His contributions to the pages so far have been unhelpful. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I also concur; it was never our intention to give Everyking free license to use arbitration talk pages as a place to continue his sniping. The exception only reaches to the talk pages of cases in which he is a participant. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

My understanding of the ruling is that I was only banned from the AN pages. So I don't consider posting to these pages exploiting a loophole; they are the same as any other pages on the project, with the exception of the AN pages. So on what grounds could I be prohibited from editing them? That would be very different from what the ruling says; it would take more than just clarification to make that change. Are you saying I'm not allowed to comment on Snowspinner's non-editorial actions? Well, then that's not such a big deal, because I can still discuss these cases, just not his personal actions by name. And that's all I'm actually interested in, Phil's claims to the contrary; because he is the focal point of so much of this stuff, he becomes the most obvious target for criticism, but what's really important is to be able to talk about the cases themselves, not the person who is the accuser. Everyking 06:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

My understanding of the ruling is that I was only banned from the AN pages. - you were banned from AN pages (remedy 2) AND your actions on all pages were restricted by remedy 3 (Everyking is prohibited from making comments on non-editorial actions taken by other administrators other than on the administrator's talk page, a Request for comment, or a Request for arbitration.). You are not prohibited from editing AN pages per se - you may still edit them, so long as you refrain from commenting on other administrators' actions except (as we have clarified here) in cases where you are actually a named party in the case. Raul654 18:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean he's not prohibited from editing arbcom pages, not AN pages, right? Phil Sandifer 19:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, Raul's answer tells me I can comment on any Arb related page to the extent that anyone else can, with the exception that I can't comment directly on administrative actions. This suits me just fine. As for the AN issue Raul has raised, he will have to clarify whether that was a mistake or not. I think this is a good occasion to raise the issue of appeal, as well—when will be an appropriate time? Currently I'm trying to get Jimbo to talk with me about it, but whether he does or not, Jan. 11 seems to me like a suitable date—if he hasn't looked at the matter by then, it will be time to give up on him looking at it at all, and the ArbCom will need to take his place in resolving the matter. On the other hand, if he does look at it before then, and he doesn't overturn the ruling, two months still seems like an appropriate length of time for the ArbCom to review its decision. Everyking 09:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Bogdanov Affair question

Now instead of working on the Bogdanov Affair page, the users who were banned from editing the Bogdanov Affair (including CatherineV) are editing the talk page of the article instead. Can they be blocked for doing that or not? The RfAr decision isn't clear on that. --Woohookitty 17:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

This decision should be modified to include the talk page. Fred Bauder 13:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. I will hold off on doing anything until it is. We have Catherine and I'm pretty certain that LaurenceR is a sock of the Laurence blocked already for Bogdanov. --Woohookitty 15:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

What's the status on this? I don't mean to be pushy but the people who should be blocked from talking on the talk page are still talking on the talk page and until the decision is altered, I can't do anything about it. --Woohookitty 23:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine

I wonder why this one is in the "voting" phase when there is nothing in the "remedies" and "enforcements" sections (not even on the "workshop" page)?

I am recused, but looks like a work in progress, if you have some ideas go to the workshop page and make some suggestions. Fred Bauder 15:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Archives

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (unofficial)

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution