Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 14

message: Hey. Just throwing this out there:
Last year we started thinking about the elections in October, and we ended up with was a huge mess in December. An open voting system, postponement until January, candidates dropping out mid-race. So, I think we should start thinking about what we'll do now (not even full-blast, maybe just slight suggestions) so that we don't have the disendorsements disaster of 2004 or the open voting mess of 2005/06. What does everyone else think? — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Already started some time ago;Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Elections/December 2006.Geni 02:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm looks like I missed that. — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AC Elections December '06 

message: The RfA on the user Terryeo was accepted on April 3.  I've never been involved in one of these before, and I'm curious when active discussion by the arbitrators is likely to begin, and roughly when a decision can be expected.  I hope it isn't a breach of protocol to be asking. The user's behavior has not moderated (indeed, he is currently subject to a 24 hour block from an admin due to his disruptive actions yesterday), and it is my belief that his continued agressive policy violations and "wikilawyering" are draining the good will of the Wikipedia community in the areas in which he edits. BTfromLA 21:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can typically reckon on an arbitration case taking two months or so from start to finish.  Some are much shorter, some are longer.  In the meantime if a user's activities, say on Scientology-related articles, shows a pattern of disruption, you could propose a temporary injunction in the appropriate place on the Workshop page. --Tony Sidaway 05:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the delay. Fred Bauder 14:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The arbitrators usually discuss cases privately through email, not on the wiki. The most you'll typically see is some brief comments from them during the workshop and voting phases. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to all of you for this info. BTfromLA 14:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timetable for arb com action? 

message: I believe that everyone here remembers User:Jason_Gastrich, right? Well, the bad news is that he just might be back. While I cannot immediately discern the validity of this assertion, the user User:MiddletonPriorsShropshire has claimed in his edits to the Louisiana Baptist University article that he is, in fact, Jason Gastrich. His edit essentially consisted of an unexplained deletion/blanking, so I'm not sure. I believe we should look into this matter further.
Mister Mister 17:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we could just indefinitely block him. In fact, Curps already did. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  He's back, evidently. 

message: Arbitration is described as "the last step in the dispute resolution process", but I see that the arbitration archives contain no content dispute cases; rather, they contain only "criminal trials", resulting in users being banned from editing on account of their inappropriate conduct. I was considering going through the entire dispute resolution process to end a certain content dispute, because I'm pretty sure the parties will never reach a consensus unless a binding decision is imposed. I would like to know if this is actually possible. --85.187.44.131 19:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ArbCom traditionally rejects content disputes, but accepts issues where editors need a binding resolution to interpersonal conflicts. I would suggest making the request for arbitration - after all, the worst they can do is reject. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I've created the following templates for opening new arbitration cases (based in part on Tony Sidaway's work) that I'd like the arbitrators to consider using:
*  — Main case page
*  — /Evidence page
*  — /Workshop page
*  — /Proposed decision page
All of these accept the case name as the first parameter, and all of them must be substd. The Proposed decision template has the added ability of automatically calculating the majority (if you provide some additional, optional, parameters). If the arbitrators do use these, I strongly urge redirecting/deleting the old templates to avoid confusion when updates need to be made. 
Questions/suggestions welcome. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 22:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC Fred Bauder edited the clerks' procedural page to discourage the usage of such templates. I also think usage of the templates messes up the timestamping in HTML comments for temp injunctions and the like. Johnleemk | Talk 04:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you mean this edit right? Do you happen to know what it was that he had to fix by hand? And ewh, I just noticed the HTML comment thing.. I'll see if I can find a workaround. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 06:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have had to add extra templates in each section. The method was producing only one template  per section. Fred Bauder 07:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Fred; yeah, it looks like Tony Sidaway's template literally omitted them. The template I created has the extra templates intact. I'm still working on the HTML comment issue Johnleemk mentioned above, but if that's not a show stopper for the arbitrators I think the templates should be ready to use now. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 08:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Case opening templates

message: *Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Tasks
* Reversion of subsection
I'd changed what is clearly a personal opinion under the heading "Clerk notes" to reflect that it was a statement without official credence.  It's not a summary of anything other parties have said, and clerks aren't Junior ArbCom.  Statements like Tony Sidaway's here are only one step short of "Reject - Not an arbcom concern" and are exactly why there was such strenous objection to the creation of the office.  
The Clerks page says "The Clerks assist the Arbitration Committee by reviewing and summarizing evidence submitted on evidence pages; helping write the decisions; and opening and closing cases which have the required number of votes."  The section created by Tony Sidaway is not any of these things, and thus is by definition not a clerk's action. brenneman{L}  03:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the principle that we should separate editors from their hats is a good one.  I'm sure Tony meant well, but agree that this should have been put under his name rather than the Clerk's office.  Probably it was just force of habit. Nandesuka 04:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My notes on this case as a clerk are on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and pertain solely to the applicability of the request in the context of the dispute resolution framework.  My notes on this as an editor are on WP:AN/I and give my personal opinion on the proposed mentorship.  Note the marked difference in nature and tone.  Do not interfere with clerk notes. --Tony Sidaway 06:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To my knowledge Wikipedia:Blocking Policy has not yet been amended to allow blocking for "interfering" with clerk notes. - brenneman{L}  06:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: All things being equal, it probably isn't a good idea to engage in edit warring on the arbcom-related pages. --Tony Sidaway 06:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I've developed some new onanistic wrinkle on a military term, it's impossible to have an "edit war" by myself.  Thus you've blocked, without warning, someone whom you considered yourself to be in a content dispute with.brenneman{L}  23:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something a clerk writes != Clerk writings 

message: *Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request for review of "clerk" actions
I've started an area for discussion here. - brenneman{L}  07:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ani thread 

message: The list of links on top of the page includes a bunch of pages owned by arbcom (as I was told that this project page is), and a single page in an editor's personal space. I have no doubts that the link is useful and I'm told that it's valued by some ArbCom members. However, I believe that including a personal essay in a list of official arbcom links is inappropriate, and may create the wrong impression that ArbCom favors particular users. Since many editors feel that it's inappropriate to edit other users' pages, especially if it's an essay and you disagree on a point, that is not a true community page; neither is it controlled by the ArbCom.  Therefore, I propose that the page be moved to Wikipedia: namespace, under either community or ArbCom control. Failing that, the link to the personal essay should be moved to a more appropriate place. Zocky | picture popups 03:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that the page is also not under anyone's actual userspace, as that is no longer my account. Also that, upon writing it, I invited arbitrators to edit the page so as to get it accurate, and they did so. Phil Sandifer 03:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I have no reason to suspect that there's anything wrong with the page's content or the way it's written. But this is a question of appearances, not of substance. Zocky | picture popups 03:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with Zocky on this. It is particularly important for Arb Com related matters that there is an appearance of impartiality since by the time disputes get to the Arb Com they are highly acrimonious and many people are willing to see favoritism and conspiracies where none may exist. There is no need to give fertile imaginations additional nutrients. JoshuaZ 07:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In meatspace judiciaries, there's a saying that runs along the lines of "Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done". I agree with moving it to project space; it's a really splendid piece of work otherwise. Johnleemk | Talk 08:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommended reading 

message: I propose that the case above be renamed "Biological psychiatry". The current name is too long and confusing, and cases involving multiple editors on one specific page (or one specific subject area) are often named by the name of the page or subject area (e.g. Winter Soldier, Neuro-linguistic programming, Webcomics, Lyndon LaRouche, etc.). The current case involves multiple parties (with no single "defendant") and only the "Biological psychiatry" article, so I think it should be renamed as such. --69.117.7.33 20:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of "Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others" case 

message: ArbCom is the last step in the dispute resolution process.  As someone who's been through this twice now with Instantnood, I've mostly found other ways to engage him.  For other users who end up confronting his tactics I find it particularly unhelpful for admins to come along to intervene in the revert wars and say "if there is a problem with his editing, use dispute resolution."  As if the existence of two ArbCom cases and dozens of article bans given out to 'nood have no value to those other editors.
It would be helpful if more of these disputes went to article RFC. (It would also be helpful if anyone actually commented on article RFC).  However, when it's about user conduct shouldn't there be a little more willingness on the part of admins to maybe recognize "the last step of dispute resolution" for what it is? SchmuckyTheCat 01:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Last step

message: Hi folks. I entered a new request - not for a new hearing, but reopening of a prior RfAr (the user's fourth) in light of new activity in violation of standing remedies. Please advise if the manner or substance of my request is not appropriate here, or should be better performed via another process. Thank you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thatcher - you may want to trim your post - I'm getting a word count of 700 words on what should be a 500-word-limit post. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to reopen prior hearing in light of sockpuppet violations of permanent ban remedy

message: Findings of fact said that Crotalus horridus had re-created three specific userboxen.  I could only find evidence of one re-creation this and this seem Croatalus free zones. Rich  Farmbrough 22:02 10  May 2006 (UTC).
: See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tony_Sidaway/Evidence#Crotalus.27_recreation_of_deleted_templates, which shows that Crotalus horridus, sometimes using role accounts for the purpose, created functional replacements in userspace for userboxes that had been deleted by administrators under T1.  These included the anti-UN and anti-ACLU templates. --Tony Sidaway 02:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Query in Tony Sidaway case

message: I'd like the arbitration comitee to consider the evidence I gathered. I suspect davenbelle is continuing to stalk me using a sockpuppet account. --Cat out 17:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{User|Davenbelle}} - {{User|Moby Dick}}

message: To the people currently edit warring on this page - kindly stop. It is my considered opinion that Mike can list Feloniousmonk in the request if he wants to. Raul654 04:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A note to WCityMike, Slimvirgin, et al

message: I have started a discussion on WP:AN with a view to invoking the General Probation in the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KDRGibby and banning him from Wikipedia .  --Tony Sidaway 15:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: KDRGibby General Probation

message: Hi can we have some movement on this arbitration case, all the evidence has been presented 
thanks Saladin1970 16:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: saladin1970

message: Can I ask for a clarification here on "block" and "ban" terminology? I see that Wikipedia:Blocking_policy and Wikipedia:Banning_policy show the differences between the terms, but I also see people using the terms interchangeably. This is confusing, especially when people invoke  WP:SPEEDY G5. The particular case I would like clarification on involves Zen-master, where the block log says "blocked "Zen-master (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 year (Arbcom ban)" - which confuses the hell out of me. Is this a block or a ban?? I suspect it is a ban being enforced with a block. It really, really would help if the block log would give a link to the actual Arbcom case. I hate having to trawl through the archives to try and find individual cases. Carcharoth 14:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master#Remedies. So you just use the user name to find the sub-page? That was easy. Still, I agree with the comment at Wikipedia:Banning_policy: "Confusion between the two terms arises as many users, including some administrators, say "ban" when they mean "block", and vice versa." I would recommend that people correct those that use the terms incorrectly, as otherwise this incorrect usage could spiral out of control. Carcharoth 14:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block and ban terminology mangled 

message: My RfA case opened and I see some things on several of the associated pages that need to be changed. Since the same text is used for all opened cases, shouldn't there be a template for it? For example, "After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies."  is an incomplete sentence. -Barry- 19:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for standard text 

message: Nrtm81 has asked me if it's possible to retract his request for arbitration here. Further attempts at dispute resolution are being attempted, but he's not sure if it's alright to simply remove the request or whether to ask an arbitrator to do so (see discussion at User_talk:Cowman109#Portal:Taiwan). Here is the quote exactly: 
Is it too late to retract the ArbCom request? I think there's a solution to this mess. Please check the talk page. I think Chiang Kai-shek will agree with the solution. I'm off to bed now, will check on the results six hours from now. If the ArbCom request can be retracted, could you do so if possible? Thanks. — Nrtm81 20:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it seems as if those involved want the request to continue, as both parties have responded and comments have already been added. I guess ignore what was stated above, then. Cowman109Talk 01:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retraction of a request 

message: It seems to me that a few of links I've assembled in support of this assertion are not the best ones to support my argument that the UCRGrad case merits an immediate hearing. OK to include better and more thorough evidence?--Amerique 22:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ok to clarify how earlier steps in dispute resolution process could not be taken in UCRGrad case?

message: I was just told I cannot add new users to a case unless I am the initiator. As my case is mainly a conflict between Zer0faults and me and he already got a RFC while I do not and he left out that step of dispute resolution I would like to add his name to the case to show this is not about me solely and I would like to add another user who joins the personal attacks against me. Añoranza 12:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am already on the case. The RFC is also listed in the case. And as NSLE told you, only the initiator can add them or if the other person decides to add themself. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One clarification to make here is that this is an already-accepted case, I don't believe ANYONE can be added when it's already accepted (not sure about that, though). Although, AFAIK out of courtesy, only the initiator (who normally seeks permission to add someone to a case), or an individual voluntarily doing so can add someone/themselves to the case. NSLE 12:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So shall I start a new case then? Calling this "Añoranza" is misleading and denying me the same right to add more users while allowing the other side to do so is not fair. Añoranza 12:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and start it, it just wouldn't get accepted, or even reverted by a clerk. NSLE 12:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you can ask the ArbCom to add someone as an involved party, no?  (I've seen such motions before, but I have no idea if they've ever been used in practice.) Kirill Lokshin 16:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anoranza wants to add someone to the case, so that they can have a complaint filed against them. The user is not looking for that person to support them, but is looking to attack that user. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 18:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  Zer0 is a party to the case, and therefore subject to any ArbCom ruling, but Añoranza wants the name changed to include both him/her and Zer0.  TheronJ 18:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a number of past cases that only name one party but end up sanctioning another.  I understand that it is annoying and even somewhat hurtful but in the long run, the name is not really important; its the outcome that matters, and that won't be influenced by the name. Thatcher131 16:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a user to case 

message: Why are there two sickle and hammer flags on the Project Page? Johntex\talk 04:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed Raul654 04:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you - I should have thought of checking the template.  It must be time for me to go to bed. Johntex\talk 04:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Communist symbols

message: As far as I can tell, we have only one active clerk, Tony Sidaway, and Tony is rather often involved in arbitration cases (with a "Statement by Tony Sidaway" in three of the six cases at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration which were not yet accepted/rejected, and in 3 of the 12 cases which are already accepted).   
This is by no means a personal critique of Tony, please don't interpret it that way. What I am aiming at is the clerk concept. It looks to me that whatever was meant to be accomplished by having clerks is not working. 
I would suggest that there be a lot more clerks (preferably chosen with some community participation), and that those clerks stay out of arbitration cases whenever possible, or otherwise the clerking be scrapped altogether. I'd prefer the second option. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have other active clerks, but I do think it's long past time the arbitrators appointed a second tranche to replace the dropouts from the first. --Tony Sidaway 02:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since the clerks do nothing that a normal editor cannot, we should simply expand the powers to open and close the cases to any editor.  Any funny business would be quickly spotted, and it would remove an unnecessary level of bureaucracy.  We'd also be spared people telling us they are recused. - brenneman {L}  04:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The RFAr page says "This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment." I wouldn't want all editors to be able to refactor things. -Barry- 04:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy enough to take that line out, but I'm happy to trust my fellow editors with moving comments to the talk page.  I've done it one the arbitration page before, what's the big deal? - brenneman 04:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It changes visibility and context, and I think refactoring also includes more serious editing than moving things to the talk page. -Barry- 05:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Any editor can already open or close an arbitration case (as long as he does it properly).  The instructions are at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures, and currently the Highways arbitration needs to be closed and the alienus arbitration will need to be opened around 1810 UTC on the 5th or some time after.  I can do neither because I'm recused. --Tony Sidaway 02:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is true this sentence should probably be removed from the main page. Kotepho 03:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On clerks 

message: : Moved here because it was taking over the arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 02:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I take issue with this. I think the next appropriate step would be  WP:RFC. ^^James^^ 18:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I second the concerns expressed by James. Is it not policy to conduct RFCs before resorting to RFAs? Or are we mistaken? Explanation would be appreciated. romarin [talk ] 19:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *As Will Beback notes, there are two RFC's already being prepared, and I think those efforts should be combined and allowed to run their course. Skipping directly to RFA only furthers the impression that Al is being fast tracked. If Al does not adjust his behaviour after that, it only adds strength to a future RFA case. I also note that this RFA was filed just as a recent block was being resolved. ^^James^^ 19:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not a clerk in this case so I won't go around editing stuff, but I think the arbitrators would appreciate it if you could observe the conventions and move your respective comments to separate sections.  I in my turn will alter the statement to "Tony Sidaway's opinion, disputed by Alienus, ^^^James^^^ and Romarin, is that Alienus is an..." and the existing text. --Tony Sidaway 22:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did this. --Tony Sidaway 02:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please add that SOPHIA also disagrees with your characterization Tony. Let's have this RfC and see publicly who the groups of editors are that have an issue with Al. It should get quite interesting.  Sophia 06:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OK I've done it myself - this is a wiki after all.  Sophia 06:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No worries. --Tony Sidaway 13:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there a certain appropriate place to mention our concerns with the process? I don't believe this would necessarily fit until our own statement section, since it is not a commentary on the case, but on the way the case is being handled. I will gladly move my comments to the right place, when I know what that is. Thanks, Romarin 22:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess this is the right place to mention concerns with the process itself, so I moved it here. Generally arbitration applications shouldn't involve threaded dialog, mostly because it has a tendency to grow to massive size very  quickly. --Tony Sidaway 02:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that no matter what Alienus wants, going through with either of the RfCs, or starting a new one, is just not going to happen. Unless I'm mistaken, this RfA is alrealy underway. I was only wondering (as I believe James was as well) why it had already started, as it is normally a last resort. Have all options really been exhausted? I am just trying to figure out how the policy works here. Thanks, Romarin 03:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Fred, in this case there are a few controversial blocks, some of which were eventually overturned, hence the heated AN/I discussions. I do think an RFC is in order, as there are some legitimate concerns that need to be worked out. As a few users have noted, Alienus has been getting better as an editor, not getting worse. As such, I think it's premature to go straight into RFA. Al has indicated that he is willing to abide by the outcome of an RFC. I'd like to see that he is given that opportunity before resorting to arbitration. ^^James^^ 19:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Tony has suggested he won't stand in the way of this proposal.  ^^James^^ 20:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on summary in the Alienus arbitration

message: ===Percentage in favor of move===
Note: Some edit warring is still going on in the article, the out-of-policy move is still in effect, and the text of the article is being edited to be consistent with the out-of-policy move. Some protection until arbitration is concluded may be appropriate. --John Nagle 17:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: John, the poll is around 70 per cent in favor of the move, and only (as I recall) 60 per cent is needed, so that particular part of the situation seems to have resolved itself. What's left is to look at all the other issues: there are numerous title disputes and various content issues that I'm not familiar with. That's why mediation would be very helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page was moved at 14-12, which is 0.538461538%. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was 16-13, and I don't know what percentage that is, but it's around the 60 per cent mark. The point is that the move is now confirmed, so unless we're wikilawyering, that particular issue is resolved, which only leaves all the other pages to consider and, indeed, whether all the separate pages should exist at all. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, 0.551724138%, clear short of 60%. The basic problem is the continued violation of policies and guidelines by a large percentage of all editors involved, and as such, this is highly relevant for the case. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  The poll was roughly even when the out-of-policy moves started. On July 5, there was a big influx of "Agree" votes in a short period. Let's leave this to ArbComm to sort out. --John Nagle 03:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Note: A request for mediation on broader content issues has been made by some of the parties. That mediation request should not preempt this request for arbitration. --John Nagle 02:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mediation should usually come before arbitration, if it can be arranged. You beat me to it by a day. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mediation was tried. See Kim's note above. Also, please don't post in the statement area of another party. Thanks. --John Nagle 03:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No mediation was tried by an independent party, and that's what's needed now. You sound as though you actually want arbitration, instead of resolving the dispute. I hope that's not the case. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to second SlimVirgin's request. IMO, her latest suggestions could provide a basis for moving forward on this issue. (SlimVirgin, I owe you a reply - I'll drop you a line tomorrow when I'm a bit less tired!). -- ChrisO 22:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I third SV's idea, which sounds far more practical. Jayjg (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur. Å©Humus sapiens Ñ~ÑÖ? 00:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As a party to the mediation request (but not this arbitration), I prefer the mediation route as well as it would be more productive, imo. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 03:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I am all for showing the dates. Homey statement above seems to be another attempt to evade responsibility for his "month old actions" as if they are somehow expired. Å©Humus sapiens Ñ~ÑÖ? 01:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Material (with context) removed by clerk from apartheid RfAr

message: Note: Some edit warring is still going on in the article, the out-of-policy move is still in effect, and the text of the article is being edited to be consistent with the out-of-policy move. Some protection until arbitration is concluded may be appropriate. --John Nagle 17:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: John, the poll is around 70 per cent in favor of the move, and only (as I recall) 60 per cent is needed, so that particular part of the situation seems to have resolved itself. What's left is to look at all the other issues: there are numerous title disputes and various content issues that I'm not familiar with. That's why mediation would be very helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page was moved at 14-12, which is 0.538461538%. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was 16-13, and I don't know what percentage that is, but it's around the 60 per cent mark. The point is that the move is now confirmed, so unless we're wikilawyering, that particular issue is resolved, which only leaves all the other pages to consider and, indeed, whether all the separate pages should exist at all. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, 0.551724138%, clear short of 60%. The basic problem is the continued violation of policies and guidelines by a large percentage of all editors involved, and as such, this is highly relevant for the case. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  The poll was roughly even when the out-of-policy moves started. On July 5, there was a big influx of "Agree" votes in a short period. Let's leave this to ArbComm to sort out. --John Nagle 03:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Note: A request for mediation on broader content issues has been made by some of the parties. That mediation request should not preempt this request for arbitration. --John Nagle 02:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mediation should usually come before arbitration, if it can be arranged. You beat me to it by a day. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mediation was tried. See Kim's note above. Also, please don't post in the statement area of another party. Thanks. --John Nagle 03:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No mediation was tried by an independent party, and that's what's needed now. You sound as though you actually want arbitration, instead of resolving the dispute. I hope that's not the case. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Percentage in favor of move

message: I would ask the Committee not to accept the case at this time. ChrisO and I have been in touch by e-mail since just before the RfAr was posted, exchanging ideas for a solution, and we are making some progress. The situation was started a few weeks by a series of apartheid-related articles, not just this one, started by User:HOTR. Since then, there have been disagreements on various pages about titles, with Israeli apartheid as the biggest stumbling block, and with multiple polls on several pages until everyone's head was spinning. What is needed is some coordination of the dispute and some sensible proposals, and I think we're about to get those organized. I was also planning today to discuss with ChrisO whether a Request for Mediation would be appropriate. It would therefore be helpful if the Committee could either reject this request, or put it on ice for a few days to allow these other avenues to be explored first. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to second SlimVirgin's request. IMO, her latest suggestions could provide a basis for moving forward on this issue. (SlimVirgin, I owe you a reply - I'll drop you a line tomorrow when I'm a bit less tired!). -- ChrisO 22:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I third SV's idea, which sounds far more practical. Jayjg (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur. Å©Humus sapiens Ñ~ÑÖ? 00:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As a party to the mediation request (but not this arbitration), I prefer the mediation route as well as it would be more productive, imo. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 03:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SlimVirgin statement

message: In case it's helpful, here is the information from the move log about how many times this page was moved between May 29 (when it was created) and July 4.
* Moves of Israeli apartheid: nine times
*Moves of Israeli apartheid (phrase): five times
*Moves of Allegations of Israeli apartheid: three times
*Moves of Israeli apartheid (epithet): three times
*Moves of Israeli apartheid (term): once
And number of moves per editor:
*KimvdLinde: four moves
*HOTR: three
*ChrisO: three
*Humus sapiens: three
*6SJ7: three
*FayssalF: one
*IZAK: one
*Jayjg: one
*SlimVirgin: one
*Zeq:one
It's because there are so many opinions and a large number of editors involved (and there are others not mentioned here), that it would be particularly helpful if we could find a good mediator, so I'm going to start looking for one. I hope the Committee won't feel it's inappropriate to do that now that an RfAr has been posted. If you do, please let me know and I'll stop. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am all for showing the dates. Homey statement above seems to be another attempt to evade responsibility for his "month old actions" as if they are somehow expired. Å©Humus sapiens Ñ~ÑÖ? 01:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional information from [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]

message: Homey, I don't think your proposal that JayG recuse himself from all arbcom cases is workable.  First, it would let people swing existing arbitrations by bringing arbcom cases in disputes involving arbitrators.  Second, any conflict that does exist can only be cured by Jay resigning permanently from the arbcom, and I don't think that's worth the cost.  Third, from what I've seen, the ArbCom members don't pull any punches with each other, so I'm not sure how much actual conflict really exists.  TheronJ 14:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that Raul654 was just explicitly admonished in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Other arbitrators have also been the subject of arbitration during their terms, and Jayjg himself has also been admonished in one case. This isn't a big deal and no reason to require an arbitrator to step down. --Tony Sidaway 21:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no reason to recuse. I just want to give mediation a chance. Fred Bauder 02:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mediation has been tried and failed.  See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Statement_by_KimvdLinde. Let's give arbitration a try.  We need one more uninvolved arbitrator.  --John Nagle 02:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Only Jayjg has recused.  Fred Bauder has simply changed his opinion in favor of mediation.  There are four acceptance votes on the application now and, if that doesn't change, the case will be opened after 0835 tomorrow.  Any of the eleven non-recused active arbitrators will be free to consider the case. --Tony Sidaway 11:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You can appeal any and all decisions to Jimbo and to the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation.  Please be aware that both parties are much less tolerant of wikilawyering and general whinging than either the ArbCom or the denizens of the Administrators' Noticeboard.  You would also have to demonstrate that Fred's recusal would have had a material effect on the outcome of your case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Homey can also make a motion in the arbitration case. Fred Bauder 23:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about suggesting that, but I wasn't sure if the ArbCom had the power to compel one of its members to recuse...?  Out of curiosity, does anyone know how this sort of thing handled in real life? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make a motion on the /Workshop page after the case is opened. And we will vote on it. Fred Bauder 03:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homey's proposal for JayG general recusal 

message: I've semiprotected this page briefly to stop a particular remove vandal.  Protection should be lifted as soon as possible, perhaps in three or four hours. --Tony Sidaway 20:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semiprotection

message: It appears PaulWicks took his own name off the Tojo case and added mine .  All I did was add a comment replying to his apparent confusion about range blocks.  In retrospect, the comment was actually made by User:69.117.4.237 . Whether anons can comment is up to someone else but its not my comment.  Thanks. Thatcher131 20:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was trying to make things more obvious. The chronology I saw was some anonymous IP made a comment and it was titled "comment from non involved party" or something, then I see it's changed to "comment by PaulWicks" when in fact I was just responding to their comment with a question related to my stupidity re: IP blocks. When I saw your comment after that I assumed it was you that made the first comment. So, confusion all round. My apologies. --PaulWicks 21:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added the wrong name in error.  My apologies. --Tony Sidaway 21:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not offended or anything.  I just wanted to correct the page without it looking like I was messing around. Thatcher131 00:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who added my name? 

message: Since I opened up an RfA against CoolKatt number 99999 on July 13, there have been four other cases opened after this one, three of which have recieved at least one vote by an arbitrator.  The CoolKatt RfA has recieved none as of this writing.  What is the cause for the delay in regards to this one?  Rollosmokes 06:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was also wondering the exact same thing. --CFIF (talk to me) 14:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I as well. His legal threats and dozens of personal attacks were ignored by the administrators, his RfC was a dead end where nothing happened, and now this sits here unaddressed. In the interim his behaviour continues unchecked.--Crossmr 16:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a violation of WP:STALK and WP:NPA. Why won't you all just leave me alone? CoolKatt number 99999 03:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its neither. Stop trying to invent things. I can't even begin to list all the polices and guidelines you break.--Crossmr 03:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just leave me alone, and all will be good. CoolKatt number 99999 04:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And I will not do any more wrong. CoolKatt number 99999 04:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, Katt's doing his best to get himself permabanned on his own, so it may shortly be moot. Note he's still making threats, while banned, on his Talk page - against a user who's done far less against him than any of us. Lambertman 13:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This quote "against a user who's done far less against him than any of us" is quite funny, its almost like an admission of guilt. So what have you done "against this user"? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he's refferring to reverting certain questionable edits of CoolKatt, warning him, that sort of thing. --CFIF (talk to me) 14:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be a battle mentality here that isnt appropriate. I remember this users name from the massive MfD that was attempted to have their user pages removed from the wiki. I am surprised to see some of the same users appearing on their RfC and now RFAr. I guess the TV station group on Wikipedia is a pretty small community. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the RfC, I think you have the wrong idea of what its for. An RfC is not a means of punishment, its for users to express their opinions and hopefully, contructively, come to a conclusion or concensus with the user or issue in question. As for RFAr's I would give it time, takes a while for everything to go through. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was speaking in terms of his "me against the world" mentality. You can scan my edit history; all I've done is note some of his actions in places I feel appropriate. The user in question apparently exhausted the community's patience before I had ever even heard of him. Lambertman 14:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And CoolKatt continues to use RfC as a threat method and they end up being frivolous and dumb. His subpages are also a problem, as they show up on Google and are unfactual and just a bunch of fantasies made up one day. The Louisville, Whore subpage is especially ridiculous and worthless. --CFIF (talk to me) 15:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not attempting to take sides, simply stating noone should be using an RFC as a threat, its not a punishment method, its a conflict resolution step. The RfC is suppose to be used to show an issue or user the communities view. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What they meant was simply that the request for comments regarding him lead to little constructive discussion, not that it should have lead to some punishment. Circeus 02:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Give it a few more days before we get our feather's in a bunch. The more time that passes the more that piles up against CK.--Crossmr 21:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm getting sort of impatient, other ArbCom potential cases have got more attention, even if it's a down vote. --CFIF (talk to me) 13:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the process says it can take up to 2 months. That may allow for a month of arbcom members actually deciding on the issue. Just feel better in knowing as time passes he continues to burry himself and if his behaviour continues he'll likely just end up permanently banned before the end of it anyway.--Crossmr 16:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of it got cut off with no one noticing. Shows how much the ArbCom cares about this case. --CFIF (talk to me) 03:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfA/CoolKatt number 99999 

message: Just noting here, for the record, that I'm doing a bit of cleanup in the Requests for clarification section, since there are a number of old/stale posts. I'm archiving each to the talk page of the original request page, just so they aren't lost (couldn't find any better place to put it). Additionally, for the record, I cleared doing so with the lovely Mindspillage so as not to run afoul of any policies. Essjay (Talk) 01:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both  and  had outstanding questions; why were they archived? --SPUI (T - C) 21:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for clarification section