Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Archive 3

message: is this acceptable? If not, can something be done? Sam [Spade] 07:05, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As 172 isn't on this page, why is this comment here? Ambi 07:22, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought this was the right place. I take it you disagree? any advice? Sam [Spade] 07:35, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't that go as evidence in the relevant case? This page, methinks, is just for ongoing policing necessary as a result of past arbcom decisions. Ambi 07:47, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okey-Doke. Sam [Spade] 18:29, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 172

message: The item "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irismeister 2" appears to be redundant since Irismeister is blocked for one year.  I suggest an arbitrator remove it. Also, should this talk page be archived or cleaned up? JesseW 07:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of date decisions 

message: Regarding the temporary injunction against him, VeryVerily has violated it, making communism related edits and I request he be banned for 24 hours. Ruy Lopez 07:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The injunction pertains to articles relating to communism.  Just because this article states that the IMC does not function in communist countries does not make this an "article having to do with communism".  Sheesh, even Mirv wouldn't make this argument.  Would he? VeryVerily 07:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  You inserted the word communism.  You're the one who MADE the article about communism. Ruy Lopez 07:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  If anyone is interested, this conversation continued at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Evidence, where an admin defended my interpretation. VeryVerily 09:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  VeryVerily 

message: According to this, Cantus may not revert any article more than once in a 24-hour period. He just violated this rule on 20 different articles: Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Chile, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Moldova, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Macedonia, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Switzerland, Turkey. Please apply a 24-hour block (or a 20-day block if it's supposed to be cumulative). Gzornenplatz 06:11, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
:Hi Wik. Don't you have enough problems with Wikipedia yourself?  —Cantus…☎ 09:12, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
:The penalty is up to a week; the multiple violations make it worth a week IMO. Cantus, when we say you're not supposed to do this stuff, we really mean you're not supposed to do this stuff - David Gerard 19:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cantus

message: Isn't the Alberuni ban supposed to be for 13 months, 1 month for 3RR violations, and a further 12 months for "numerous personal attacks"? Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 04:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Question answered elsewhere, ArbCom can only ban for a maximum 12 months. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 16:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alberuni ban 

message: moved from the main page by sannse (talk) 12:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The block was removed, but another is currently in place for edits to a Christianity related article , in violation of the ban in that area -- sannse (talk) 12:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: This isn't the right page for this (although we don't have a page at the moment for clarifications - I suppose WP:RfAr is probably the best for now).  But... all rulings apply to the person and not to the account.  So CheeseDreams is banned from the articles in question whatever account (or IP) she uses.  The decision states "all Christianity-related articles".  You might notice on the proposed discussion page that we considered a ban only on "Jesus-related" articles, but rejected that in favour of a wider ban.  That was my reasoning anyway, and that of Delirium who stated "prefer [Christianity-related], which is a superset".  From what I recall of the discussion at the time, and from comments made since, this was also the reasoning of other arbitrators.  As far as I am concerned, all Jesus-related articles are included in the ruling.  If this needs clarifying more formally - then I suggest a request at WP:RfAr -- sannse (talk) 12:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: CheeseDreams

message: Would the ArbCom please clarify on CheeseDreams' sockpuppets?  I would assume the ban would be enforced on those articles as well.  Also, clarification as to "Christianity"... does this mean all articles relating to, including articles relating to Jesus? -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't the right page for this (although we don't have a page at the moment for clarifications - I suppose WP:RfAr is probably the best for now).  But... all rulings apply to the person and not to the account.  So CheeseDreams is banned from the articles in question whatever account (or IP) she uses.  The decision states "all Christianity-related articles".  You might notice on the proposed discussion page that we considered a ban only on "Jesus-related" articles, but rejected that in favour of a wider ban.  That was my reasoning anyway, and that of Delirium who stated "prefer [Christianity-related], which is a superset".  From what I recall of the discussion at the time, and from comments made since, this was also the reasoning of other arbitrators.  As far as I am concerned, all Jesus-related articles are included in the ruling.  If this needs clarifying more formally - then I suggest a request at WP:RfAr -- sannse (talk) 12:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arb clarification decision 

message: moved from the main page by sannse (talk) 14:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If Rienzo is evading a block, the place to mention this is the Administrators' noticeboard.  Although, as I suspect you may be doing the same, you don't really have the best of cases here -- sannse (talk) 14:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[user:Rienzo|Rienzo]], [[user:NahChyps|NahChyps]], [[user:Lady Tara|Lady Tara]], [[user:Baffinisland|Baffinisland]], [[user:Nasse|Nasse]]

message: This notice has been expanded and moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:JarlaxleArtemis. —Psychonaut 17:19, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:JarlaxleArtemis]]

message: I suggest (humbly) that an arbitrator update this page (I'd rather not touch it...too much probable trouble would result from that precedent, methinks).  Xed, for example, should either be removed or else his ban timer updated.  Rienzo should be removed unless the note someone left about restarting his ban timer is valid.  I think I saw a few others.  Thanks! Jwrosenzweig 17:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, this needs a good sort out, and also a re-evaluation of its use.  I think this should be a central place for all remedies that need admin action, including dates for expiry.  I intend to work on this shortly and give it a real overhaul -- sannse (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Presumably, this page is intended to be a central reference point for arbcomm decisions. In which case I point out an oddity: that the decisions for me, Cortonin and JonGwynne aren't listed. I don't know if others are missing too. William M. Connolley 21:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Update?

message: Since this is about WMC's parole, let's remind ourselves of the key part of that text: "Due to a long history of reverting, often without giving adequate explanation for the reverts, William M. Connolley is hereby prohibited for six months from reverting any article relating to climate change more than once per 24 hour period (vandalism excepted). Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate."
:which I interpret as 1. no more than 1 revert in 24 hrs, i.e. a return to previous page state; 2. this excludes responses to vandalism; 3. where there is a dispute about sourcing a Talk page explanation is required, unless 3a. adequate explanation can be fitted into an edit summary, and is provided. I interpret 3a as a reasonable extension 3. as it otherwise imposes needless burden on others - to visit Talk page to see every WMC edit summary, instead of seeing in watchlists. If this is way off base from what was intended or what others think, sorry; but I comment below on this basis.
*1.  WMC came in and supported Orsetto (and Tsavage?) in dipute with MichaelSirks, over major revision of page; it seems difficult to interpret this as a breach of the citation/Talk page requirement.
:Here WMC was in clear violation of his parole. It was a argument between me and Ozetto, which was also discussed on the talk pages. WMC didn't participate in this discusion, yet he reverted the text whitout explaination in the comment or on the talkpage. In his own words WMC can't be bothered with his parole.--MichaelSirks 19:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I find your "defense" of WMC bizarre. It's like someone who is accused of 50 murders and someone else proving that the killer is innocent because 20 of the victims were actually just children. There are well-defined rules here on Wikipedia and they have to be obeyed unless we want to support the tendencies that damage the Wikicommunity and its goals. --Lumidek 00:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: So you think WMC has met the requirement that "Each such revert must be backed up by a talk page comment where a reputable source is cited or asked for as appropriate (see #Relative value of references)."  Where are those corresponding talk page comments?  And shouldn't one trust that an editor carrying on a vendetta is able to pursue one better than once in 4 months?  The issue here is whether WMC has followed the rules.  After 4 months, this is a "minor slip" which has the requirements and penalties defined.  (SEWilco 01:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Rd232

message: I'd thought some of WMC's edits looked odd, but hadn't looked at the situation until this complaint popped up.  Anybody monitoring?  No parole officer?  There are still a number of oddities; without reexamining the last 500 edits there are still 8 items listed below, from Rd232's list.
* I had interpreted "(vandalism excepted)" as imposing the penalty upon vandalism by parolees, but it being an rvv exception fits the phrasing better.
* "unless 3a. adequate explanation can be fitted into an edit summary, and is provided." is an exception which is not in the Remedy.  You might not recall that Talk descriptions were required due to a history of problematical edit summaries.
* I provided the link to WMC's Contributions because it is easy to see oddities there. 
Some remaining items in Rd232's partial list:
*1.  WMC came in and supported Orsetto (and Tsavage?)... I see no group rv exception in the ruling.  I didn't try to judge whether this was a group revert war because a war is not a requirement either.
*3,4.   - ...revert from SEWilco, with adequate edit summary... Actually, there was an unsigned Talk entry with a graph-reading explanation to counter the removed sourced statement.  Is trying to interpret a graph the required "reputable source"?
*5. is removal of 2 of 3 links over 2 edits a reversion? It is an rv, labeled rm, of the link created during the preceding 2 edits.  Required Talk missing.
*10. is a straightforward re-addition of an internal link, with explanation;  Required Talk missing.
*20. was with edit summary and discussed on Talk by others who agreed Required Talk missing. (nearest Talk edit over 11 hours later)
*40.  ...WMC didn't quite revert... ... but didn't explain properly either. Comparison with WMC's previous version shows it was a revert with a destructive citation conversion added. Required Talk missing. (nearest Talk edit 5 hours later)  This conversion replaced
** 
*: with only the less descriptive URL:
** 
*50.  not a revert and had clear edit summary Comparison with 3rd preceding version shows it was revert with two phrases also changed.  Required Talk missing.
*55.  reverted removal of link/citation on basis link was dead but citation still useful A good and necessary edit which violates parole.  Required Talk missing.
� (SEWilco 05:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEWilco comment on Rd232 

message: :Here WMC was in clear violation of his parole. It was a argument between me and Ozetto, which was also discussed on the talk pages. WMC didn't participate in this discusion, yet he reverted the text whitout explaination in the comment or on the talkpage. In his own words WMC can't be bothered with his parole. If you let WMC get away with this wikipedia will degenerate into a reverting encyclopedia. Where the one who can shout the longest wins. --MichaelSirks 19:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: comment MichaelSirks

message: * Connolley points out the injunction link is to a temporary injunction.  That is correct.
* Connolley neglected to point out there is a revert parole elsewhere in the document. 
- (SEWilco 05:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, weirdly enough, I'm *not* required to sort out your complaints for you. If you're going to whinge, at least do it competently. Spamming a vast list of irrelevant edits is a waste of everyones time, including yours. William M. Connolley 17:06, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did indeed sort out someone else's complaint about your edits.  I don't suppose you'll save everyone time by providing a list of your improper edits.  (SEWilco 05:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure. Here it is: [ ]. William M. Connolley 09:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you (WMC) try to defend your revert in the Lomborg article.--MichaelSirks 18:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SEWilco comment on WMC 

message: Arbitrators: I do not see information from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute#Remedies in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested.  Is something from the former supposed to be in the latter page?  (SEWilco 04:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate change dispute/Admin enforcement requested 

message: According to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed,  Xed is currently on standard personal attack parole for one year, until 9 March, 2006.  For the record, I would like to document Xed's recent campaign against Jayjg and myself.  Xed persists in attacking Jayjg on Talk:Norman Finkelstein, calls Jayjg a "propagandist" and a weasel, and claims that I've been "caught lying" on Divine Intervention (film).  Diffs follow. --Viriditas  | Talk 11:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Has he found the parole to be "unreasonably burdensome" so it does not apply?  (SEWilco 17:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain what you mean? Jayjg (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xed parole enforcement 

message: Obviously this should be updated to take account the role of clerks.  Anyone have a view on whether this be done conservatively (i.e., that only duly appointed clerks may do so), or liberally (i.e. that anyone may do say, provided they're doing so directly on the basis of an actual arbcom decision, and doing so neutrally and accurately, etc)?  I note that at least one case seems to have slipped through, even since the start of the clerking system.  Alai 18:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't meant to complain or anything, but most of the cases (including that of KDRGibby) I've seen fall through the cracks in some way since clerking began are those closed by an arbitrator. (This is just anecdotal, and is not meant to be taken as strong proof that the arbs are losing it or something. :p) Johnleemk | Talk 18:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Only Arbitration Committee members can add new items to this page." 

message: :User:203.213.77.138 has been blocked as being related to this decision, while not being listed as a party to it. Warning and blocking were simultaneous.  Clyde did not follow the Arbcom decision by blocking this editor for one month, rather than up to one week []. While Clyde might be excused for not knowing the facts, user:FeloniousMonk is fully aware, being a party to the RfA, of the decision.  However, he unblocked, then reblocked for the same amount of time, posting notice on the Talk page of the article.  This is yet another example of admin abuse, that I tried to have addressed in the RfA, that still continues. agapetos_angel 12:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I noted at WP:AE at the time,   is one of the enjoined parties precluded from editing Jonathan Sarfati and Answers in Genesis. He was specifically identified here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel/Workshop#Sockpuppetry_.26_Meatpuppetry, and thus by his POV editing falls under "et al." After editing both articles tendentiously, , , , , though it's not required, 203.213.77.138 was warned and notified of the ruling on his talk page, and yet he chose to continue editing these articles, justifying the longer block. His block has since been reduced by Cyde to 1 week, but I predict it will be back to 1 month not long after his week is up, based on the refractory habits of this editor behind the various IPs. FeloniousMonk 16:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since blocking is supposed to be preventive rather than punitive, a block of one month based on a prediction would be out of line.  If a month is later necessary due to the actions of that editor, it is a different matter.  However, my complaint against enjoined administrators is still valid.  Involved in the disputes, FeloniousMonk has no business blocking editors with whom he is conflicting. agapetos_angel 18:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your frustration here is being caused by not understanding some central points. 1) 203.213.77.138's block for 1 month was not because it was "predicted" he would be a chronic offender (something his past history supports), but because he was warned and continued to edit the articles (as well as made a personal attack). 2) I'm not in a content conflict with 203.213.77.138, I was attempting to enforce the arbcomm ruling. 3) Admins enforcing arbcomm rulings are not subject to the same restrictions regarding blocking banned editors as those who are in conflicts over content. FeloniousMonk 20:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agapetos Angel 

message: AER is getting a bit huge in terms of number of sections. Shouldn't there be an archive? - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 08:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh most definitely. J-ſtanTalkContribs 17:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive? 

message: This page is huge, and frankly it seems unreasonable to expect administrators to keep all this in mind as they interact with users.  My biggest concern is that the only admins likely to be familiar with the remedies in a specific area are the ones that are already most involved, which is undesirable.  Maybe we could have a summary of a summary.  It seems to me that there are three main groups: banned users; users under some restriction (e.g. civility, topic ban), and topic areas under some restriction (e.g. article probabtion).  Three brief (alphabetical) lists with links would suffice.  So long as the lists are maintained, we don't need to see the case status or expiration date.  The shorter the summary, the more likely admins would be to refer to it.  Bovlb (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha!  I found Wikipedia:General sanctions and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions which cover most of what I wanted.  Maybe the page header should send people there.  Bovlb (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary