Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 9

message: Just trying to clarify the procedure for requestion arbitration.
#As the requestor, do I complete the template, or a copy of the template?
#Do I complete the template and THEN tell the acused, or ask the acused if they want to take part in arbitration, and then complete the template if they want to cooperate?
#I presume that IF arbitration is accepted, then there will be a further opportunity to present evidence on both sides?
#Is there a standard template to add to the accused talk page, notifying them of arbitration? A kind of digital summons or subpoena?
--Iantresman 13:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Procedure advice

message: William M. Connelley has violated his parole.  The one case I have personal knowlegde of is his reverts in de lomborg case. 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.
This just one case but their is a strong suspicion that he has violated his parole numerous times. WMC refuse to defend himself. He leaves it to some supporters of him to challenge the meaning of his parole. I hope you can clairify the issue and the appropiate action is taken. --MichaelSirks 19:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a similar experience with this guy. Just take a look that the Autodynamics article history. He certainly likes to keep up the reverting game (can't say that I was much better in this example, but I'm not the one paroled). The article is full of POV phrases like "this is correct" or "this is incorrect". He didn't even bother keeping my cleaned-up references, which is apparently not under any dispute.--Tbainbri 23:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tbainbri I think your posting here, in an unrelated matter, seems to me vindictive. As is being currently discussed, there is nothing inherently POV in WMC's position in Autodynamics. It is still under discussion.--CSTAR 03:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Sirks is trolling. He appears to be proving himself wrong: he is shouting loudly but not winning. I've responded on the talk page, as you can clearly see. Indeed, I assume you already have seen, since it will be on your watchlists. William M. Connolley 22:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  WMC says I am trolling. But the only thing I do is ask where he responded on the talk pages for this specific revert. But he refuse to anwser this question instead he accuse me of trolling.--MichaelSirks 19:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The above revert I was refering to is on the 23 october in the lomborg article. When you look at the talk page you will see no entry of WMC. So it simply isn't true what WMC is saying. So here he is clearly in violation.--MichaelSirks 15:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Let's make it obviously clear. The history page of the lomborg article. The revert I am referring to is the one of 23 October with the comment "rv to Orzetto". The history of the talk page. No talk entry of WMC on the 23 of october. So when he says that he responded on the talk page it's obviously not true. Let him show me where he added a talk page entry concerning this revert.--MichaelSirks 18:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't there something more productive you could do than complain about a two week old revert? Phil Sandifer 18:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  A quick glance at his contribs  would appear to suggest that he has nothing else to contribute, sadly. William M. Connolley 20:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  I take it this an admission that WMC has broken his parole. Else he would have substantiated where he discussed his revert on the talk pages.--MichaelSirks 21:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If this was a "one-off" where WMC had admitted that he had violated his parole I would have left at that, but it is not. It is also not true that only now (two weeks after the event) I am reporting this. (Please follow the links)What we see is a pattern of behavour. The question is; Does WMC have a parole and is Wikipedia ready to enforce this parole. Or are there some other rules for WMC?--MichaelSirks 19:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  William M. Connolley's parole violation 

message: I seem to recall someone got banned for sabotaging his own RfA page with condescending comments about the arbitrators.  Which case was this? - it was one of those stubborn ones, I remember, with the, uh, "defendant" declaring to all and sundry that this was a kangaroo court and he wasn't going to be bound by the Committee's decisions...  Does anyone else remember this? 206.114.20.121 21:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like Njyoder to me, except I don't think he has been banned (yet). Bishonen | talk 21:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Are you thinking of Paul Vogel? —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about a not-so-recent incident 

message: I request that User:Str1977 be  as permanently as possible banned from further papal whitwashing on WP, and  that Jimbo be  estimated  as having relevance to the affair , as I have several communications with him pertaining to such whitewash . I respectfully ask that this matter go straight into serious  consideration as my entire history upon Wikipedia has  been entirely taken up with an edit war with this one single User:Str1977 , who has falsely claimed himself as mediator upon my  Famekeeper Rfc . i have for approximately one year  desired and clamoured for help , mediation and arbitration  to the point where Jimbo  suggested WP was unable to include me and my thoughts . I claim good faith and good source and reason and  moral necessity , and ask that sufficient  notice be allowed  to this case of  utter complaint . I believe Jimbo himself to have exhibited a regrettable dismissal of the relevance of this to WP  and to civilized society, and therefore come here for  serious help in a serious matter which  retraces endless step from today- at the Reichskonkordat . I iterate that my  FK  name tags change purely because I lose cookies when  my hard drive dies or I re-ghost . My  usernames are entirely above board nevertheless and my user contributions throughout serve any advocates  if taken from the beginning of my WP time as User:Flamekeeper . This  need for WP protection concerns the history of the papacy and Hitler, so  be warned that murder was involved  and illegality persists  today , both canonically and civilly(see Enabling Act etc.) EffK 03:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jimbo-User:EffK-user:Str1977

message: Why not use larger headers to separate cases on the RFAR page? -St|eve 02:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the template. Looks ok. If you want to change all the other go ahead or let things take their course Fred Bauder 02:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Ive also reformatted the template and its instructions to be entirely hidden - people may have to clean up visible instructions text (indented to format as codeboxes), but should be ok. -St|eve 06:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFAR headers 

message: Clarification needed: Did the ArbCom officially sanction or approve this, and if not, is this officially recognized by you (referring to the ArbCom)? The wording is ambigious and makes reference to the ArbCom several times. Many thanks. Flcelloguy ( A  note? ) 01:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does Wikipedia need users who must be monitored so closely? Wyss 00:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That question is no more or less reasonable or helpful than asking why Wikipedia needs you. Phil Sandifer 00:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Probation Committee]]

message: I didn't want to do it myself since all arbcom pages are the sole domain of the arbcom unless otherwise noted but I suggest on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Evidence, changing it to read that all difflinks should be noted as a date and time i.e. 15:28, September 21, 2005 instead of the way it's currently done which is .  This would make evidence links much easier to read. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 
Since nobody has objected I went ahead and changed the template to suggest using the preferred format here. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed change 

message: I would like to point out that I was told not to comment on other people's statements by someone on the arbitration committee and my comments were removed. Yet, someone else (that is also part of Johnski et al.)has seen fit to do the same thing, yet there comments were not removed. I am requesting those comments be removed to comply with the same thing I was told. Thanks... Davidpdx 07:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a lot of work because the comment needs to be preserved but also moved. Fred Bauder 16:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commenting on other people's statements 

message: I am new here but I find this site to be like glue... nobody answers direct questions,
and the links are not adequate. I have asked in many places how one get to make edits that are not  reversed by the next stranger to look at the page. Nobody answers me.
Daniel CD has helped just a little.
I see a page that is about me, ERIK BECKJORD, and when I edit the errors, they do not stick.
One of my internet enemies here comes by and reverts. How longing does this go on?
I also cannot find who made the page. Who is it?
I also cannot find who made the Bigfoot page, who is it?
I am a curator of three CZ Museums and have 30 years of Bigfoot experience, and all my edits 
of those pages are reverted.  I see nobody here who has any experience in the field
(woods) of either cz or Bigfoot. Yet, total nobodies edit what I say.
WHO CAN I TALK TO AT LENGTH about all this? I do not need links. I need a warm body.
"Treat newcomers with kindness" ---- will you?
Jon-Erik Beckjord,BA,MBA 
BeckjordBeckjord 09:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how much I can help, but do you know about page histories? That's how you can find out who started the articles, and who is reverting you. I'm assuming you know about talk pages, since you posted this here. Well, every article has a talk page, so you can discuss whatever content concerns you have there. If your edits are neutral and verifiable, they probably should not be reverted—of course, people do differ on their interpretations of these things. Everyking 10:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Erik Beckjord

message: Didn't know where else to put this, so I'll put it here. I request that the case be retitled to just Ben Gatti and that zen master be excluded. I'm arguing for this because this case is about Ben Gatti, NOT about Price-Anderson. Our side has absolutely no intention of bringing up the issues that are involved in Price-Anderson. None. You guys don't take content disputes and this is not a content dispute. By including Price-Anderson, Ben is trying to muddy the issue and make it less about him and more about P-A. This case is about him NOT price-anderson so I request that it be titled just Benjamin Gatti. the precedent here is to name cases after the user involved, not the articles involved. As for zen master, he's been involved in P-A for less than a week. And as far as I know, his involvement as a party to this case is only to argue on Ben's side for Price-Anderson Act. Well if this case is about Ben and not P-A, then I don't see how zen is involved unless he's going to defend Ben's actions. If he is, I can see why he can stay. Otherwise, I don't think he's a party to this dispute. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well now, Ben has retitled it to include all parties. I still don't think that's correct. I see no charges against Simesa, katefan, I are zen. It's all Ben. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The only article in which the parties are all actively involved is Price-Anderson. This is a content dispute in sheep's clothing (all the better to arbitrate you with my dear). My entire life has been cherry-picked and parsed by partial quotes and pseudo-context into a personal great judgement day when in reality the overwhelming majority of one's edits are productive, constructive, and better-sourced than the alternatives. (And the selections are delightful prose I might add). If we are to indulge in an unbounded mud-sling, than the recent pattern of hounding and prejudice by Mike directed at Zen-master provides a fitting contrast in behavior, as does the gold standard against which this complaint is mere noise. . Benjamin Gatti 02:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben, I didn't mention a single Price-Anderson issue in my statement. None. It's about you, not about Price-Anderson. As long as the charges do not mention a single issue from Price-Anderson, I'm not sure how the case can be about Price-Anderson in any shape or form. Kate cited other articles you violated policy and guidelines on as did I. It's about you. Not Price-Anderson or zen. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *wipes tears from eyes* Oh man, thank you for the best freakin' laugh I've had all morning. I couldn't stop for about five minutes, and I'm still chuckling. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  That is just about the finest piece of wikilawyering I've ever seen.  Too bad this is not a "public liability action", nor is it "arising out of or resulting from a nuclear incident".  Motion denied, counselor.  Kelly Martin (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...... · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 05:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You suppose this should go on BJAODN? --Carnildo 07:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Calton | Talk 07:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You're out of order! And you're out of order! This whole court is out of order!!!! (sorry just had to get that in.) Bad Joke for sure, don't know if it should be deleted. Maybe honorary mention in WikiHell. Hamster Sandwich 07:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: My congratulations to Benjamin Gatti on a piece of excellent satire. — Dan | talk 07:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OBJECTION! It's irony. --84.64.132.44 08:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um Dan? It isn't satire. He's serious. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It's not that great an example, since in order for Benjamin Gatti to believe it, he would need to have not actually read the statute he posted, since on its very face it doesn't mean what he claims it does. Nandesuka 13:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 1861?  I was not aware that North Carolina was at peace with the United States in 1861. Robert McClenon 14:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What's more troubling is that I couldn't find the formal treaty ending the Civil War. Wikipedia makes no mention of a treaty in American civil war. Apparently there was a "Peace Treaty" in 1865  (On second look you're right - I blurred the page in my haste. - 1865 appears to be the date - but has this treaty no name? Benjamin Gatti 14:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With reference to the question of why no treaty exists, see Texas v. White, which held the secession was never legally valid. Xoloz 22:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, the "more perfect union" theory of why secession is impossible.  That was one of the very first cases I read (long before I got to law school).  The sophistry of 19th century judges amuses the hell out of me sometimes. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This is troublesome.  The Washington Post has no mention of a nuclear accident in North Carolina.  Does this mean that the nuclear accident took out communication between Washington and North Carolina, or was that done by Confederate ghosts?  Robert McClenon 14:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An "incident" is different than an accident. "Incidents" are not altogether uncommon; thankfully most have no serious impact outside the plant. Benjamin Gatti 14:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Show good cause, then.  Document the "incident", then explain how this matter arises from it, then explain how public liability also arises.  I suspect your attempt will lead only to laughter. Xoloz 18:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't think it's just possible that I've somewhat overstated the reach of the Price Anderson Act do you? Benjamin Gatti 20:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think this is a case of being "somewhat overstated".  You grossly misconstrued the Act, and deserve gentle needling so that your "motions" will remain within the realm of the reasonable and the constructive in the future. Xoloz 22:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: At least one of the arbitrators is outside the United States.  I did not see any reference to notice under the Hague Convention.  Shouldn't that have been part of the motion to dismiss?  Robert McClenon 21:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The arbitrators aren't parties per se; in the United States, federal jurisdiction can be claimed due to the disparity of citizenship (ie the parties live in different states), the action touches interstate trade (which is most things these days), touches a Constitutional subject matter, or arises under the laws of the United States. International jurisdiction requires a matter touching International law (usually human rights abuse - or WTO) and/or a dispute between citizens from one or more signatories to the International system. Since these events transpired in North Carolina, a political subdivision on the United States of America, and the US is not a signatory to international law, I'd suggest that such a motion wouldn't carry weight in any venue having jurisdiction on these events. Benjamin Gatti 02:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, come on now, even you must know that this whole line of argument is complete nonsense. Nobody here is stupid enough to fall for it, and talking about unrelated legalistic gibberish isn't going to help your case in the slightest, all it does is prove that you are unwilling to be rational and instead want to try to bluff people with gobblydegook.  DreamGuy 13:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who's definition of rational? I'm not going to dance in your popularity contest, if that's what you're hoping for. I'm here to learn, to teach, to inspire and be inspired - not to dictate normative. If the articles I touch are not better for my participation, than sanctions are in order (name one). Benjamin Gatti 15:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Besides, he hasn't read the decision of the Supreme Court in Tarkanian v. NCAA.  Robert McClenon 13:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The narrowly held Tarkanian v. NCAA is neither rational nor persuasive, and in my opinion the losses of the plaintiff are dwarfed by the self-inflicted loss of respect for the Supreme Court (which it should be noted is a fleeting commodity. Historians remind us of a time when the Supreme court upheld the rights of Indians to which the President remarked - "The Court has made its decision, now let's see them enforce it.") The argument that NCAA doesn't fly under state power because it has amalgamated power from many states is evasive and I doubt this crowd would give it much more than a good round of back slapping LMHO jeers. Look at the split - J. Stevens (Joined by the right guard) - with dissent from the west wing - and O'Conner. I doubt a day goes by in which Stevens doesn't wonder how he got talked into that decision. What you have here is a case of state-authority-outsourcing, and the question whether or not the Constitution gets outsourced along with the power. It's a black day for civil rights when the Constitution is evaded by Power-laundering. Benjamin Gatti 15:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, I move that we adjourn for lunch.  I'm famished! --155.45.81.25 18:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Power-laundering"? That sounds like a catchphrase from a laundry detergent ad. -Willmcw 18:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A request about the Ben Gatti case

message: As this matter touches on Nuclear energy, the Arbcomm must realize that the Price-Anderson Act removes all jurisdiction on such matters to the Federal courts, accordingly, the Arbcomm has no authority to regulate, interfere, or hear disputes arising from such matters. Because the action took place in North Carolina, which is a signatory to the US Constitution by the hand of one William Blount in 1787 (reaffirmed by the Peace Treaty of 1861), it is subject to the laws of the United States of America, including the provisions of the Price-Anderson Act as contained in US 42.23.A § 2210. Indemnification and limitation of liability (n)(2) as reads:
This venue is therefore deprived of its usual jurisdiction and required to remove the complaint forthwith. Benjamin Gatti 03:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *wipes tears from eyes* Oh man, thank you for the best freakin' laugh I've had all morning. I couldn't stop for about five minutes, and I'm still chuckling. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  That is just about the finest piece of wikilawyering I've ever seen.  Too bad this is not a "public liability action", nor is it "arising out of or resulting from a nuclear incident".  Motion denied, counselor.  Kelly Martin (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...... · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 05:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You suppose this should go on BJAODN? --Carnildo 07:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Calton | Talk 07:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You're out of order! And you're out of order! This whole court is out of order!!!! (sorry just had to get that in.) Bad Joke for sure, don't know if it should be deleted. Maybe honorary mention in WikiHell. Hamster Sandwich 07:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: My congratulations to Benjamin Gatti on a piece of excellent satire. — Dan | talk 07:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OBJECTION! It's irony. --84.64.132.44 08:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um Dan? It isn't satire. He's serious. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It's not that great an example, since in order for Benjamin Gatti to believe it, he would need to have not actually read the statute he posted, since on its very face it doesn't mean what he claims it does. Nandesuka 13:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 1861?  I was not aware that North Carolina was at peace with the United States in 1861. Robert McClenon 14:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What's more troubling is that I couldn't find the formal treaty ending the Civil War. Wikipedia makes no mention of a treaty in American civil war. Apparently there was a "Peace Treaty" in 1865  (On second look you're right - I blurred the page in my haste. - 1865 appears to be the date - but has this treaty no name? Benjamin Gatti 14:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With reference to the question of why no treaty exists, see Texas v. White, which held the secession was never legally valid. Xoloz 22:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, the "more perfect union" theory of why secession is impossible.  That was one of the very first cases I read (long before I got to law school).  The sophistry of 19th century judges amuses the hell out of me sometimes. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This is troublesome.  The Washington Post has no mention of a nuclear accident in North Carolina.  Does this mean that the nuclear accident took out communication between Washington and North Carolina, or was that done by Confederate ghosts?  Robert McClenon 14:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An "incident" is different than an accident. "Incidents" are not altogether uncommon; thankfully most have no serious impact outside the plant. Benjamin Gatti 14:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Show good cause, then.  Document the "incident", then explain how this matter arises from it, then explain how public liability also arises.  I suspect your attempt will lead only to laughter. Xoloz 18:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't think it's just possible that I've somewhat overstated the reach of the Price Anderson Act do you? Benjamin Gatti 20:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think this is a case of being "somewhat overstated".  You grossly misconstrued the Act, and deserve gentle needling so that your "motions" will remain within the realm of the reasonable and the constructive in the future. Xoloz 22:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: At least one of the arbitrators is outside the United States.  I did not see any reference to notice under the Hague Convention.  Shouldn't that have been part of the motion to dismiss?  Robert McClenon 21:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The arbitrators aren't parties per se; in the United States, federal jurisdiction can be claimed due to the disparity of citizenship (ie the parties live in different states), the action touches interstate trade (which is most things these days), touches a Constitutional subject matter, or arises under the laws of the United States. International jurisdiction requires a matter touching International law (usually human rights abuse - or WTO) and/or a dispute between citizens from one or more signatories to the International system. Since these events transpired in North Carolina, a political subdivision on the United States of America, and the US is not a signatory to international law, I'd suggest that such a motion wouldn't carry weight in any venue having jurisdiction on these events. Benjamin Gatti 02:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, come on now, even you must know that this whole line of argument is complete nonsense. Nobody here is stupid enough to fall for it, and talking about unrelated legalistic gibberish isn't going to help your case in the slightest, all it does is prove that you are unwilling to be rational and instead want to try to bluff people with gobblydegook.  DreamGuy 13:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who's definition of rational? I'm not going to dance in your popularity contest, if that's what you're hoping for. I'm here to learn, to teach, to inspire and be inspired - not to dictate normative. If the articles I touch are not better for my participation, than sanctions are in order (name one). Benjamin Gatti 15:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Besides, he hasn't read the decision of the Supreme Court in Tarkanian v. NCAA.  Robert McClenon 13:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The narrowly held Tarkanian v. NCAA is neither rational nor persuasive, and in my opinion the losses of the plaintiff are dwarfed by the self-inflicted loss of respect for the Supreme Court (which it should be noted is a fleeting commodity. Historians remind us of a time when the Supreme court upheld the rights of Indians to which the President remarked - "The Court has made its decision, now let's see them enforce it.") The argument that NCAA doesn't fly under state power because it has amalgamated power from many states is evasive and I doubt this crowd would give it much more than a good round of back slapping LMHO jeers. Look at the split - J. Stevens (Joined by the right guard) - with dissent from the west wing - and O'Conner. I doubt a day goes by in which Stevens doesn't wonder how he got talked into that decision. What you have here is a case of state-authority-outsourcing, and the question whether or not the Constitution gets outsourced along with the power. It's a black day for civil rights when the Constitution is evaded by Power-laundering. Benjamin Gatti 15:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, I move that we adjourn for lunch.  I'm famished! --155.45.81.25 18:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Power-laundering"? That sounds like a catchphrase from a laundry detergent ad. -Willmcw 18:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction

message: It appears that Lightbringer is still reverting or c/ping his versions of Freemasonry and Anti-Freemasonry, and he also started articles called Freemasonry Criticisms and Freemasonry Criticisms(which were speedied) containing the same material.  This clearly in violation of the ArbCom ruling regarding him, so my question is, now what?  Once again, we can't write new material or improve existing material because of all the reverting and sockpuppet tracking we are doing.  As amatter of fact, I am inclined to believe that Lightbringer was also User:Belgarath_TS and was testing the waters, so to speak, before embarking on his initial vandalismas Lightbringer.  Also see Lightbringer sockpuppets MSJapan 18:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing problems in [[Freemasonry]] and related articles 

message: Kelly and Arbcomm, we can use the mediation (About Price Anderson) to show that we've tried to resolve a conflict (not about Price) and then if the Arbcom goes forward - the one thing that it isn't about is the subject matter of the mediation that got us here in the first place right? 'cause this isn't about all those facts we whitewashed, this is about that editor who keeps disrupt'in by putting all that Supreme Court POV back in. See they're 2 separate things, except we dinnit do an RfC, or request mediation on anything 'cept Price Anderson, but that's ok right 'cause rulz are for newbies - I like made admin man, so like I ain't got no rulz - right?
Anyone else hear that? Benjamin Gatti 05:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What it sounds like to my ears

message: I do this following my notice above here concerning User Str1977 at my present Arbitration:Discussion. I request help, please, again. sam Spade counselled me that it was not a good time to go to Arbitration, so I did not persist in the above request. Now I consider- and I may be right- that this is an explosive subject worthy of proper notice. The Arbitration against me is quite pathetically ignorant, but heh! - they say it is all my theory papal involvement! The Users who deny my sourced good-faith abuse the community intelligence here with their combinatio against me. I request user:Robert McClenon , and User:Str1977 to be brought to Arbitration, someone. Please do this either together with my case or apart. The subject of Revisionist Clerical Denialism on Wikipedia is the correct subject for Arbitration, so please someone, post that, and I'll prove it exists. What community is this that washes its hands? You must do this, to please your consciences.
EffK 14:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: EffK repeats request for Arbitration: Revisionist Clerical Denialism on Wikipedia

message: This discussion was removed by Raul, without ever being truly addressed; hopefully one of the arbitrators will address it here:
I've been thinking. You know, I think the fundamental reason I got this ruling, beyond Snowspinner, is that I have no access to the actual decision-making of the ArbCom. The ArbCom makes all its decisions privately, and I know nothing about how they reached their ruling. I can't fight very well when I don't know what I should be fighting. And besides, they have a kind of groupthink and wouldn't be much inclined to pay attention to me even if I did start hitting the right target. I mean, I apologized for incivility and quit doing it a while ago, so it couldn't be that. The ArbCom placed heavy emphasis on "ignorance", but I'm no more "ignorant" than anybody else, and ignorance isn't a crime anyway, so I don't see how it could be that, either. So why did I get this ruling? Beats the hell out of me. I've thought and thought about it and I can't figure it out. I can't blame it all on Snowspinner; that's silly. Sure, he initiated it, and there's no doubt the arbitrators take him more seriously than just about anybody else (certainly more than me), but they have their own minds, too. I really think the root of it is in the ArbCom's private decision-making and groupthink. So what I want, basically, is for the ArbCom to do one of two things—send me its private discussions about my case, which should've been public in the first place, so I can see what their reasoning is, and actually know why I've been punished—and thus have a clue how to get the restrictions lifted in the future—or give me a whole new case altogether, this time with totally public discussion. Everyking 04:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will give you the reasoning in a nutshell - the months on end you spent constantly sniping at other administrators, particularly Snowspinner, particularly on the administrator's noticeboard, was unacceptable. Our solution has disposed of this problem rather neatly, your complaints not withstanding. Raul654 04:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK...well, I hadn't really been thinking about it like that, but still, to that I say that I had been doing pretty good at keeping my comments within the bounds of civility for quite a while, I had voluntarily reduced (substantially) the total amount of commenting I was doing on that page (including civil commentary), and had offered to take a complete break from editing it at all for two months. I even offered to accept a probationary period of two further months after the break was over—all that despite my strong feeling that no action was needed, and my assurance that I was being more mellow, and would continue to be more mellow. So you've still got to explain why all that wasn't enough. Everyking 08:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the ArbCom, secretive decision-making aside, should at least be accountable enough to respond to this. I am very curious to see how the ruling could be logically defended against all that evidence. Everyking 05:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because what improvement you have made—and yes, there has been some— was too little too late, Everyking, and not only your past behavior but your comments on other pages since the case closed have not made me believe that the decision was in error. It's not as though this is the first time and a simple apology and promise to do better is enough: you've been given those chances. You're a valuable article-space editor, and having  you break from editing altogether would be to no one's benefit, but your comments outside mainspace are largely unproductive and needlessly accusatory in tone even here. It helps no one, least of all you; the remedy is not punishment for you but relief for those whose activities you are disrupting. I honestly don't think a request for reconsideration by the arbcom will get anywhere in the immediate future; it's simply too soon and there has not been evidence that the decision was undeserved. My best advice to you is to think carefully before speaking about how you're coming off to others and whether or not your comments are productive, and to concentrate on article space; I'm sorry you feel mistreated but I don't think it's necessary to revisit this case at this time. As for the private discussion, things that were said in confidence should remain so, as we are under no obligation to reveal them; others may choose to make comments public as they wish, but as for myself I haven't much more to say. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I should point out that I did offer a two month break from editing the AN pages, followed by a two month probation on the same pages, which would have been lifted only if behavior during that time was acceptable to the arbitrators. I feel this is more than adequate to address any serious concerns anyone might have about my AN commentary. Everyking 08:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "I feel this is more than adequate to address any serious concerns anyone might have about my AN commentary." - At the risk of pointing out the obvious - we (the arbitration committee) didn't. And this does not at all address the obvious concerns about you simply taking your carping to some other page(s). Raul654 17:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Looking at the Everyking ruling

message: RFA being closed too early is too big for everyone else, but too small for the arbitration committee (and by extention stewards or jimbo). Even though I    immediately complained the moment I saw things had gone wrong, no action was possible. There is no recourse. Apparently procedures have become so rigid that it's also not possible to close the loophole with a well thought out application of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules either.
Not Good.
Kim Bruning 03:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, this is really no big deal.  Friday (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that it's not really an arbcom matter. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loophole 

message: The statement by party 1 on the Request for Arbitration on the IIPM dispute states:  "I dont reall know what to say. Other complaints on this site seem extremely emotionals and pointed, to say the least."
I agree.  Most of the current RfArs fall very sadly short of the reasonable standards that the ArbCom has for posting reasonable summaries of disputes.  Robert McClenon 16:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: An Observation That Is Unfortunately Very True

message: User:Netoholic seems to be violating his ban on editing in the Template: and Wikipedia: namespaces.  In fact, it's the same behavior he was banned for in the first place.
Examples: , , , , 
(Note that his contributions before July 18th were ok, since they were during the mentorship period.)
His arbitration case doesn't explicitly say what should be done for enforcement when the mentorship fails and he violates the ban, both of which have now happened.  
Has the ban been lifted?  If so, should the RfA page have been updated? - 07:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]] 

message: Is there a general rule as to how long cases are kept open for evidence before they go into voting?  
In the EffK case, EffK has just posted that he is being forced to abandon a corrupted Wikipedia.  He has said essentially the same thing once before, to Jimbo Wales, who advised him to leave Wikipedia because he was about to be banned, but then he came back.  I suggest that the case is ready for the evidentiary phase to be closed and to go into voting.  Robert McClenon 02:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Long Is Evidence Taken? 

message: I refer you to my response of a few moments ago at 15 December [],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005
George Orwell once called someone ,  A hole in the air , you know what I mean?  You are a total disgrace McClenon,you should/must be thrown out. As Gmaxwell told you.Ive finished for my part, evidence is un-important, to people like you . The WP isn't big enough for me, and you and your boss..  EffK 02:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Wikipedia