Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 20

message: Geoeg, the subject of a recent request, has himself removed it claiming authorisation by Foundation counsel Mikegodwin. I've asked Mike Godwin to comment on this action which seems highly unusual. Sam Blacketer 14:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for following up on this. The talkpage thread that Geoeg cites as providing authorization for removal of the arbitration request, does not appear to me to do so. No user other than an arbitrator, an arbitration clerk, or the party filing a request (before it has been accepted) should be removing a non-vandalistic case from the casepage except perhaps under truly extraordinary circumstances. Newyorkbrad 17:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me know what the outcome is... I just boldly reverted a change to the COI archive because I was not at all comfortable with some editor removing archived discussions per a phantom email.  If Mike authorized this I will revert myself.--Isotope23 talk 17:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Geoeg request 

message: I was just wondering what the rules were for recusal/acceptance of a case. For instance, in this accept comment, Paul August writes, "Accept. Mongo's behaviour has been problematic." Now, I haven't been around too many arbitration cases, but to me, this seems like Paul August has already made up his mind about the facts of the case. And isn't saying "Mongo's behaviour has been problematic." poisoning the well? Isn't the arbitration committee supposed to be a fair, unbiased group that looks at things even handedly? Does not Paul August saying "Mongo's behaviour has been problematic." mean that he's already made up his mind on Mongo? I could be way off-base here, but I just thought I'd ask. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well considering I presented hard evidence that it was problematic, in addition to the previous arbcom cases where it was found to be problematic he may have taken it from there. If they DON'T think there is a problem they won't accept the case. ViridaeTalk 13:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course his behavior has been problematic. ArbCom's job in this case, were it to be accepted, would be to determine what, if anything, to do about the problematic behavior. "Unbiased" doesn't mean "totally ignorant of an issue until it comes before ArbCom". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Thanks. --Ali'i (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, all named parties (and there might be more names added) will also be examined. Sadly though, I agree...when an arbitrator (now two in fact) make their opinion on the matter known beforehand, we all get to sit back and enjoy a nice little Greek Tragedy...which can only be rectified if indeed the arbitrators also act to stop what will be demonstrated without question to be problematic behavior of other named parties.--MONGO (talk) 07:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, it doesn't have to be....the six arbiters who are active this fall seem to not agree on everything (except the totally obvious).  And I agree, it would be helpful to have a full examination of all parties.  (I'd be surprized if we see it, but one can hope).  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for arbitrators... 

message: There seem to be very significant problems with the current ArbCom set up, which results from inactive members, case load, and fear of being used for 'Drama'.
Theoretically, the Mediation step in the dispute resolution process should screen out a lot of cases. But it only screens out those cases which can be solved by getting the parties involved to agree on a solution. This leaves the bulk of disputes unresolved and taken on to an ArbCom request. Many of which are refused. This has turned the dispute resolution system into steam cooker with the heat turned up too high.
So I'm going to recommend an extra 'layer' between Mediation and ArbCom.
It's work on a adhoc 'tribunal' system. Basically, someone wishing for a tribunal simple has to convince three uninvolved editors to take on the case. All three tribunal members then look at the issue, and take arguments and evidence from those involved. Then after consideration the three uninvolved editors issue a finding, and a recommendation to the community on any actions that should be taken.
Only if the tribunal can not agree on what should be done, or someone involved in the case wishes to appeal it, would the issue progress to the arbcom.
Implementation could be a simple page for posting requests, with subpage for presenting evidence and arguments. Editors wishing to act as tribunal members should just pick a case and agree to take it on. It could be streamlined by limiting discussion to evidence and presented arguments only, and deleting any outside comments or threaded discussions that might be placed on the pages. If the tribunal members feel that further action is needed after they make a finding, they can then post to the relevant notice board to recommend action. Naturally, gaming of this system in any way should be considered disruptive behavior, and risk community sanctions.
I believe this idea would reduce the drama in the current dispute resolution process, and reduce case load for the ArbCom. --Barberio (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds a little bit like the Community Enforceable Mediation system that Durova was overseeing for awhile, although that only applied when the parties to the dispute consented. Is that still active? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A step in between alternative would be to have arbcom divide itself into panels of 3 to hear cases much like a United States court of appeals so that more net cases could be heard, with the entire arbcom hearing cases only if there is a dissent in the panel or other arbcom members wish to review. I have a concern that giving arbitrary editors tribunal powers whose decision would be enforcable by administrators could be open to gaming. For example, a group of 5 editors could rig a "tribunal" case for a fake dispute in which the "tribunal" makes a decision all 5 editors want which then becomes policy and administrators become obligated to enforce, whether actually consistent with policy or not and whether the rest of the community would agree or not. I believe any tribunal whose members are not vetted by the general community would need to have its jurisdiction and the types of decisions that could be enforced very carefully limited. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: To address the issue of out-of-line decisions becoming enforcable, Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation added the requirement of community approval before any decision becomes enforcable, and also added limits to remedies: remedies can be imposed only on the parties, and no third parties or articles can be affected as the result of any decision).  Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The big comlaint I hear with arbcom is that it takes too long. Partly this is due to the complexity of the cases. A possible solution could be solved with more arbitrators and and once the committee takes a case with a net vote of four, the comm members focusing on a few cases each. Just a thought.  — Rlevse • Talk •  16:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem, as we are seeing, is that Arbcom either can not or will not accept all cases that currently have to go through arbitration. The slowness of the process is part of the cause, but not a huge problem in and of itself. -Amarkov moo! 22:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To which cases are you referring?  What makes you think that the Committee declines to hear cases because they are too busy, rather than due to other reasons? Thatcher131 01:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The acceptance system as currently implemented requires a super-majority to accept a case. Choice of this system certainly suggest that acceptance of cases is limited to reduce case load. --Barberio (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The acceptance system has been discussed several previous times. Check the archives of this talk page. Thatcher131 02:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing case load and 'drama' 

message: Is the  subpage actually useful? I highly doubt many administrators scan through there, familiarizing themselves which decisions that need enforcing; it is redundant to the purpose served by WP:AN, where all case summaries are posted, and WP:RFARC, where all cases and their remedies are listed. Also, I'm unsure if /Admin enforcement requested is even complete in its listing of cases which require enforcement. So, I'd like to suggest we retire it (not delete, as it is of historical interest), unless a good use is thought of. Opinions? Picaroon (t) 22:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fairly useless, yes; but I do think that a canonical listing, in some form, of users currently under an editing restriction would be a good thing. Kirill 23:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests will serve the purpose of listing all users sanctioned in cases, giving that it lists remedies and the users these remedies apply to - pretty much the same info /Admin enforcement requested provides. Users placed under editing restrictions by administrators after the close of the case aren't listed at either of these two pages, and although all users sanctioned after a particular case can be found at the logs of blocks and bans (or whatever we call it now), there is no one list of all such users. Would it be worth it to try and group those users altogether? Either way, this doesn't figure into the issue of retiring /Admin enforcement requested. Picaroon (t) 00:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested]] 

message: Perhaps we could remove this request as unconfirmed and as possible trolling until and unless we can verify that the message is actually from Burntsauce.  Something seems off about this, and it's out of process.  Although the message comes from an established user.  Burntsauce, for all his disruption, was (and claimed to be) very familiar with Wikipedia policies.  This so-called appeal, addressed to an uninvolved user rather than ArbCom, has quite a few unnecessary flaws.  The timing is suspect.  We cannot be sure that the editor who posted it isn't trolling, or being trolled by Burntsauce, or being trolled by someone who is not Burntsauce.  I see little chances of this succeeding even if it is for real.  Everything about the original case and the underlying conduct behind it involved weirdness, e.g. one administrator supporting sockpuppets and another operating sockpuppets to try to disrupt Burntsauce's arbcom case.  Two or three ArbCom cases have already arisen out of Burntsauce's disruptive behavior.  There is no harm in waiting, and asking Burntsauce that if the message is his he can email a confirmation to ArbCom from an email known to be his.  There is a harm in continuing this if it turns out to be a hoax.  When the wider community discovers this there is certain to be a lot of consternation, and possibly disruption to other ArbCom cases.  Wikidemo (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Burntsauce has posted essentially the same message on his talk page, so I think we can take it as authentic. Thatcher131 19:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, thatcher.  Yes, I wouldn't dare delete a request from the arbitration page - that's for the Committee or its clerk.  But I do hope they deal with authenticity and propriety of the request for reconsideration quickly rather than risk this becoming yet the latest flare-up here.Wikidemo (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't suggesting that you or any other editor would unilaterally remove it Wikidemo. I meant that it would probably be preferable for the arbiters to actually reject or accept it, even if only to reject it as an out-of-process request, rather than a clerk or arbiter simply removing it as out-of-process.--Isotope23 talk 20:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The clerks are quite within their authority to remove requests by banned users as the instructions and banning policy both clearly say that banned users must appeal directly to Arbcom by email.  However we (Brad a clerk and me a former clerk) both seem willing to leave this up for the time being.  If it becomes a troll magnet I doubt it will survive. Thatcher131 20:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't a question of your authority to do so... I agree that any clerk would be absolutely within the bounds of process to remove it as a proxy request on behalf of a banned editor.  I'm just stating my personal opinion that, in this particular case, I think it would be preferable to have the finality of a decision by the committee on this matter.  Sorry if that wasn't clear.  That said, I also agree with you that if it became a troll or drama magnet, that would change the situation completely.--Isotope23 talk 21:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding the authenticity, anyone who wants a copy of the email (including full headers) need only ask via the e-mail link in my signature. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and feel free to CheckUser me if you feel it necessary, as long as you don't publicly release the IP addresses I edit from. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah.  Even the email headers don't necessarily prove the request really came from Burntsauce unless one already knew what his address was.  The post on the talk page is the best confirmation. Thatcher131 00:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burntsauce "appeal" 

message: Just a few thoughts here. Both of the ArbCom cases or requests I've been following (the Durova one and the request regarding Adam Cuerdon's blocks of MatthewHoffman) have involved, or came to involve, current candidates for the ArbCom elections. What is the feeling generally about this? Should this be taken into account, or should things proceed as normal? I note Adam made a plea for things to be postponed until January, citing exams and some other reasons, but he could equally have mentioned the elections. Durova was a candidate but withdrew, and Giano was (and still is) a candidate. Some people have noted that this can cause appearances of impropriety, and I'm actually sympathetic towards that view, despite being so concerned about the MatthewHoffman case that I considered opening an RfC, but that was pre-empted by Charles (Matthews) going straight to the RFARB stage. There was also a set of enforcements discussed in the Durova case that proposed postponing a proposed block of Giano (which didn't pass) until after the elections. Has this sort of thing (several candidates ending up as named parties in ArbCom cases) happened much before? What, if anything, should be considered and done in such cases? Carcharoth 01:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration cases during the ArbCom elections 

message: I think Jerem43 made a mistake when correcting something in a recent revision and deleted a statement by Akhilleus... Can someone look at the edit history and see if I'm right about this?  I put a note at his talk page, but the text is still missing. futurebird 23:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. That was confusing.  futurebird 23:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I am seriously sorry about that. I didn't realize that I had made the error. - Jeremy (Jerem43 23:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, it's an easy mistake to make, and an easy mistake to fix. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerem43 deleted Akhilleus' comments? 

message: Sometimes, ArbCom will close a case with a remedy, where an editor is warned/reminded not to do something but is not punished. What if the editor ignores the warning/reminder? Is there a process to tell ArbCom that the editor ignored the warning/reminder and should be punished? --Kaypoh (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bringing a new case, typically.  Non-binding remedies are just that: non-binding. Kirill 12:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ArbCom warnings and reminders 

message: Could this page be arranged the same way than some others, where every case is on its subpage which is shown here? Would help with the watchlist, I had difficulties when I was watching this and comments get coming so that nothing in the edit summary indicated which case it was about. Then it's possible to watch only the conversation which you are commenting, and see also new added cases. Calejenden 16:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cases that are accepted and opened have their own subpages.  Requests that have not yet been accepted do not have subpages.  There has been discussion about this in the past (see the archives of this page); such a system has bad points as well as good points.  You might ask again after the new Arbitrators take office in January. Thatcher131 16:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, thank you, I saw some earlier comments. Calejenden 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flow 

message: Regarding the recent Arbitration Committee remedy, I have started a discussion of community bans at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Community Bans. Please discuss there. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration Committee remedy on Community Bans 

message: Could we have a list of areas in which "any editor" may be blocked by any uninvolved admin, with links to the cases? I did not know about the Digwuren case, applying this principle to Eastern Europe (which I approve), until I read the ArbCom page a few mintues ago. Such a list, possibly on or linked from WP:RfAr, would be a great help in dealing with public nuisances. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:General sanctions :) Daniel 05:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of areas? 

message: On October 31st User:TruthCrusader was indefinitely blocked for off-wiki harassment of User:Calton. TruthCrusader maintains that he did not make the off-wiki postings he was blocked for and requested that the blocking admin, User:Jpgordon, provide evidence justifying the block. Jpgordon declined to discuss the matter on the grounds that reviewing the material would further aggravate the harassment by making the attacks known to a wider population. The suggestion was made that only ArbCom should review the evidence because of its inflammatory nature and TruthCrusader thus submitted the matter to ArbCom for review. TruthCrusader states that no response has been forthcoming to date.
Generally, I think the less which is done 'behind closed doors' the better. Making the evidence publicly available exposes it to additional eyes who may see things that a handful of arbitrators do not and thus actually prove the truth of the matter one way or the other. We've recently seen how that works in the !! case. We should only be invoking 'secrecy' in the most extreme of cases where personally identifying information, legal complications, or the like are involved... and then only for the smallest portion of those cases which actually must be kept from the public.
Regardless, it has been a past axiom of ArbCom cases (and common sense) that admins must be prepared to explain and justify their actions. If Jpgordon will not publicly discuss how he determined that TruthCrusader was behind the off-wiki actions attributed to him then at the least we need to hear from ArbCom that they have reviewed the matter. As it stands we've got a user blocked for nearly a month for actions he allegedly committed off-wiki. If he is or may be innocent that's unacceptable. If he is guilty then it is well past time to say so and close this matter out. --CBD 14:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of TruthCrusader block review? 

message: Under the user name of "Tommysun" I was blocked during an arbitration case from editing all science articles. However, there was no reason stated for the block and no evidence was presented and I was not given a chance to defend myself and two requests for an appeal were ignored. I would like to appeal this block, discover for what reason(s) I was blocked, what the evidence is/was presented and how the determination was made to block me. I looked at the template but it does not appear to fit my request.  My question is how would I go about requesting a review? signed Tommysun 209.247.5.16 (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a comment: I found plenty of evidence and discussion, as well as a comment from Tommysun at the Pseudoscience arbitration case.Kww (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I waited a whole day and still no help...The comment above indicates that plenty of evidence was found on the evidence page. (?)  Let's cut to the chase, I edited "Boldly" and inserted a comment by Sandage in his speech during the Centennial celebration of Hubble's birthday, the fact that Hubble did not believe in expansion (the primary assumption of the big bang theory). As you know, it was Hubble's modified equation that gave rise to the "assumption" that redshift indicates expansion (accomplished by his colleagues by adding "C" to the original Hubble equation). Hubble did not believe that the redshift indicateed expansion, instead he attributing redshift to unknown causes "till his dying day" Sandage adds. My edit was reverted, not once but repeatedly. No reason was given for the revert except in one case SA said it was irrelevant. SA is, by his own admission, is an employee of a cosmological Institute and also by his own admission, a supporter of the big bang theory. In spite of this he repeatedly edited the plasma cosmology page which gave rise to the arbitration case mentioned above. As it turned out SA was given a warning and everyone else was banned. My own "bold" edits were described by the opposing group as "aggressive" and subsequently this somehow led to a block from editing science articles. I need to know which takes precedence, the fact or the opinion. Contrary to the opinion of SA, Hubble's opinion is crucial. It very often said in the press that "Hubble proved expansion" when in fact expansion has not been proved (especially by Hubble) and indeed the original theory has been falsified and replaced by Inflation theory (expansion to our universe instantaneously) of which there are 21 different versions none of which have been tested. Science without testing is pseudoscience. Rather than present all the facts of cosmology research. the article in Wikipedia supports the big bang theory and discounts everything else (as of one year ago) So I contend that it is not my "aggressive editing" or my "uncivil" attitude which scares some editors, but my insistence on providing all the facts. I submit that insistence of providing all the facts is not cause for blocking. Tommy Mandel (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Arbitration committee has indicated that they want to review all outstanding sanctions to see whether they should be lifted, modified, or extended.  Probably a specific appeal would not move any faster.  However, if you want to move forward with a specific appeal, contact the Arbitration clerks and see if one has the free time and is willing to help you. Thatcher 02:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request help to file arbitration review case 

message: What happens to cases that will extend into the new year? (In terms of the switchover of members). --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Old arbitrators remain active on them; new arbitrators may become active on them on an opt-in case-by-case basis. Kirill 04:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the retiring arbitrators sometimes opt out as well. Thatcher 04:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elections results 

message: ==== Statement by Rschen7754 ====
NE2 has refused to follow consensus several times, leading to the exhausting of the patience of the U.S. Roads WikiProject. With the current issue at hand, the inclusion of auto trails and city streets within the scope of USRD, NE2 has gone against the consensus (of six editors) and has reverted mainspace and project pages several times. In fact, he said he is willing to ignore consensus. In the Mediation Cabal started shortly thereafter, he declined mediation, fearing that it would lead to concerns about his conduct here. However, this conduct is nothing new. Three previous RFCs have been filed in regards to similar matters. In fact, with the last mediation (being carried out at WT:HWY), even though the consensus was against him, many users just gave up because they were tired of fighting.
And yes, this does remind me of the WP:RFAR/HWY case, where SPUI held a similar attitude (section 7.2.3), and of the subsequent end to SRNC with a refusal to listen to consensus.
:In your above comment, you said that NE2 went against the consensus of six editors. Can you tell me the names of those six editors? AL2TB Gab or Tab 04:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WT:USRD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to Rschen7754's comment 

message: NE2 has refused to follow consensus several times, leading to the exhausting of the patience of the U.S. Roads WikiProject. With the current issue at hand, the inclusion of auto trails and city streets within the scope of USRD, NE2 has gone against the consensus (of six editors) and has reverted mainspace and project pages several times. In fact, he said he is willing to ignore consensus. In the Mediation Cabal started shortly thereafter, he declined mediation, fearing that it would lead to concerns about his conduct here. However, this conduct is nothing new. Three previous RFCs have been filed in regards to similar matters. In fact, with the last mediation (being carried out at WT:HWY), even though the consensus was against him, many users just gave up because they were tired of fighting.
And yes, this does remind me of the WP:RFAR/HWY case, where SPUI held a similar attitude (section 7.2.3), and of the subsequent end to SRNC with a refusal to listen to consensus.
:In your above comment, you said that NE2 went against the consensus of six editors. Can you tell me the names of those six editors? AL2TB Gab or Tab 04:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WT:USRD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Rschen7754 

message: Please can a clerk check this two edits:  and ? I don't know why someone changed "Comment" to "Commentbeh" and deleted the word "uninvolved". Also, the "John Gohde" case should have the name "John Gohde 2" because this is the second case about John Gohde and in the Thomas Basboil case, please add the name of "party 2". --Kaypoh (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not as experienced here as you Kaypoh, and I didn't realise I could ask for a clerk, but I was worried by  too, myself...because with the Statements undefined like that it changes the meaning of some comments, more than you might think, and confuses things. Though I am pretty sure this  changing "Comment" to "Commentbeh" was probably a typo from adding a comment under yours. --Zeraeph (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Thatcher (formerly User:Thatcher131) who did one of those edits is a clerk. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks. There is currently no link to the clerks page from WP:ARBCOM, though there is in the red box at WP:RFARB. There should probably be a link at the top of this page. The clerks page should also make clear when it is better to contact arbitrators directly (in this case, this is the role of clerks). Carcharoth (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Commentbeh" looks like an accident.  I cleaned up the section headers because really, once you get to headers like "Statement by very-slightly-involved-in-the-past-on-the-periphery" you are dealing with window dressing for its own sake.  The clerks will generally look at the content of the statement and the involved parties list when opening the case to decide whether to place statements on the main or talk page, but ultimately "involvement" is determined by the Arbitrators after reviewing the evidence.  The clerk page is linked in both the red "How to" box and at the bottom of the template listing active cases.  Thanks for the reminder about John Ghode. Thatcher 14:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I need a clerk 

message: Arbitrators and others may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Article probation. Jehochman  Talk 15:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question of community authority 

message: I would like to request an arbitration for the article Teofilo Ora. I can't paste the template in the arbitration page. thanks.Kapatidsadiyos (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read through the Dispute resolution process.  Arbitration does not hear content disputes or make rulings on proper article content.  Arbitration deals mainly with serious user conduct problems that have not been resolved after good faith attempts at dispute resolution.  You need to start by discussing your concerns on the article's talk page.  If this does not help, try a Request for Comment or Third opinion, as described in the Dispute Resolution Process document.  As far as your technical problem is concerned, the page is protected to prevent abuse by anonymous users; this method of protection also stops new accounts (less than 4 days old). Thatcher 14:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Arbitration 

message: With respect for the very deep divisions leading to arbitration, and the real world concerns behind them, I'll offer a good faith suggestion to do some collaborative work.  The Palestinian costumes article came to my attention a few days ago.  I'd be glad to help with images and copyediting if the people here would like to help raise that from B-class to GA.  Best regards to all, DurovaCharge! 05:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited there some. Good idea, but maybe you should move it somewhere else now? HG | Talk 18:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This will get archived soon enough.  Thanks for the help. :) DurovaCharge! 19:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A little consensus building?

message: Is this kosher? -- Kendrick7talk 00:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Quadell didn't see my reasoning  for adding Jayjg's name.  I readded him and left a note on Quadell's talk page. Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, I highlighted your reasoning on the arbitration page (see my additional comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Statement by ChrisO and informed Quadell about my comments on his talk page. This was two hours before he removed Jayjg. I don't understand why he should claim an hour later that "no one has given any reason why his name should be listed among those who have recently had ownership issues with Israel/Palestine articles" when I'd done precisely that and informed him of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which Israel/Palestine-related article would that be? I only remember people mentioning Messianic Judaism and Khazars. And it's definitely not appropriate to add parties after the request has been accepted. It does say, afterall, "Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case." – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I left a note on your talk page with evidence from a directly related article, and I readded his name to the case with a note left on the clerk's, Rlevse's, talk page.  As clerk, if he agrees with your position, he can remove Jayjg's name and I won't readd it. Cla68 (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Update:  Morven removed Jayjg's name.  Relevant discussions are on Morven's and Rlevse's talk pages. Cla68 (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Jayjg's removal

message: In case you haven't seen it yet, Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Vote, and you have been asked to ratify this here after the poll closes February 1. You have been asked to ratify the vote between February 1, 2008 and February 10, 2008 and sign off on it. Seems no other other way to get this done so people will actually work on something else. Treat the ratification like a simple AC decision, majority? Just wanted to post an unofficial note here to draw attention to this. Lawrence Cohen 06:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not going to happen I'm afraid. The poll will again demonstrate no-consensus, but we're stuck with rollback because some developer has thought otherwise and there is no redress for the large minority that have opposed this. Arbcom don't want to know.--Docg 09:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was interesting comment on one of the talk pages--I can't recall which now, that someone paraphrased Tim Starling apparently saying that the rollback was needed for purely technical and system operations reasons. The local communities have no say or control over purely operational network matters, do we? Lawrence Cohen 19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe, but could be wrong, that these are the two diffs that may have been paraphrased. , . MBisanz talk 21:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone should just ask the devs to say if there is a technical need for the feature that they see. If so, what say does the community have? We can't tell them how to run their servers. Lawrence Cohen 21:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but there are a lot of features that the developers have technically available, but that particular projects might decide not to enable. In other words, the English Wikipedia might have one set of buttons and the German Wikiquote might decide on a slightly different set, etc. If English Wikipedia adopted a policy that no users are to have rollback, in a way that the community came to consensus on, then the feature could be turned off, or at least administators would know that they are expected not to use it. (Not opining on the merits of the proposed case at this point.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note for the AC - [[Wikipedia:Requests for rollback/Vote]] 

message: I would like to note in response to Sam Blacketer's comment that appeals be restricted to Arbitration enforcement, that although AE provides a central forum for Arbitration enforcement complaints, there is no special reason not to also consider valid complaints to AN and ANI. In the case of appeals of discretionary sanctions, posting at AN and ANI becomes particularly important as AE is handled by a small number of admins, and requiring that sanctions which arise there be appealed there means that the same small number of self-selected admins that imposed the sanctions will be ruling on the appeal. Thatcher 11:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with Thatcher. I feel that AE should be the primary venue for arb enforcement cases the vast majority of the time, but sometimes other options may be the wiser choice--especially on appels of AE cases once it's been to AE once on the same issue, so we should not limit it to AE in 100% of the cases, handling them on a case-by-case basis.  — Rlevse • Talk •  13:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not suggesting ignoring complaints to AN and ANI, but attempting (so far as is possible) to avoid forum shopping by specifying the exact venue. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If a sanction is imposed ad hoc then WP:AE is a good place to appeal, but if the sanction was applied at AE, then a wider venue (one with a different group of admins participating) should not be discouraged. Thatcher 14:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment to arbitrators regarding [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Discretionary sanctions in Armenia-Azerbaijan|Discretionary sanctions in Armenia-Azerbaijan]] 

message: Are users who were not contacted about an RFAR allowed to add themselves to lists of users involved and make statements?  –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He said it. Yes, they are --Phoenix-wiki 22:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can anyone comment?