Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell/Proposed decision

message: It would be of benefit to us all for an arbitrator to just go through the list of Tkorrovi's accusations to say which of them can just be discarded straight away on the basis that the behaviour of which I am accused is not against the rules or is in fact what Wikipedia editors are supposed to do (I am charged with good Wikipedia behaviour several times) etc etc so that I do not waste everyone's time (esp mine) defending myself against charges that are just not going to be upheld.  Paul Beardsell 03:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the way this works.  It would take as long for us to pick out and vote on each point to dismiss as it will for us to pull out those that we need to deal with.  As you can see from the process, we work by writing proposals for anything we feel important and relevant and vote on each.  The only way I could see it as possible for us to reject a whole lot of points in advance is for us to all sit down as a group and decide on each.  We do communicate via mail and IRC of course, but we don't have the sort of meeting of all arbitrators this would require.  The points that we reject as not relevant, we do by not including them in the final decision. -- sannse (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I disagree. The process will continue until the arbitrators decide. That is their power. There are no time limits set, nor were there ever. Paul decided to respond. He needn't have done so. (There are perhaps parallels with the character in Kafka's The Trial, who sought out the judges in order to achieve "justice" and found them reading porn.) The process will continue until the arbs are either bored with having to deal with it or bored with not having dealt with it. There is no hurry. It may be that the ongoing evidence gathering needs to be ongoing. How can the arbs make up their minds until they have made up their minds?
Anyway, check out  to find an example of two wikipedians appearing to discuss the scope of a new article. Does this start with a genuine discussion of how to scope a wikipedia article, and make it interesting? The point of demonstrating this here is to allow comparison with the level of another discussion that is further down when you get to . Matt Stan 22:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for preliminary sifting of Tkorrovi's accusations

message: I can not find the list of arbitrators on this case anywhere.  Doubtless there is one.  Please provide a link.  Paul Beardsell 03:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee contains a list of all Arbitrators; as nobody has recused themselves from this case all Arbitrators that are listed there as Active will be hearing the case. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:16, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
Then I wish to place on record that having recently been in a dispute with Raul654 I requested him to withdraw from the case.  My reasoning is that I do not want to be in the morally ambiguous position where he finds in my favour and I can keep quiet but I am tempted to shout foul if he finds against me.   As you can see he has refused to withdraw.  The reasoning used is too arrogant for me (or, I suggest, any fair minded individual) to stomach:  I would like to appeal this issue to the panel as a whole or to some higher authority.  How do I do that?  If this is well documented all I need by way of response is a link.  Thanks.  Paul Beardsell 04:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Recusal is generally a personal decision, although we often ask for the advice of the other arbitrators in ambiguous situations.  From what you have said here, I see no reason for Raul to recuse - an unrelated conflict with an arbitrator is not an automatic reason for recusal.  If Raul is happy that he is able to look at this case objectively, then I support his decision to hear the case.  As no other arbitrators have spoken up on this point, its fair to assume that they also agree with Raul's decision.  If you wish to communicate with the committee as a whole via email, then a mail to any one of us can be forwarded to all of us.  Or, the "higher authority" is Jimbo - although he is probably unlikely to intervene in this. -- sannse (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who are the arbitrators? 

message: Tkorrovi has recently added to his list of accusations.  When must he stop doing this?  Surely at some point he must be deemed to have completed his list.  I cannot comment, assuming I choose to do so, on a moving target.  Paul Beardsell 22:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no time limit on evidence other than the closing of the case (which would be delayed to allow consideration of any evidence given at a late stage) -- sannse (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference between "accusation" and "evidence".  Question remains.  Paul Beardsell 00:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have the accusations stopped now? 

message: Tkorrovi has presented his evidence in some semblance of approximation to the format requested but a large number of accusations are listed.  The requested format is not useful when such a long list is presented.  Should I choose to respond I need to be able to refer to them one by one.  Can Tkorrovi be directed by the ArbCom to number each of them or will an arbitrator do that task, or will the ArbCom allow me leave to edit his accusations inserting refs to which I can refer?  Paul Beardsell 22:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The format you have used, of quotes and responces is fine -- sannse (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbering the accusations 

message: Psb777 added a principle directly to the proposed decision page. Editors should not do this, and I've left a note for Paul pointing this out. I've listed it here for consideration by the arbitrators.
:Matters must be brought to the ArbCom timeously
:10) The issues brought to the ArbCom must be substantial and on-going and not issues which are no longer current or which are minor.
- David Gerard 12:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We have read it. We just don't agree with it. Ambi 06:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You call this process into disrepute.  There is secret reasoning and secret conclusions, according to you.  Paul Beardsell 06:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I have read your proposal. My answer is: No. HTH. - David Gerard 22:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (I am unsure what HTH means.)  Are you saying that no reason will be given for your decision?  This cannot be \the ArbCom's formal response as this is only a Talk page.  Therefore the response should be on the  proposed decision page.  When do you expect a formal response to my proposed principle will be made there?  Paul Beardsell 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

text: It doesn't make sense that we would waste time with a case that isn't relevant anymore. It's just the case that in this particular incident, it was still relevant, and thus, that that principle was not relevant. Furthermore, there is no statute of limitations, nor will there be in the future. The ArbCom responds to a case if there is a need for a response, ruleslawyering be damned. Ambi 08:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very convenient to be able to dismiss any argument with such a put down.  Especially when what one says becomes the rule.  It is you who is ruleslawyering, not I.  By now you are in a position where you have lost some face and could lose some more.  A good judge would never find himself where you are.  Put the principle on the page, let's see a vote.  Paul Beardsell 10:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

text: To make Ambi's argument here clearer:  The ArbCom would never consider a case which was not relevant because to do this would be a mistake and the ArbCom doesn't make mistakes.  Therefore the case is relevant.  This is ridiculously self-serving "logic", nothing but a circular argument.  Paul Beardsell 10:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There've been several cases where events changed, making the hearing of the case no longer relevant, such as where two parties had resolved a dispute, or one party had permanently left Wikipedia. That's clearly not the case here. Ambi 13:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Principle proposed by Psb777

message: Just to make it clear, I thought at first, that 80.3.32.9 was a sock puppet of either Paul Beardsell or Matthew Stannard, because I had some reason to suspect that (Paul Bearsell used at least one sock puppet named Ataturk before). Later I started to doubt in that, and now I'm (almost) certain, that 80.3.32.9 was a separate user. And also, in spite of his not so good faith intentions at first, all conflicts with 80.3.32.9 are solved now.Tkorrovi 22:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 80.3.32.9

message: The other proposed principles are being neglected in the proposed decision so far.  Is there any plan to make any comments on them?  Paul Beardsell 22:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean the proposal for a principle on timeliness - I agree with Ambi and David's rejection of this.  This is something to assess on a case-by-case basis.  If you are referring to other proposed principles, please be more specific and give a link.  Thanks -- sannse (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not the timeliness principle that I was referring to here.  The ArbCom itself identified 9 principles.  So far they have commented on perhaps only two or three of those.  Paul Beardsell 22:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all principles will have an associated finding of fact or remedy (and not all FoFs will have an associated remedy).  Sometimes stating a principle is enough in itself - we are reminding or informing the participants of the policies and conventions that relate to issues in a case.  Simply doing that may be enough in some cases. That said, there may be other findings as the case progresses -- sannse (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The other "proposed principles" 

message: Thing is, we've all been where you have been. We've all encountered pretty much the same kinds of situations you have encountered. For some reason things didn't work out between you and Paul. Well now the arbitrators are picking up the pieces. Did you grant him the benefit of the doubt? Did you, in other words, assume good faith? Did you attempt, seriously, to make peace with him? These are important questions. They will be asked and an answer will be found. If you have kept to Wikipedia policy then there is no problem. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no accusation by Paul to insult Tkorrovi in the above - Paul was just using the word "tkorrovi" to represent a proper noun, an instance of a person, just as an economist might use a two cows illustration in an economic argument. Matt Stan 22:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I still maintain flies are useful. There was some very clever work done wiring up a fly's brain and then shining lights around to see what the fly did. This demonstrated that the neurological basis of the fly's considerable attentiveness is similar to our own, i.e. all sentient beings (at least from insects onwards) have this ability to predict events, which is one of the ingredients of consciousness. Matt Stan 22:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Insult!  Insult!  Apologise!  That is how Tkorrovi would respond to such a comment were it made by me.  Here find a link to an example of just this and are other links to false accusations of insult by Tkorrovi.  Tkorrovi accuses me of insult in this case over much milder comments by me.  Grunt doubtlessly should consider this insult (i.e. the one in the above paragraph) by Tkorrovi as admissible evidence in this case and add it to the list.  (Tk, for your benefit, that was irony.)  Paul Beardsell 21:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Tony Sidaway on arbitration cases talk page

message: Paul Beardsell 23:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues re Fred Bauder's 'finding of "fact"' 

message: See  - Paul Beardsell 23:53, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  According to Ambi, someone said someone wasn't human 

message: Some of the references being used here to show, supposedly, that I "personally insulted" Tkorrovi are from the evidence I have given at this self same hearing.  All I was doing was repeating what I had said before!  In the real world in e.g. a libel case (which is the closest real world legal equivalent I can think of) you can repeat your so-called "libel" in the court case itself without further penalty, assuming the libel is proved.  The same rule should apply here.  In the famous Oz obscenity trial one was allowed to say "fuck" with impunity.  Here, if I am going to be accused of "personal insult" then I must be allowed to repeat the supposed insults during the procedings.  So, you cannot (well, you can and you do but you should not) criticise me for what I say during the, err, trial except if I am guilty of contempt of court (which I am).  If Tkorrovi or, more to the point, the ArbCom is going to cite instances of my so-called "personal insults" then they should do so directly from when they supposedly occurred.  This is important!  If I am going to plead innocence because (a) they were not "personal insults", or (b) they were not "personal", or if I am going to plead mitigation because (c) they were justified by reason of them being true or (d) they happened such a long time ago it is simply vexatious of Tkorrovi to raise them now, THEN (1) I MUST BE ALLOWED TO REPEAT DURING THE HEARING WHAT I SAID WITHOUT FURTHUR PENALTY and (2) THE ORIGINAL "PERSONAL INSULTS" MUST BE CITED IN ANY FINDINGS AGAINST ME.  Paul Beardsell 00:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The admissibility of evidence 

message: Explanation of my point of view, and where it comes, and my intentions and expectations in creating the article, on Fred's talk page .Tkorrovi 15:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Artificial consciousness

message: It is said twice by Ambi in the proposed decision that I have been bullying Tkorrovi.  From bully I read: "bullying is most often used to describe a form of harassment associated with being performed by a child who is older, stronger, or otherwise more powerful socially, upon weaker peers."  Wikipedia is not a school playground, but in a fight between two equally capable boys, it is unusual to call one of them a bully.  In the scrap between us I suggest Tkorrovi was holding his own end up fairly well, albeit through the underhanded low blows of neglect for the principles of honest argument.  (I note that the ArbCom has yet to censure Tkorrovi for repeated misreprentation.) Ambi is not (yet?) saying I have bullied anyone else other than Tkorrovi.  So here, if I am "older or stronger or otherwise more powerful socially", if Tkorrovi is one of my "weaker peers", then in what way is that?  Is Ambi saying that Tkorrovi is in some way less capable than me?  In what way does Ambi think Tkorrovi is deficient to me?  In what way, according to Ambi, does Tkorrovi deserve special treatment?  Paul Beardsell 20:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullying 

message: Grunt (I think) has wrongly listed some references as being evidence of "personal insult" between me and Tkorrovi.  In addition to the references which refer to procedings here, in this case, and which I argue (above) are therefore inadmissible in the case, is this, currently numbered 26 in the proposed decision.  It is an altercation to which I was not party.  But is evidence (by the questionable standard of such taken in this case only) of "personal attack" by Tkorrovi on another party.  But not me!  Please remove this from being listed under my name in the proposed decision and move it elsewhere under Tkorrovi's name.  Paul Beardsell 21:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong ref in proposed decision 

message: I note now it seems to be acknowledged by the ArbCom that Tkorrovi personnaly attacked/insulted Matt Stan, who has recently been added as a party to the case by Sannse.  This means that Tkorrovi has attacked both Matthew and me.  No one is suggesting I attacked/insulted anyone other than Tkorrovi.  Tkorrovi continues to play the victim on this case and so this newly acknowledged fact seems pertinent and it is missing from the findings.  Paul Beardsell 20:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who attacked whom? 

message: User_talk:Grunt#Tkorrovi_et_al:__Drowning_the_witch  Paul Beardsell 09:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What an "insult" is 

message: I object.  Pending resolution of Ambi's and of Grunt's unsubstantiated, serious and false allegations against me I am against this case being closed.  Grunt has changed his vote, he says, because I have attempted to intimidate the ArbCom.  No evidence offered.  Me pointing out that this is disgraceful behaviour that reflects badly on him and the ArbCom and therefore on Wikipedia is used as evidence against me in this case.  This is not justice.  Ambi accuses me of bullying and despite acknowledging she has offered no evidence to support this allegation and acknowledging that she must find the evidence or withdraw her allegation she has neither presented evidence nor has she withdrawn her allegation.  Indeed:  The allegation stands on the proposed decision page where I am not allowed to comment.  Disgraceful!  I suggest strongly that it is not in Wikipedia's interest nor in the ArbCom's interest to close the case in its current state.  See also Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Motion_to_Close.  Paul Beardsell 10:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motion to close 

message: Coincindence?  See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#ArbCom_resignations.  Paul Beardsell 12:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ArbCom resignations 

message: Please see this suggestion.  Paul Beardsell 13:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative resolution