Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 16

message: I made a request for clarification on 9 September 2006. I am not going to wait any longer and will edit the set of articles related to Sathya Sai Baba according to my interpretation of the arbcom decision. Andries 16:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for clarification regarding [[wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba]]

message: I did not want to interject this irrelevancy on the arb page itself... but has nobody seen the movie Hackers?  (See Plot Summary (with spoiler warning), third paragraph.)  I suspect the inventors of the pool-on-the-roof hoax at this high school (and I suspect, hundreds more around the country) have seen the movie, even if nobody on the ArbCom has.  :)  6SJ7 21:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedians aren't at all humorless. There are some appropriate places to be funny on this site. Taking another user to arbitration isn't one of them, and I hope the user who filed the "Gaither" case understands that now. Newyorkbrad 18:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is that case?? --SunStar Net 00:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The case was rejected: . DarthVader 00:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vivian Gaither HS Arb

message: Regarding the Cbuhl79 case, why have we received only one ArbCom member issuing an opinion regarding accepting this case?  It should be noted that (1) this opinion was issued before three other editors issued statements regarding the importance of accepting this case; and (2) there is a clearer and more in-depth presentation of the evidence at USER:Blaxthos/RfARB_Cbuhl79.  /Blaxthos 04:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ArbCom Participation 

message: Hi,
I have had some problem with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Calton and notised that I am not the only one. Maybe he is dooing a good job and then I hope you excuse me....Just check out someone, please? I for one feel harrassed by him.--Swedenborg 10:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:DR. If you would like to make an arbitration request, follow the directions and do so. This talk page is not dispute resolution, and we're not here to "check him out". Dmcdevit·t 19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could you check out User Calton? 

message: Recently a friend of mine got banned by User:Crzrussian. The admin in question claimed that my friend had been trolling, and thus banned his account, his 2nd account, and his IP indefinately. He later went on to vandalize his User page User:Uncle Mart removing any content he had, and on the talk page of Uncle Marts profile Crzrussian claims that Uncle Mart had deleted several entries from talk pages, where the fact is he only removed entries on his own talk page.
When i asked the Crzrussian to elaborate on the matter at his talk page, he refused which brings me here, since i find the evidence of admin abuse overwhelming. (Cloud02 16:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is not part of the dispute resolution process.  I would start by posting on the administrators' noticeboard.  Admins do tend to stick together so it will be best to take a moderate approach.  Don't call it abuse; ask for a second opinion, and provide some diffs to show your case.  If you can get one or two people to agree that your position has merit, the next step would be an WP:RFC. Thatcher131 16:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Will post it there then.(Cloud02 16:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Crzrussian]] admin abuse 

message: I've pulled out of this arbitration due to too much focus on me and no responses from anyone else actually named in the arbcom. That and the edits I was fighting over have stabilized although other NPOV issues remain for the others involved. NPOV has always been the issue and the reason I tried to get mediation in the first place. That failed because one other would not sign. I have had to leave a defense to an issue brought by an uninvolved party who had personal issues with me from another article. This user SAJordan filed vandalism charges against me after temporarily missing a closing link in a refrence he added and was reprimanded for that. I asked him to strike his testimony from this case as I'm no longer involved and he has refused so caveat lector. Marky48 19:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, a final determination will be up to the arbitrators, but they may consider you a party despite your attempt to withdraw, based on your edits to the article and comments you made on talk pages in relation to the attempted mediation.  I would strongly suggest that you at least keep an eye on the evidence page once the case is opened, so that you can provide counter-evidence to any arguments made against your behavior.  the case should open some time today. Thatcher131 19:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: One cannot back out of arbitration as arbitration is not a voluntary process. The Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction over every contributor to Wikipedia (excepting the Board of Trustees), party or not a party, and may draw in such parties as they see fit, and sanction any and all. You may choose not to participate in the arbitration case, but it is tantamount to refusing to raise a defense in court: If you don't participate, your side will not be heard, and the results may be adverse to your interests. Essjay (Talk) 01:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran-iraq War Arbitration 

message: After reading Bishonen's and Giano's comments, I just noticed that the phrasing "Yes both parties- defendants are notified" was identically used in all three cases on this page. Upon checking, this wording appears has been inserted into the new-case template itself. I agree with Bishonen and Giano that the word "defendant" is inappropriate in the context of a Wikipedia arbitration case, and additionally, I fear that having that wording there may lead to the assumption that named parties have been notified when they actually were not. It does not appear that Fred Bauder deliberately adopted this characterization for this case. To avoid future misunderstandings, I recommend that the template language be changed. Newyorkbrad
:fixed. Thatcher131 22:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted, thanks. I would have addressed this without posting to the case page except that I thought it was important that Bishonen and Giano understand that the characterization wasn't Fred's. Newyorkbrad 22:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Well you can put it back if you want. Thatcher131 22:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add back one sentence which mentions it's been fixed. Newyorkbrad 22:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the template 

message: Why is this threaded discussion entry still here? Should not they be routinely removed? Users have their own statements to post their thoughts, aren't they? --Irpen 22:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it earlier today. Thatcher131 22:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where are clerks?

message: No offense to the other arbitrators, but why does it seem that Fred Bauder is doing most of the work on the arbitration cases? In the case I opened, it seems that so far only Fred has been actively participating in the arbitration. Looking at the other cases, they seem to show the same trend. I understand that many of you may be busy with your own personal lives or other activities on Wikipedia, but I'm also pretty sure that most of you ran for these positions. This is not fair to Fred. BhaiSaab talk 16:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am an elderly retired person. I have a lot of free time. While my other avocations suffer, there is no harm done. I still have time to cut wood and walk the dogs. I note that a few of those running for arbitrator may be interested in doing some of the initial research and proposing. Fred Bauder 17:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that there are also several recent cases in which Dmcdevit has done the primary drafting. Newyorkbrad 17:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's recused from my case which is why I assume he hasn't touched it much. I still hope that though that the upcoming arbcom elections solve this problem, even if "there is no harm done." I know that I wouldn't like to be reading about other people's problems all day while other co-volunteers do not. BhaiSaab talk 17:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disproportionate amount of work for arbitrators 

message: How can I get an Arbcom to recuse himself if he refuses? Were do I go to file this? Travb (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean an admin, or an arbitrator? If you mean an admin, recuse from what? Newyorkbrad 02:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He means arbitrator, and you can't force an arbitrator to recuse, it's a personal decision. In theory, you can appeal to Jimbo, who it the ultimate authority, and can overrule an arbitrator or even the whole arbitration committee.  You could also contact other arbitrators and ask them to weigh in on the workshop page.  Keep in mind that Fred's proposals are not addressing Seabhcan's side of the dispute because Seabhcan is out of town and has not presented evidence.  Significant new proposals may be added next week after Seabhcan presents his evidence.  Also, there have been cases where's Fred's proposals are voted down and new proposals added by the other arbitrators in the voting stage. Thatcher131 02:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have made a motion for me to recuse. I have considered the matter but have found no basis for recusal and responded giving the reasons I find this so. I have placed the the motion on /Proposed decision, if the motion passes, I will recuse. Fred Bauder 22:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Newyorkbrad, Thatcher131, and Fred Bauder for your time. Have a nice evening. It is chilly for this part of the country tonight--65 F. Nice to be inside. Brrr....Travb (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can I get an Arbcom to recuse himself if he refuses?

message: :Quoting Fred to open a new section...
For starters, I think it should be easier to open a case than to decide a case.  Right now a vote of 5-2 will approve an article or even site ban but will not open a case.  It is my understanding that it takes 4 votes for SCOTUS to accept a case—a minority can open a case but it takes a majority to decide.  I also think the issue Jayjg raises that reject votes should count somehow is interesting, but ultimately a red herring.  Arbitrators who oppose hearing a case can make comments that may sway other arbitrators, or use private channels to try and persuade the others. Thatcher131 18:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This and a couple of other nuances of the arbitration policy should probably be reviewed once the new arbitrators are chosen. Newyorkbrad 19:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I applaud the statistical analysis, but I do have a few comments.  First of all, remember that your statistical reporting period is not sufficient to negate the Type I threat -- the change has only been in place for a few weeks.  That there was almost immediately a Type I error should be a red flag.  With regards to the Cbuhl79 affair:  it's very easy now to Monday morning quarterback and say "There wasn't a lot of there there"; however at the time the editor was taking drastically inappropriate actions, including falsely applying warning templates to userspace and making false reports on noticeboards.  There was no indication at the time that he would quit (nor should it have mattered), and regardless of that fact at least four ArbCom members thought his behavior was bad enough to warrant acceptance.  I think the statistics are skewed if you're basing your analysis on "all of 2006" (for Type II) versus five weeks (for Type I, in which there was immediately a Type I error).  I think it is very significant to note the near immediacy of an error following the rule change.  Definitely worth review, IMHO.  /Blaxthos 21:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "What should our policy be and why?"

message: I have moved the other user listed by Thatcher131 from the arbtration page. After reading up on the policy I can see no grounds for a third party adding them and loading the proceedings.  I do not consider that any significant issues lie between myself and any other contributor, nor that their actions have contributed to the current situation. The policy issue is between Luis and I.
* - no problem. New contributor, needs help rather vandal warnings, valid point from his own Indian perspective.
* - non-aggressive editor. I believe I can find a middle ground following policy.
* - no conflicts.
* - non-aggressive editor, even as part of BKWSU IT team, if encouraged by Riveros11. I believe we can find a middle ground following policy.
* - no conflicts.
* - non-active. 
* - as 'Chief of Global PR for the BKWSU and Multi-Media, it would have been interesting to have BK Karuna on board but appears to have dropped out in July.
* - non-active
* - inactive. User name inactive/barred due to similarity of name to website contrary to policy.
:Well, of course you don't have any conflicts with TalkAbout, but this arbitration will examine editing the BKWS article by all parties, and he has reinstated some of your edits that were deleted by others.  Bkismonb may be non-aggressive but he has also rather disturbingly indicated a sense of owership about the article.  Searchin man was accused by you of being a sockpuppet of Riveros11.  They may or may not be active and may or may not present evidence, but listing them as parties gives the arbitrators a chance to examine the entire case, and gives them the chance to participate should they choose to. Thatcher131 16:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved other users

message: Riveros11 continues even on these arbitration pages to make prejudicial attacks. I added thebibliography section in 2 April 2006 and continued to add the majority to it.   Regarding my failure to once provide references October 2006 being the high point of the original article, I have continued to provide the majority of first 23 references the majority of which still remain on the page. 
With regards to my making personal disclosures about the user, since 3 April 2006 as 70.119.13.124 he has signed comments as Luis or " Luis Alberto Riveros" , in this case including copy of an email sent to the Wikipedia Foundation, making no effort to hide it. 195.82.106.244 12:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal disclosures and Accusation of non-provision of citations  

message: It would look better if the arbitrators made it clearer if they were rejecting the case because (a) they have briefly examined the dispute and think there is no case to answer, or (b) the person bringing the case has not provided enough details so the arbitrators cannot even begin to decide whether there is a case to answer. Carcharoth 00:12, 11 December 2006
:This is my own opinion based on experience, but I suspect the reason for rejection is (3), no prior dispute resolution.  The arbitrators generally only accept cases where there have been serious attempts at resolution that have failed, partly due to workload, and partly because arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution and almost everyone is happier with a negotiated or consensus settlement.  It is certainly possible for someone to cross the line between efficiently "on the job" and ownership. Something along the lines of extensive talk page discussion or an RFC against Ral315 showing strong backing for such a position would generally be a prerequisite for accepting a case. Thatcher131 16:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. Carcharoth 16:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejection (reply to Caracharoth) 

message: In the open case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions, one of the issues is a series of several hundred non-consensus page moves.  Evidently even with the open case though, one of the involved users,  is continuing with these moves.  How do I go about requesting an immediate injunction, to get the moves to stop so that the ArbCom case can continue without interference? --Elonka 23:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There would be a location for requesting a temporary injunction on the /Workshop page of the case. After discussion, if one of the arbitrators believes the proposal has merit, it would be posted to /Proposed Decision (which only the arbitrators can edit) for a vote. Newyorkbrad 23:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, I took a stab a presenting it...  Is this in the proper format? . --Elonka 23:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm just a bystander here (and also have no view on the merits of your proposal), but it looks basically well presented to me. You should replace the section heading "template" with the caption, and including a few diffs never hurt anyone, either. Beyond that, I'm sure the Clerk for the case or one of the Arbitrators will do any necessary tidying. Newyorkbrad 23:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your help.  :) --Elonka 00:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for injunction

message: Hello. An excerpt of an IRC log were placed on and were subsequently removed from the project's talk page. I seek clarification from the Committee as to the extent to which we are we permitted to or prohibited from discussing the content contained in this excerpt (without direct quotations, of course). Since I have already commented on these, I would like to know whether I am in breach of the rules by doing so, so that, if applicable, I could rectify this and remove my comment accordingly. The pertinent comments are here. El_C 00:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion needs to go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard in order to attempt to resolve the general questions involved regarding nasty behavior on IRC channels. The arbitrators did find Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_personal_attacks in the course of our discussions. It would probably be best not to rely on those particular logs or discuss their details, but the questions they raise, and the other questions raised regarding hostile or dismissive comments on IRC need to be discussed. I doubt anyone would fault you for your comments so far. Fred Bauder 15:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Fred. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my question. While I do have thoughts regarding the particulars of the aforementioned excerpt, I will keep these confined to my mind, or at least, offwiki. For now. El_C 17:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IRC logs

message: #On formal grounds, this is not a proper request.  There is no provision at Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy that allows such a motion to a long-closed (3 months) case.
#On ethical grounds, this is not proper, as we see three support votes arrive within 13 minutes.  It is so exceptionally rare that three votes appear on any proposal on any side of the issue that it appears that the voters were involved and therefore should have recused.
#On legal grounds, this is entirely inappropriate.  Civility sanctions were considered in the original RFAR, and they were rejected.  In other words, that evidence was considered, those findings were made, and those motions were considered.  Barring a new evidence phase with new evidence of new wrongdoings, there is no way to overturn and re-arbitrate in motion form.  No venue for consideration or deliberation is presented here.
This is ill considered and illicit.  Furthermore, I would add that Giano has already suffered death by a thousand pricks, as people have already been blocking him whenever they've felt like it.  These blocks have been instantly reversed in every instance.  Therefore, the "penalty" is already status quo.  Additionally, given the way that WP:AN and WP:AN/I is in flames due to a wedge of people pushing at Giano and a much larger group resisting, and given the fact that Jimbo recently unblocked Giano, this motion would prove to be far more disruptive than Giano saying that he doesn't expect Doc Glasgow to understand what it means to not talk behind people's backs!  The motion is vindictive, and that's not what ArbCom does.  Geogre 03:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Geogre, this is arbitration, and not the place for streams of consciousness or lawyering. Most of what you've said here is nothing but procedural. I'm not interested in a circular argument, so here are a few short facts. Motions of this type are common; your "formal grounds" are simply factually incorrect. There are no "legal grounds" upon which to reject a motion: you seem to be under the misconception that ArbCom is a judicial body, when it isn't. The basis of this motion is continued incivility, not the old cases. Your accusations that this is "illicit," "vindictive," or that I and the other two are involved in some way have no basis whatsoever, and border on insulting. Please don't make such idle claims without evidence; resorting to ad hominem while skirting the actual basis for the proposal is unwelcome. Dmcdevit·t 03:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For there to be "continued incivility," there would have to be a finding of incivility to begin with, no?  Reading the AN/I thread, I'm more and more convinced that certain parties are baiting him. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've already commented on a couple of other pages that I was surprised to see this motion in a closed case presented for immediate voting, without at least providing the subject and others with an opportunity to comment on the proposal. Newyorkbrad 03:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much worse, it appears the damage has already been done. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If it has or has not, the principle remains important, and this motion is not appropriate.  Geogre 04:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not in dispute with Giano. I don't know what we'd be mediating. I've been trying to de-escalate the community conflict all week, and I've no idea why Giano appeared on my talk page with personal attacks.--Docg 12:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to reject

message: Since it appears that we are revisiting Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, I went back and read through some of the pages associated with that case. The situation here bears distressingly similar hallmarks to what happened then. I would suggest that the best solution might be to community ban all those involved in the latest contremps for two weeks and wait, with baited breath, to see if the encyclopedia collapses around our ears. I suspect that there might be stronger consensus in the community to collectively identify those involved and carry out such a ban than some of those involved might realise.
Failing that, it was instructive to see that the remedies included: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano#Jdforrester_reminded: "Jdforrester is reminded to maintain decorum appropriate for an Arbitrator."
I would respectfully suggest that the time has come for this to extend outside Wikipedia, and that arbitrators, who should be role models for the community, should be expected to display decorum when discussing Wikipedia on blogs, in newspaper interviews, IRC channels, e-mails, personal websites, and so forth, as well as when representing Wikipedia in their official roles.
If this is thought to be workable, will one of the arbitrators consider bringing a motion to return to the Jdforrester remedy and modifying or restating it in an appropriate way? That would be better than the rather pathetic edit warring that is going on at the moment over these "IRC logs" in the edit history of this page. Carcharoth 23:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm obviously having a stupid day - exactly what is it you are saying here? Spartaz 18:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's possibly necessary to have seen the logs that Giano posted in order to fully understand the above comment. I am not, of course, going to post them again, and I assume the edits have now all been oversighted, so I'm not entirely sure how that could be resolved – Gurch 19:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are still available in edit histories, at the least.  And that probably ought to remain the case.  Now that the information has been made public, it's hard to argue that rules about handling secrets can still apply, if they ever should have.  Regards, Ben Aveling 20:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In response to Spartaz, I guess what I am proposing here is that if there is a formal recognition (through a new motion on a prior arbitration case) that Giano has been incivil, it would make sense to also formally recognise that Giano might have been baited. Baiting someone is pure trolling behaviour, and if it is happening, needs to stop. In effect, this makes my proposal a more formal version of Doc  Glasgow's (Doc g's) proposal above under "a call for some creative thinking". Carcharoth 20:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Baiting someone is pure trolling behaviour" – In that case, it might be more civil for us to wait "with bated breath" rather than "with baited breath". Plus, you never know what you might catch. (Leggo my tongue!) – SAJordan talkcontribs 14:47, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! See here for a discussion of the spelling of that phrase. I did notice, later, that my spelling could be considered a pun, but decided not to change it. Carcharoth 18:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop is reopened.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Several months ago?  Wow.  Giano must not have been posting very hot stuff.  I have pointed out that reopening that /Workshop is not going to be very helpful, as we're talking about very, very new wine in very old skins.  (It makes them burst.)  Geogre 00:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisiting [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano]] 

message: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop#.28Dec_2006.29_A_Modest_Proposal - bring on the rotten tomatoes - David Gerard 20:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It hardly seems conductive to criticise a user for past misconduct when they are trying to act in a matter following proper conduct in the present.  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not certain what you mean by "conductive." I offer some praise, as well as criticism. El_C 00:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I misread your comment as saying he said those things in the past.  I apologize.  I would like to note that he appears to be attempting to be facetious, but I myself don't feel sarcasm is terribly helpful in this kind of matter.  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apology accepted, gladly. Yes, I realize that the aim is facetious, but I expect greater sensitivity & more diplomatic language. El_C 00:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Everyone has their ways of saying things, but I think Gerrard could have tempered his sarcasm a little, at the least.  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A modest proposal in the Giano mess