Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 3

message: While the AC can wait if it pleases, it appears to me that, with three recusals, there are only eight active arbitrators able to cast votes on Ollieplatt's request, and that four reject votes are therefore sufficient to reject the complaint.  I may not remember the rules correctly, and the AC may wish to leave the request up for longer if it wishes, but I thought that, since I'd noticed, and since often people forget to correct the majority needed when there are multiple recusals, I'd leave a note.  Arbitrators can act or not as they see fit. :-) Jwrosenzweig 23:21, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The way the policy is worded (Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Requests), it's not a majority "reject" that rejects a complaint but the lack of four votes to accept, so while there are still four active arbitrators who could accept the request is still open (unless there are not four accepts after a week).  Personally I'd like to see this part of the policy change -- sannse (talk) 20:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request rejected?

message: Subject can be seen here: WP:AN#CheeseDreams_socks
I would like the ArbCom to kindly clarify on the ruling regarding to CD's sockpuppets.  Also, I would like the ArbCom to kindly clarify as to what extent on Christianity articles: Does this mean any article relating to Christianity?  Does this mean any article relating to Jesus?  Thank you. -- AllyUnion (talk) 20:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: She is banned from editing articles on topics related to Christianity. Ambi 23:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CheeseDreams' Sockpuppets 

message: AFU created an orphaned subpage and is going around pointing to it as an "open RFAr against dbachmann". Without as much as having recognized the ruling against himself. This is harassment. Can we remove that subpage, please? Also, I have no intention to keep cleaning up after AFU. The ruling against him is very lenient, imho, considering his refusal to recognize WP principles and procedure (never mind Wikiquette), but at least there is a ruling against him now, and somebody should prevent him from this sort of disruption. dab (ᛏ) 08:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it to his userspace and made its lack of official status clear. AfU can keep pointing to it but he'll just make himself look foolish if he does. —Charles P. (Mirv) 09:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Antifinnugor

message: "Other measures need to be tried first. Arbitration is a last resort only."
: I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, as I have documented on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Axon/Evidence, every other measure available has been tried first. The affected party has refused to participate in any discussion. The next step, should the request for arbitration be denied, is either to engage in an interminable edit war or abandon Wikipedia to the wolves.
"To take the talk page comments as an example - Axon objects to BBlackmoor toposting and BBlackmoor objects to Axon moving comments about."
:Not exactly: Axon objects to my posting any comments whatsoever, regardless of where I place them, and I object to his moving comments willy nilly so that the discussion -- any discussion -- becomes impossible to follow. Again, this is documented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Axon/Evidence.
"See how easy it is. Is there a need for the AC to decree?"
:Every other avenue has been attempted, to no avail, as you can see documented at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Axon/Evidence. Please consider looking at that; it may cause you to change your vote.
"As for the content issue, that's for the community to decide."
:On the matter of relevance, yes: I agree, and I have solicited community involvement several times for this purpose -- discussion which Axon has consistently abstained from and ignored (other than scrambling it to make it incomprehensible). On the matters of NPOV or just simple factuality, should not Wikipedia's policies should be sufficient for the Arbcom to take action against a persistent, habitual offender?
"For an obscure topic surveys should perhaps last longer than two weeks and rfc's three weeks."
:What do you recommend -- to simply do the same thing over and over, to try over and over to get Axon to participate in any kind of discussion, to try over and over to convince him that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, to revert his smarmy POV editorializing over and over, until either Axon or myself die of old age? How many months should I wait before I decide that Wikipedia's dispute process is simply not working, because only one person is actually interested in resolving the dispute? -- Bblackmoor 23:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems reasonable: I'm willing to give it a go. --Axon 17:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments from Theresa Knott 

message: Due to  where CheeseDreams stated that "I am suggesting to others how to do it" in answer to my question "Are you suggesting that you will vandalise Wikipedia on purpose?", and also in view of her adding increasingly bizarre ArbCom requests, I would request that she be forbidden from editing any page except her talk page and her ArbCom page. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't notice this until Feb 16th (sorry!), by which time she hadn't drowned us in spam. So it's probably not an urgent danger of the injunction sort (nor one the injuncted would listen to). Probably one to put on WP:AN as something to watch out for, though - David Gerard 00:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urgent injunction request 

message: At least at the moment, the comments from the arbitrators suggest that they might be leaning towards dismissing User:SchmuckyTheCat & User:Instantnood as a content dispute. Based on the comments and evidence that the participants have provided so far, I would probably be thinking the same thing. I feel, however, that the arbitrators should look deeper into the situation because I think that there are both behavioural and policy issues involved (along with some personal or personality conflicts to make matters worse). I want to emphasize that I think that there are problems with both side of this issue (It takes at least two to have an edit war.)
# I think that the behaviour and comments from the participants on both sides have been pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable for the Wikipedia. (I would include those that certified the Instantnood RFC, and especially Huaiwei as a participant.)
# There seems to be an ever-widening number of China-related articles, categories, and templates where this dispute is occurring (not to mention on various user's Talk pages).
# Neither side seems to be interested in compromise or Wikipedia:consensus, and insists that their view is NPOV.
# Despite the recent Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Instantnood where the comments seems mostly in Instantnood's favour, SchmuckyTheCat has decided to file this RFAR without first trying mediation. Although I doubt that either side would agree to it, mediation is probably what this case really needs.
# Since part of this dispute involves a debate about Wikipedia policy (specifically Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)), I find it hard not to think that this might be an attempt to intimidate or silence one of the more passionate persons in that discussion.
If I may be bold, I would like to make some suggestions for the arbitrators:
# Strongly recommend that both sides get some help from an Advocate or someone else familiar with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedures to help with their comments and evidence.
# Strongly suggest that both sides consider mediation (with an implied or even stated threat that the Arbitrators will look very closely at everybody's actions if they have to seriously consider this RFAR).
# Limit everyone involved to one revert/article/day for any article that has even the remotest connection to China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau, Singapore, etc. (e.g. 99 Ranch Market).
# Because there are articles where neither side looks good, both sides may not present any evidence from those articles. The Arbitrators might think about asking one or two respected Wikipedians to act as provide an outside view, or even act as independent investigators, in this case
AsylumInmate 08:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  re:[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:SchmuckyTheCat & User:Instantnood]] 

message: discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  spades and their names 

message: The RfAr against Instantnood is now joined by jguk.  What's preventing this from moving forward?
SchmuckyTheCat 15:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I spoke to Grunt on IRC to see why they have not taken the case. He has since amended his comment on the Arbitration request. I think you need to express what the problem is using fewer words. IE We shouldn't be trying to throw the book at him now, but just express quickly what the problem is (illustrated by a select few, rather than all possible, diffs) and what we want done about it, jguk 16:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me revoke my previous comment in this regard, since it was not the key. The key is: I found repetitive voting behavior targeting on Taiwan related articles without a consensus support and irrespectful toward the previous voting result is not only unwarranted, disrupting but also disturbing.--Mababa 00:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RfAr:Instantnood