Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 2

message: Above it is said that being on the ArbCom is a thankless task.  That there will always be complaints.  But then this fact is used to seemingly say that all complaints are without merit.  Just because some (or many) are without merit does not mean that all are.  Yet the ArbCom seemingly never admits it is wrong or that it has made a mistake.  It seems to be under the misaprehension that admitting a mistake is a sign of weakness.  To the contrary.  I think the ArbCom as often as not makes Wikipedia look silly.  I also think that the existence of the ArbCom allows for some vexatious complaints.  I am not sure what the solution is but a tentative suggestion is the appointment of an ombudsman who will be tasked with ensuring that the ArbCom is seen to act reasonably.  Appearances count and it all looks a sorry mess right now.  Paul Beardsell 00:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We have an ombudsman. Ambi 02:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ombudsman? 

message: Why are they called "arbitrators" and not just "arbiters"? 205.217.105.2 16:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they arbitrate, they don't arbite! -Silence 06:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So this parrot kept biting me, and I asked the pirate that owned him, "What's he called?", and said "Arrrrr. . . Biter!" Then I asked him what he looked for in a good modem, and he answered "Arrrr. . . Bitrate!" (Thanks, I'll be here all week.) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 22:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor issue of semantics

message: I have had some thoughts on Arbitration Committee appointment, see here (ArbCom Elections Dec05) for discussion. FT2 18:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Election suggestion

message: I feel that suffrage in these elections are rather arbitrary, as a person could be both a long-term member and have substantial quantities of edits without being a good Wikipedian, while a rather new but obviously dedicated user is an upstanding Wikipedian who is being prevented from voting by qualifications that don't reflect their dedication to Wikipedia. 
As to edit-count, I would think a more proportional standard applied to their time registered would be appropriate. Additionally, a measurement of how often a person's edits are reverted could be a qualifier. Smeggysmeg 05:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suffrage

message: *10.49
User:Musical Linguist presents at Evidence: This post and others also show that he was not "forced to abandon" Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence&diff=34739827&oldid=34738996#11_November_2005,[]. This is an abuse of this User's  Administrator capacity, is made in poor faith, is  an attempt to lead/insert evidence whilst not becoming a party, and is a dishonestly described  edit. This  reveals  the User's cabal membership and propensity for bad faith attack upon EffK. I request that this  edit be adjudged as making  of Musical Linguist a Party to this  Arbitratation of me / or the  denialist clerical revisionists in Wikipedia. Ends /finish EffK 12:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After repeated effort the evidence is uploaded. EffK 17:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 11 January 2005

message: This page is on my watchlist, and when I read the beginning of his post, I was actually going to offer to upload evidence for him, if he had browser problems. Then I saw that his post was about me!!!
The diff that EffK supplies show that I made two additions to the evidence page of his RfAr. My edit summary says: Is there a software bug? Last post "ate up" two previous ones! (That happened to me too recently.)
Occasionally a wikipedian, while making a post to a talk page, deletes something added by a previous contributor. The deleted post could be a personal attack, a rant, a strong piece of POV pushing, or a completely off-topic post. Such deletions are, in my opinion, sometimes warranted, sometimes not. Such removals often cause offense.
It can also happen that someone edits a talk page, and as well as the addition he has made, there is a deletion of a previous post from another contributor, or even from more than one. This happens completely against the intention of the editor, and there is no "edit conflict" warning. Sometimes the posts that get deleted were made several hours before.  I have no idea why this happens, but have sometimes seen people getting very indignant because they think that another editor deleted their post on purpose.
In adding a comment to a talk page, I recently wiped out the post of the previous editor. I don't know how it happened. Luckily, the editor who came after me assumed good faith and just restored it without comment.  More recently, Str1977 accidentally wiped out two posts while making his own. When it was drawn to his attention, he apologized and restored them.
The edit history relevant to EffK's accusation against me will show the following diffs:
:10:49, 11 January 2006 Musical Linguist (Is there a software bug? Last post "ate up" two previous ones! (That happened to me too recently.)) 
:10:35, 11 January 2006 Str1977 m 
:10:18, 11 January 2006  EffK (→Evidence presented by EffK - Removal of Reichskonkordat)
:20:37, 10 January 2006 Robert McClenon (→03 January 2006) 
:17:50, 10 January 2006 Str1977 (→Evidence presented by Str1977 from his confrontation with FK)
A very brief look will show immediately that Robert McClenon added the words: This post and others also show that he was not "forced to abandon" Wikipedia at 20:37 on 10 January; that EffK added evidence for 30 August 2005 at 10:18 on 11 January; that Str1977 added to his own 10 January 2006 evidence seventeen minutes later at 10:35; that the two previous edits got swallowed up at the same time; and that I restored those deleted edits at 10:49, with no additions of my own and with an edit summary commenting on the fact that they had probably been deleted through a software bug.
To reply to each of EffK's accusations:
#I did not use any administrator's powers in making that edit. 
#My edit was made in good faith, as I was trying to undo the result of a software glitch, and was also trying to spare Str1977 a possible accusation of having wiped out the posts on purpose.
#I made no attempt to insert my own evidence, although to do so is not prohibited, and although I do have diffs that show EffK being less than civil to me, including one where, editing while not logged in, he seems to compare my promotion to adminship to Hitler's rise to power. I merely readded Robert McClenon's evidence and EffK's own evidence (which I think he should have noticed before making his latest accusation).
#There is nothing dishonest in my edit summary. Perhaps I could have been a little clearer and stated that I was restoring these two edits. But I assumed that it was sufficient, while reinserting them, simply to state that they had been deleted.
#I can't comment on the "cabal membership" statement, as I have no idea what he is talking about.
#I do not have a "propensity for bad faith attack upon EffK". I have never made any kind of attack on him; nor have I felt any wish to do so. I have reverted some of his editing, though not frequently; and, at a time when I was extremely busy with college work, I have taken a lot of time to respond to his concerns, possibly adding to his frustration, which I regret. I am not involved in this case, other than that I was a witness some months ago to the way he filled up the Benedict XVI talk page with several extremely long posts which had nothing to do with editing the article.
EffK, you have made utterly false accusations of abuse of administratorship and dishonest edit summary, among other things. You have also taken up over half an hour of my time in responding (and you may note from my user page and talk page that I am very busy at the moment and am trying to contribute less to Wikipedia until the end of the month). I will, nevertheless, accept your apology if you choose to make one, and continue to wish you well, regardless. AnnH (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Musical Linguist's response to accusations against her

message: I am very offended. EffK 19:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: EffK 20:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I think I missed some of that. Could you repeat? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yhis is a work

message: Yes indeed, you should have been more careful to show that you had not written that of McClenon's, but it appeared that you had. Your name was up as the editor of the diff. I can hardly be blamed for seeing your statement as your statement. And, Yes, you have shown bad faith by joining in attack on me at his earlier Rfc, another Straw man attack to deflect from the sourced truth. You were in bad faith in estimating that I have a personal grudge against this Church. And You remain in bad faith for never answering your reduction of 30 odd priests to one or was it zero in the Ferns Scandal, and you remain in bad faith in not accounting for your removal(as my POV/error) of the scandalous Irish government deal struck with the Church for 100 million(now 900 in costs to them), and you remain in bad faith for removing the priestly rebellion, after one priest went public.By demanding source after the entire was in the media, you are denying my good faith and provoking further identification of my whereabouts. You answered jesuitically concerning the papal secrecy clause, and distorted or removed NPOV  I used to  balance a disgusting Article.  I also remind you that you came as close to blackmailing-setting a condition for your answering  re that Sex Abuse as it was possible to approach. You made me apologise to a massive over-reaction in the example of Str1977 German forebear. I did not say that his forebear tried to kill mine, and succeeded, actually, I said he might have had some centre party Connection, as some motive for Str1977 protecting the Centre Article, and his over-reaction(typically Strawman) to contemporary widespread german political memory and shame. I do still believe that Str1977 must have a political connection to the early party, or to the present little new Centre party factions rearing their heads in Germany now. I had to accede to that pressure, but you didn't keep to your bargain, and complete your answer at Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal.
I believe if I had to I could show several assumption of bad faith edits, aimed at Strawman demolition of verifiable source. You have consistently assumed my bad faith, and Str1977's veracity, and gone and chosen not to accept asny conditioning  of this your this response through my sourced justifications at many nercessary discussions, therefore I do not accept your denial of knowledge of the denialist clerical revisionism cabal. You have voluntarily assisted the cabal many times despite my good faith verifiability, and this effort of yours in Evidence shows you are still partisan and willing to be so, or you should have said in the diff-tag that you had been requested to assist.  If you are completely naive, then I truly am sorry, for you, for my assumption of intelligence, and for Wikipedia being so populated. I will show diffs here if you desire.
I will clearly accept that I jumped to a natural conclusion that you wrote that which you were visible as writing. I believe all the rest shows me your bias and poor faith,preceding your Adminshipwhich I regret you and your friends displaying. I therefore make no personal attack in recognising bias through assumption of bad faith. As you know I asked repeatedly for you to account for your removals.  You should not have joined with the others in the cabal, and  you are wrong in so helping Str1977 at this trial and everywhere, and you should not say you know nothing of Hitler and then show otherwise by minutiae corrections and voting off clearly verifiable material from Wikipedia. You should not whitewash the sex Abuse page, and you should still explain what gives you the right to display bad faith to me in qualifying my contribution as no more than POV/unsourced ill-written error . Apart from all that- I do not and did not look for you to join in the bad faith attack made on my integrity, and I suggest to you that, if I remain here, which is dependant on a guilt being cast at your fellow catholic-biased editors, that you will be able to renew your un-biased capacities by distancing yourself from such faith-based editing policy. Go back and undo the damage you mischievously made at Sex Abuse, badly tagged, and never accounted for. Do not abuse my intentions by stating even to me that I am an anti-catholic. I assert that the papacy , as sourced, did what it did, and the logic is that it was hypocrisy. Logic is universal, not mine alone, actually.  I source my contentions, and you and your friends rubbish this source against WP principles. As to your waste of half an hour- You have contributed to my waste of more than half a year, and against clear Wikipedia principle of Verifiability. In being so against this principle and  the assumption of good faith, you have joined in cabal wrong. Apart from that I am sorry, and now I equally list this under your response at my Trial. 
I note that you thus far do not wish to enter the Evidence pages- even though you know that I have now used up my permitted defensive diff-count, and therefor you have a virtual open-goal. Considering your previous eagerness to combine against me on all VfD's and RfC, and generally, this is inconsistant. I itemised my witness to your bias at your vote for Administrator, and it still holds several truths. I would say to all rational persons at Wikipedia that you Musical Linguist are a part of their faith revisionism problem, if Wikipedia is to become a respectable source. 
EffK 20:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: EffK 20:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I think I missed some of that. Could you repeat? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: EffK answer to Musical Linguist Protestations

message: I am very , extremely offended. EffK 19:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a work

message: Hello, I am requesting help with a particular admin here that has stated I could be banned for what my personal position is on discussing matters with other Wikipedians. For some background information and I also want to clearly state my problem. I joined Wikipedia in December of 2005 in response to the actions taken concerning the wiki article "wehatetech" or "we hate tech." The article has been pulled several times and I do understand that once it's voted on somehow, not exactly clear on that, it's removed from the encyclopedia. I am NOT here to fight for that particular article. i understand that there is a guideline for articles, BUT my observation and opinion is that the rules were not followed properly in the process of deletion. Why am I still here? Well, in a nutshell, I have seen people removed from the site or blocked for various reasons I also do not agree with, but it up to those individual people to address their removal. I decided to stay in order to provide constructive criticism of the deletion process and to add another viewpoint to the issue. I feel improperly judged, reading from responses to my post, a "one issue candidate" and have been threatened with removal from the site, being a sock-puppet for "we hate tech" and accused of "cluttering" talk pages.
My purpose is not to clutter the site or be on any type of mission to tear down Wikipedia. I wish to understand why certain things happen here and hope to add thoughtful insight and more information to topics in order to resolve an issue. I do feel like I am being pushed around and generally really upset with the whole process with a select group of individuals either working behind the scenes or posting on my talk page. Two Wikipedians have stood out in this whole situation, User:Haikupoet and admin User:Zoe. I have had several exchanges with both, with Haikupoet moving one comment and then deleting my response to because I was under the impression that it was deleted. My response comment was then deleted, which resulted in the blocking User:Xerves. The block happened due to a supposed "legal threat" by "Zoe" which has now threatened me with the same. It's not MY forum I am promoting. I am a member of such forum and website http://www.wehatetech.com and I am NOT trying to promote in the first place.
I AM promoting that fellow Wikipedians discuss issues and not stomp over other postings by others. I am being totally honest and upfront. I do not have a hidden agenda. Have I been totally innocent? No, there are two comments / edits on my behalf that broke regulation. i was dealt with in a proper manner by those admins and I am thankful for that. If further investigation yields that I be removed from Wikipedia then so be it, as long as I am adequately told as to such infractions. i only wish to resolve this issue. i have deleted none of my post and will not edit any of my post to make myself appear in a different light. Everything is available through my user history.
Thank you. Kmac1036 23:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings, Kmac. Your complaint would be more appropriate at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you move it there, you're more likely to get a response. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 23:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting assistance with a Wiki Admin 

message: A proposal by Raul654 has been made for a Clerks' Office for the Arbitration Committee. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerk's office for the proposal and Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerk%27s_office for discussion. David | Talk 19:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration Committee Clerk's Office 

message: Since the list changed based on Jimbo's announcement, should the date change too? I'd fix it myself but I got edit conflicts twice, perhaps someone who is fixing things already could do it too? ++Lar: t/c 21:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is Jimbo's announcement? Paul August ☎ 22:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mailing list.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the page now say that each tranche has five members? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed :) Raul654 01:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Where does it say that? Raul654 07:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but that's what I remembered. Everyking 07:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, the intent was to have the new ArbCom instated and active by feb 1st at the latest, thus giving people (by which I mean Jimbo) some time for consideration after the election ended. There's no harm in doing it faster than that, WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Radiant_>|< 13:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active date 

message: Hello, Arbcom.  What would you think, on the main arbcom page, of having, instead of or in addition to those (somewhat confusing) e-mail addresses (member at whatever.com), something like this: e-mail this arbitrator.  It looks better, it's actually marginally more spam-proof, and in my view it would be easier to use.  If you're interested, I'm happy to add or switch them myself.  Thanks.  Chick Bowen 00:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably a good idea. Raul654 00:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  All but yours, Raul, since you're listed as "away." Chick Bowen 01:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  e-mails on active list? 

message: Kelly Martin resigned. A logged in user, and then an anon-IP, changed the text to say that Kelly Martin either was unelected or resigned "during an unsuccessful reelection bid". This is both inaccurate and mean-spirited. I'm not a big KM supporter -- I voted against her, in fact. But this is just childish. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I don't consider this a particularly big deal, and I am emphatically not that IP. Radiant_>|< 15:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (Glad to hear that. I don't mean to say that your single change was necessarily mean-spirited, but the repeated reverting is.) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kelly Martin's resignation 

message: has not edited Wikipedia since December 22, 2005. Would this mean that s/he should be listed as either "away" or "inactive"? --TML1988 05:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inactive, but not yet. Let's give him a little more time. Raul654 05:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How in the world did he do so well without even being present? He shouldn't even be given a seat unless he shows up really soon to claim it (say Feb.?). Move one down the list for whoever was passed over in favor of Jayjg. Everyking 05:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's for Jimbo to decide. Raul654 06:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Has anyone e-mailed him? Chick Bowen 22:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Several people, last I heard; no response, though. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filiocht 

message: I removed Kelly Martin PA per WP:NPA. It insulted 90% of arb parties. Even if true, this message is not helpful and may further damage the process. --FloNight 14:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored my comments.  WP:RPA is controversial, and your use of it in this circumstance even more so.  Please do not do that again. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank-you for the feedback. --FloNight 16:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] PA 

message: Hi,
I am involved in a dispute on Wiktionary. Does the arbitration committee handle requests for issues on Wiktionary and, if so, where should I place a request for arbitration and / or mediation there?
Thanks,
Primetime 02:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, there's nothing in the Wikipedia:Arbitration policy to prohibit us from taking the case, but that's almost certainly an oversite. I don't think we have standing to hear a case on another wiki. Raul654 02:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration on Another Wiki 

message: I'd like to request CheckUser permission, but I can't seem to find any particular place to ask. MSJapan 21:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is no such page. Raul654 21:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then,  I would like to ask the ArbCom for CheckUser access, because I would like to get involved in the community at large rather than the relatively small area I contribute in now.  I have had extensive experience as a board moderator, so I know the IP tracing and identification process, as well as what is valid as similar IP and what is not.  Therefore, however slim the chance may be, I would like to be considered for CheckUser.  Thank you. MSJapan 00:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a special page for requests for CheckUser permission? 

message: Is there any discussion about this somewhere that I'm missing? - brenneman{T}{L}  05:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering the same thing.  Bpogi92 00:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vacancy to be filled?