Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 1

message: I'm not so good at formulating policy documents, I have to say.James F. (talk) 11:37, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial ramblings on bootstrapping the Committee 

message: : Policy suggestions now at wikipedia talk:policies and guidelines and wikipedia:village pump
: I think that you probably want to persue a course of mediation first, as part of the system of conflict resolution, before you move on to arbitration (and, indeed, this will probably be part of the ground rules for arbitration, once we have written and published them). The arbitration committee is just getting started, and so we're not really able to do much of anything right now.
: Really, try to talk with the people who you are having disagreements with, and if necessary try to involve a dis-interested third party too. Arbitration is a very much final answer for when mediation has failed...
: HTH.
: James F. (talk) 13:58, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thank you for your kindness. I didn't know where else to go. User:tannin deletes anything I add to their talk page (edit notes refering to me as a troll) rather than responding, so I don't see how mediation is possible. But I will do what I can to contact a third party and see if there can be mediation. As far as my policy suggestions, I will post them on those two locations, and maybe the mailing list. Thanks, Jack 02:12, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help! 

message: Would you ban User:Lir, please? I've brought this up endlessly on other pages and not one user has written one word in Lir's favor. 168... 00:05, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The arbitrators do not currently have the authority to ban anyone. First we need to create and propose a set of procedures, which must then be approved by the community and given Jimbo's stamp of approval. Your assistance in doing so would be appreciated. In the meantime, the prior arrangements for banning apply. Martin 00:09, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Lir|Lir]]

message: *The one year banning of Plautus was grossly excessive. Even I wasn't banned for a year. Lirath Q. Pynnor
**Funny comment Lir, but are you sure this is posted on the right page ?
***Yes. Lirath Q. Pynnor
**Banning isn't an admin privilege; it's the sole privilege of Jimbo and his designated agents, the Arbitration Committee. If you want to expose this issue in the public eye, the Village Pump is probably more appropriate than this page; if you want the Arbitration Committee to notice, the best method is probably to take the issue directly to them. -- Cyan 23:47, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The Arbitration Committee

message: * User:Rickyrab/ Rickyrab's Nonbinding Arbitration Forum is open for nonbinding arbitration or mediation of disputes, if anyone is interested in using it. If nobody is, it will become a personal opinion page for my personal opinions. Rickyrab 20:53, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Announcement of new nonbinding arbitration forum, if anyone wants to use it

message: I've knocked up a few proposed alterations to the Arbitration policy - thoughts?
James F. (talk) 03:21, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed alterations to the policy 

message: I've decided to set the ball rolling for the oncoming elections; proposal only at this stage, of course.
James F. (talk) 11:53, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  December elections 

message: Should various "welcome" messages to newbies which are signed "Sam Spade wants you to vote" (hyperlinked to the ArbCom election page see, User talk:Motta1 for an example) be considered spamming for votes? Is it acceptable conduct for a candidate during an election period?AndyL 18:15, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: New users can't vote anyways. I think you have to of been here 90 days or some such. If it said "vote for sam spade" I think that would be OK too, but due to comments left on my talk page by UC and others, I made a compromise to presenting a neutral suggestion to vote. I am not the only user w an election related signature, BTW. lst had a signature relating to the U.S. elections as well, if I remember correctly. Anyways, I hope it can be taken into account that andy has not spoken to me personally in regards to this issue, and has a long history of wasting time unsuccessfully trying to bother me (yes, you did manage to annoy me in the past Andy, but that was early on, and before I formed an understanding of what you do here). Sam Spade Wants you to vote! 20:46, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spamming for votes 

message: I wrote yesterday a note, complaining about the fact that I was not given the right to vote for the ArbCom election. Leaving apart that the request of having first edited a page at least 90 days before placing a vote is quite unusual for Wikipedia matters, anyway this should be applied to the person, regardless of username changes and late registrations: I mean, if I can state that I edited my first page earlier than 90 days ago, my statement should be accepted as I can prove that. By the way, the software automated check cannot take in account the Wikipedia:Changing_attribution_for_an_edit and Wikipedia:Changing_username. This means that, in this case, wikipedians' votes are processed literally and not according with un unfair criterium. TY, M7it 21:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election and right to vote 

message: Er, OK. What should I read up on between now and Jan 1st? - David Gerard 23:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that all new arbitrators choose several decided cases -- perhaps a couple of cases where severe consequences were imposed and a couple of cases where little was done -- and take the time to read the evidence pages, the discussions, and the ultimate decisions (along with arbitrator comments).  In this way I think you will get a sense of what precedents have been set, and also (I do hope) you will determine what changes you hope to make to the way the AC does business.  I would encourage anyone taking my advice to look at some of the most difficult cases we've had, in order to consider what other options might have been wiser -- the LaRouche case and the Rex case stick in my mind as most difficult and the ones most given to being second-guessed, but I'm sure there are many others.  Learn from the (possible) mistakes of the past. :-)  Or else discover that we all were a lot brighter and better than we were given credit for being. ;-) Hopefully that's of some help, David. :-) Jwrosenzweig 21:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New arbitrators

message: I made up this diagram, in case anyone's wondering over who got which term when, as it were.
James F. (talk) 14:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terms 

message: Hello I would like to know if I can complain an administrator who has made a number of controversial reverts and requests for deletion and is being rude in discussions?
:Please sign your posts with ~~~~. You may take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Jiang 06:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How to complain an administrator?

message: * I kept a polite attitude, I asked him to stop multiple times. Asked User:Tony Sidaway to help me out, he told me to follow various ways. It is imposible to discuss things when you are accused of , hidden agendas, being a troll, being a revisionsist, being type here. User is ignoring the "No Personal Attacks" policy. My discussion with him is clear in Talk:Armenian Genocide as well as in archives. User did not vandalise my user page or anything but it is stull quite irritating. At this point I am not sure what else I can do aside from showing up here. Just as I was typing this I was asked on my user page: "Mr. Coolcat, for the interest of the entire Wikipedian community, why have you lied about you." --Cool Cat My Talk 00:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Coolcat was not accused of hidden agenda by only me, but as well, by various other members and he knows it. He got involved himself in every articles directly or indirectly involving Turkey, editing them with his POV by claiming to neutralize them. He came in with the Armenian Genocide entry and did the same thing. I have proposed everything and he has refused any propositions. I have proposed to present the Western version, the Turkish government version etc. and the critics for each according to the Academia and researchers in the field. He has refused, he wanted to dump every versions and merge them, edit etc. and get the entire article as the Turkish government version. I asked mediation, I made many concessions, but he has ignored. He has edited the World War I entry reference to the Armenian cases, a Holocaust entry because it got the Armenian cases, Genocide history entry, editing the Armenian cases. He got involved in many such articles, and now he is proposing himself to mediate Karabagh entry. A historian has told him to stop in the Greek Turkish relation entry... and many other people in other entries. I have tried everything, nothing worked. I have enough of this anti-elitist position. I wanted to participate in the genocide entry, because I know a lot about it, while Coolcat is trying to color with his nationalist aim, any entries directly or indirectly involving Turkey. I have enough of making concessions, and his ignoring of those concessions... I just want him officialy out of the Armenian genocide entry, as others want him out from other enteries. I advances the cases, that for one to be respected, that person must respect you, Coolcat has only harmed Wikipedia, and I admit that I just can't smell him anymore and that he does not worth my respect. And I believe that many will come here after being warned of Coolcat new attempt, and support my position. Fadix 00:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: What drastic changes are you talking about? I haven't posted anything since this. Are you afraid to be trapped on this [what you consider as] game yourself? The bad faith article in Wikipedia says that it does not include obvious bad faith, and saying such about you, is not against any Wikipedia rules. You have even deleted in the genocide talk entry important posts,(evidences)  and now that your realise that you are the one having everything to lose in such a cases, you just drop it. But sorry, I will not on the other hand drop it. Fadix 13:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Case: personal attacks from [[User:Fadix]]

message: Heh, ArbCom. That name sounds like some sort of elite military agency out of a Tom Clancy novel.
 "We're going to DefCon 1! Call ArbCom!"
 "ArbCom on the way!"
- Pioneer-12 16:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ArbCom