Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nandesuka (talk | contribs) at 03:34, 25 December 2005 (→Motion to desysop Karmafist: um). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.

The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person you lodge a complaint against.

0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

How to list cases

Under the below Current requests section:

  • Click "[edit]";
  • Copy the full formatting template (text will be visible in edit mode), ommitting the lines which say "BEGIN" and "END TEMPLATE";
  • Paste template text where it says "ADD CASE BELOW";
  • Follow instructions on comments (indented), and fill out the form;
  • Remove the template comments (indented).

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests


Phroziac and karmafist

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

All above named parties have been notified. I guarantee it. r b-j 05:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phroziac[1], Karmafist[2], NicholasTurnbull[3], Rchamberlain[4]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
 (If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)

I do not know what else to do when I let Phroziac "win" and elected not to take her up on her challenge to "WP:RFAr --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 23:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)" yet 3 hours later i get this: "==Harrassing Phroziac== Phroziac said you've been harrassing her. Stop it. You can disagree with her if you like, but you will be civil to other users. karmafist 02:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)" from karmafist.[reply]

What do these people want? For me to commit Hari-Kari for the sin of questioning their judgement? For not capitulating to their judgement? For telling Phroziac (repectfully but uncompromisingly) that she was wrong? For walking away from this?

Statement by User:Rbj

This began a couple of days ago when I began to notice some bad edits made in very high quantity by Rchamberlain (notably regarding references to the Roman Catholic Church) On December 19 I left a friendly worded note ( "please be more careful with your editing") in which Rchamberlain's response was to blank it and ignore it (I think the meaning of that is clear). So I reverted the blanking (to make sure he understood that there is a complaint he should at least pay some attention to), and he again blanked it. This was repeated a couple more times until I finally got his attention and he left at my talk page the note [5] in which he said: what the hell is your problem? got a hardon for me or something? once there's something worth leaving on my talk page i'll do it... until then stop vandalising my fucking talk page. Rchamberlain 03:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was not vandalizing his page. One could argue he was vandalizing his own talk page and was certainly insulting anyone leaving a comment by his blanking. On Talk_page#Etiquette, it says that "Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings." Nonetheless, I reverted the critique and added another asking him to choose between being a jerk or dealing with this "i was trying to be polite" because it was pretty obvious asking nice was not getting through to him.

On December 22, I reverted his page blanking a total of 4 times and, evidently Rchamberlain went crying to some admin (I could not find a record of this on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or any other page, so I do not know precisely how this was done) and just before I was going to get an admin to talk to this obviously closed-minded and POV editor, Phroziac blocked me, for no defined time, for no reason communicated to me (as the history of my talk page will tell). She did not come to me (via any form of communication) in advance to inquire what was going on. She did not come to me with a complaint about what I had done. No warning. No nothing. Suddenly I was blocked from Wikipedia with no explanation. When I figured out who did it (it's not real clear) I asked why and when I was getting unblocked and there was no response.

Eventually after several attempts to communicate with someone, Phroziac emailed me a note ending with "I just didn't think about leaving a notice. Sorry." yet I was still blocked with no prospect of being unblocked. So, for the first time since September 2004, when I created account User:Rbj, I reset my DSL modem (to get a different IP) and I went to NicholasTurnbull (whom I've known and respected from the infamous Bogdanov Affair) page as an anonymous IP (I know I'm not supposed to do that when I'm blocked, but I still maintain that this block was a bad rap), and asked for help. Reasonably soon, I was unblocked and I confronted Phroziac regarding her reasons and justification for:

  • Blocking me without first contacting me about the problem.
  • Blocking me without first warning me about such a block impending.
  • Not bothering to look into the root of the issue (did Rchamberlain have a legit case? was I continuing to "edit war" with him, if I was at all?)
  • Examining uncivil behavior of Rchamberlain. Examining his edit history and his deleted talk page history. What have people been saying to him and how has he reacted?
  • Showing a clear endorsement of Rchamberlain (she denies it) by summarily blocking me and doing nothing about Rchamberlain.
  • Expecting me to reduce her wikistress level, yet showing no concern for mine. Blocking a user is a very uncivil action and should be done only for the most necessary and justified reasons.

Her response was to flippantly say " Let's agree to disagree and turn our attention to improving Wikipedia in other ways. Cheers!"

I did not buy it and made it clear to her that I believed that she acted wrongly and she was just blowing me off. Her response was a simple curt taunt: "WP:RFAr --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 23:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

The meaning of that is clear and smug ("take it up with the ArbCom") and I had made no communication with her at all about it since. I did not respond to the taunt, I just walked away from it. But that was not good enough for Phroziac. Three hours later I get this message from karmafist: "==Harrassing Phroziac== Phroziac said you've been harrassing her. Stop it. You can disagree with her if you like, but you will be civil to other users. karmafist 02:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

Now who is being uncivil?? Can you guys leave it alone??? Can you admins try not to let your authority go to your heads? Must you demand that I capitulate to Phroziac, even though it's pretty clear she was too lazy to try to pick the correct target before shooting?

Karmafist, did you bother to look into this at all before you left your note telling me that I was harrassing her? Name one sentence, or word, where I was harrassing Phroziac. I hope you're not as lazy as her example before you start throwing your authority around. r b-j 05:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An addendum

Since being notified of this request for arbitration, karmafist has made a thinly veiled threat to block me (this, of course, is not "harrassment"):

You Should Continue Walking Away Then
Your most recent message shows that you don't understand how things work around here. I don't care whether you think whether you think someone is wrong or right, you will be nice to them. Period. I see you're a frequent USENET contributor, which apparently explains your rudeness. That's not the way things work around here. How it works is that users like you are nice to other users, or admins like me block you, repeatedly if necessary until you learn. I suggest you continue walking away from the prior situation and don't get into any future situations because now I and several other admins will be watching your contribs. karmafist 05:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

evidently, being frank is not being "nice", and admins like Karmafist are above reproach. r b-j 06:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another addendum

This is my last one. This and all others go unanswered. r b-j 06:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Fun
You're absolutely right, I am a bully, only a special kind of bully -- a bully to bullies like Dubya and yourself. You cannot intimidate me with claims of Nobel Prize Winners liking you or that you're the king of trolltown or you'll go cry to the Arbcom (since you don't seem to understand -- the arbcom is a group of good people shackled to the point of near uselessness by a broken system.) I find the arbcom one especially humorous since you couldn't hide behind their apronstrings even if they wanted you to, which is unlikely since they deal with rude trolls such as yourself all the time and they've become jaded to whining such as yours. Oh yeah, you really should check those arbcom motions before you use them as proof, the one your speaking of has about a whole slew of people both on the arbcom and respected elsewhere on here either understanding the reasoning behind my methodology or appluading me for having the guts to take on people such as yourself who try to intimidate others.
Oh, and speaking of the "smelling clean" in regards to the Bogdanov Affair, you're incorrect. For one, anyone who gets involved in an argument (an incivil debate, IME) has debased themselves to the lowest form of communication and must deal with that shame. I'm fortunate here since you seem to be arguing while I continue to be warning. Secondly, being a lesser troll than some of the biggest trolls in Wikipedia history isn't something to be particularly proud of. That article has been hit with the Wikipedia equivalent of a nuclear bomb in terms of credibility, and since you were involved in it extensively, you share the residue radiation just because you were associated with the dispute.
I don't care about your content dispute with Phroziac, I don't care about any content dispute that you might have. You'll be civil to others. That is not negotiable. I also suggest heading over to Esperanza, they may be able to cure you of your troll affliction. karmafist 06:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now comes the patronizing
Helping You Out
Now I see that your behavior might be more from inexperience rather than anything else, so here's some advice.
  1. The arbcom is too overloaded to listen to anything unless it's gone through the proper channels first or it's an emergency. Your thing is neither. I assumed last night that you were talking about the POTW case.
  2. The comment to Jimbo Wales is funny since I guess you've never heard of JamesMLane's Law. That probably helped me more than anything since whining to authorities rarely helps you, often it hurts you. However, since the arbcom selection procedure is still up in the air, your words there might have meant nothing at all.
Seriously, head over to Esperanza. I still think we can still cure you of your personality affliction rehabilitate you into the general community before it's too late. karmafist 17:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Phroziac

This started when Rchamberlain came to me on IRC and told me about the situation. I looked into it, and Rbj had an excessive amount of reverts on Rchamberlain's user talk page (4 in one day). Rchamberlain had been blanking his talk page of *all* comments, including a welcome message. I don't agree with that, but I really do not agree with edit warring over it either. I told Rchamberlain he shouldn't do this. I blocked Rbj for twenty-four hours, without notifying him on his talk page, or talking to him first.

Rbj emailed me, asking me to explain the block, and why I didn't tell him or talk to him first. I told him that it was not cool to revert war on another user's talk page. It's generally considered bad taste for the user to blank his talk page, but that doesn't give Rbj a right to start a nuclear war over it. I told him I did not think about giving him a message, and I was sorry.

My next email from him told me I was way outa line here and should remove the block. I told him I was not out of line, but that I would unblock if he agreed not to edit war on that page again. His next email tells me he's going to take me to arbcom as soon as he gets back on Wikipedia. This is the reason behind my talk page message; I would much rather he do something other than constantly complaining to me about it.

Blocking Rchamberlain would not have done anything. Blocking a user still allows them to edit their own talk page. Protection would be neccessary, and protecting a talk page in most cases is rediculous.

--Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC) (last edited 15:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by karmafist

Yawn. I figured Rbj meant the POTW reopening case, but I guess I gave him too much credit considering that the arbcom doesn't accept cases without going through the proper procedure. You shouldn't bother listening to rbj's whining, much like Pigsonthewing, he has a USENET mentality, basically just looking for conflict wherever he can find it. Phroziac told me he was harrassing her, I told him to stop, he tries to weasel his way out of that warning, ala Zen-master or Kmweber, and we have an fun little discussion.(Well, for him it was more of an arguement while for me it was more of a warning.)
If anymore Harrassment of Phroziac or anyone else occurs from Rbj, i'll open up an rfc in the next week or so, I'll keep you all informed. karmafist 17:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)

User:Mcfly85 -- Emergency injunction requested

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I've attempted to warn Mcfly85; he disregarded my warning. Given that the admins are genuinely split on this issue (User:Celestianpower believes that Mcfly85's vote should count; User:Howcheng does not and neither do I), I don't think we can get the dispute resolved before Mcfly85's behavior further taints the renewed RfA.

Statement by User:Nlu

Mcfly85's sock puppetry in inflencing SWD316's prior RfA tainted that vote (see WP:AN#Mcfly85 for details), and so I brought the new RfA. Mcfly85 then insisted on injecting himself into this RfA despite his prior behavior. I am requesting an emergency injunction to not allow him to vote or to make any further comments on the RfA. I am not, at this point, asking for any additional sanctions, as I am otherwise unfamiliar with the history between him and SWD316. In the meantime, I blocked Mcfly85 for three hours for disregarding my instruction to backoff SWD316's RfA. Please also review if this was proper action on my part. --Nlu (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I see User:Fred Bauder's comment that he would like to see Mcfly85 and his sock puppets blocked indefinitely. Obviously, the ArbCom has the power to do what it believes is right, but I (as I explained to Mcfly85 on my talk page) do not want to see this. I think he can become a productive editor, and he has made productive edits before. --Nlu (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mcfly85

(Copied over from User talk:Mcfly85 by User:Nlu as Mcfly85 is himself unable to do so during the block) OK, I'm just sorry for all of this. Please remove my vote, please block me indefinetly. I'm sorry, please block me, I don't want to cause any more harm. You guys do a fine job with this site. SWD316, I'm very sorry for all of this, I think you will make a good mod. Mcfly85 04:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SWD316

Where to begin, well he vandalized my user page several times. (see:My User Page for the full listing) Also he creates several accounts strickly used for vandalism. Also signed in as IP addresses, also listed on my user page, to vandalize my user page, my talk page, my RFA, and various areas on Wikipedia.

He first got upset when I edited his user page censoring the word "fuckers". I apologize for doing so. Anyways, in the edit summary I misspelled "vulger" and typed "fulger". Months later Mcfly85, under an IP address, vandalized my user page here. I immediately knew it was him. When confronted, he simply blanked his talk page.

In all of this mess, Mcfly85 was determined to prove his innocence to Wikipedia as he contacted the Administrators' noticeboard, The Mediation Cabal and other user trying to ruin my name on Wikipedia.

I ran fro adminship on December 14 resulting in me getting frustrated and closing the RFA. I closed it because Mcfly85 voted oppose causing major controversy on my RFA. He even signed in under sockpuppet accounts as Rock09 and Sigma995 and voted once again.

Banes found more incriminating evidence today further leading to this RFAr (see: my talk page for evidence). Later that day Fred Bauder ran a CheckUser on Mcfly85 and saw where he created numerous accounts for vandalizing my user page, RFA, etc.

I was renominated today to run for adminship based on Mcfly85's edits to the previous RFA. He interjected himself into this one as well tring to influence the voters to vote oppose saying I was a bad user. Im just glad Mcfly85 has now given up. SWD316 05:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Howcheng

According to a checkuser run by User:Fred Bauder (see [6]), User:Mcfly85 is a confirmed sockpuppeteer. He voted against SWD316 multiple times with the puppets during SWD316's second RfA attempt (see [7]) in clear violation of WP:SOCK. As one possible penalty is a permanent block, I believe it should apply retroactively to the time when he wielded his puppets, thus disqualifying his vote on the resubmitted RfA. Even if a block is not applied, at the very least his vote should not count and he should be censured and an injunction prohibiting him from working on the same articles as SWD316 or those articles that SWD316 is likely to touch (i.e., those that fall under the sphere of Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling) should be issued. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 07:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/4/0/0)

Requests for Clarification

Requests for clarification from the Arbcom on matters related to the arbitration process.


Zen-master again

Zen-master is on probation regarding all articles. Does that include pages in the Wikipedia namespace? The reason I'm asking is that he's recently been active in some (rather spurious) policy proposals. Radiant_>|< 22:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in hearing any evidence or argument Radiant can come up with that explains and justifies his labeling Peter's WP:0RR guideline or any other "policy" proposal I've "recently been active in" as being "spurious". I will also note the coincidence that Peter is unable to defend his guideline against charges of being "spurious" as he was just blocked for 24 hours for accusing Carbonite of being a "troll" because Carbonite initially moved the WP:0RR guideline to Peter's user namespace because of a header dispute (among other actions that are seemingly unbecomming of an admin and don't appear to have been done with an assumption of good faith in mind). Feel free to disagree with any guideline but please don't thwart its acceptance by others. zen master T 23:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master#Zen-master_placed_on_probation includes any page other than his own user and talk pages. Whether he is being disruptive is up to the determination of the banning administrator. Any ban should be logged and documented. Fred Bauder 23:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But some actual reasonable argument has to be attempted that explains specifically how I have, if ever, been "disruptive". Instead of repeating labels over and over again why don't you or someone get down to specifics? Please note WP:Probation policy: "A [probation] ban may be imposed only for good cause which shall be documented in a section set aside for that purpose in the arbitration case. Banning without good cause or in bad faith shall be grounds for censure, restriction, or removal of administrative access". At this point I interpret everytime I've been labeled as "disruptive" was and is some sort of misdirection ploy so people don't focus on numerous highly biased and biasing articles, with the most notable and nefarious example being race and intelligence. zen master T 01:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic

I would like to discuss my status with respect to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2.

The mentorship agreement specified that users Raul654, Kim Bruning and Grunt would act as my mentors. It said also "If the mentors think it is working, they can lessen or end their supervision of Netoholic's editing. If they consider it has failed — at the six month review or at any earlier time — the namespace and revert restriction in remedy 2 will take effect."

Over time, all three of my mentors ended their supervision for various reasons. On June 28th, Kim Bruning stepped aside as my mentor. Grunt became inactive as of July 5. On July 19th, Raul654 resigned recommending an alternate "probation" approach.

What I'd like confirmation is whether these resignations fulfilled the "end their supervision" clause. In the above linked resignations, neither Kim or Raul654 indicated that the mentorship failed, but mentioned leaving for personal reasons or because of the way the mentorship arrangement was designed. That arrangement was flawed because the community was asked to bring up concerns with the mentors directly. This meant that even minor disagreements were propogated to three different talk pages, which lead to a lot of stress.

In short, I'd like to ask to be relieved of any Arbitration edit restrictions presently in place. -- Netoholic @ 18:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree strongly that Netoholic should not be, at this point, under as draconian a set of restrictions as he currently is - particularly the template restrictions, where I think he's a needed force for pointing out that consensus does not get to override the developers saying "Please don't do this," I would caution on the other hand that edits such as [8] do make me worry that some of the incivility problems have not corrected themselves. On the other hand, that Netoholic's behavior has in general improved while under parole seems clear, and it may be that the remaining issues can only be fixed through experience. So I, at least, offer my tepid support of this. Which, considering my history with this conflict, probably actually still counts for a lot. :) Phil Sandifer 18:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Netoholic and Snowspinner are actually working together. Holy goodness me! Net still needs to grasp the finer points of dealing with f*ckw diplomacy, but has come to both of us for help in these matters, with good productive effect. A strong caution about dealing gently with policy should remain - but he seems to be getting this point, which is excellent. We each have our strengths and weaknesses, after all ... - David Gerard 20:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please get some comments here? Netoholic has been tremendously helpful of late in dealing with the requirements of WP:AUM, but has had to do so flouting his parole and editing templates... which is unfortunate, and a situation that ought to be brought to an end. Phil Sandifer 06:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on Wiki-break for a while but one of the first things I checked when I got back was what Neto has been up to and I am pleased to see things have really turned around. I agree with David's proposal on this 100% and if I can assist in any way I would be happy to. --Wgfinley 20:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While we're appealing this case, btw, can we also overturn the findings that say that AUM is not policy, since they imply a really godawful precedent that the community can meaningfully have a lack of consensus to obey the developers? Phil Sandifer 06:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Ed's "false"(?) claim that FuelWagon's talk page contained personal attacks

Another "finding of fact" accuses Ed of claiming falsely that FuelWagon's talk page contained personal attacks.

I originally queried that finding for two reasons – one that Ed had used the word "remarks", not "attacks", and two that FuelWagon between the moment of blocking and the moment that Ed protected his talk page had made 108 edits, many of them full of sarcasm and sneers (in my view). With regard to my first query, Raul654 referred me to the block log, where Ed did indeed use the word "attack". I accept that. I asked for further clarification here, as I felt that the words "claiming falsely" could give the impression that the ArbCom found FuelWagon's 108 posts acceptable. At the time that I queried it, five arbitrators had endorsed it. Two more have done so since then, and there has been no clarification.

Since FuelWagon has undoubtedly been guilty of violating WP:NPA on many occasions, it might seem relatively unimportant to make a judgment as to whether or not he was violating it on his talk page during his block on that particular date. I raise the issue again because it has been officially judged that Ed Poor made a false claim, and since making a false claim is a rather shabby thing to do, I think that perhaps the evidence could have been examined a little more thoroughly before reaching that official decision, or that the ArbCom should have given a little more clarification so that we could know on what grounds they judged that Ed's claim was "false".

On 12 December, I wrote as follows (in italics):

Do the five arbitrators who signed the proposed finding of fact all stand over the claim that none of the following

contains any personal remarks?

I would ask you all please to take a little time to go through those posts, and perhaps reconsider your proposed finding of fact. I realize you may still decide that Ed was wrong to protect FuelWagon's talk page after the 108 posts (though I have known other admins to take similar action, and personally supported it), but at least it should be worded in such a way as not to accuse Ed of something which he did not do.

I would still like clarification on this "finding". If seven arbitrators judged that Ed made a false claim, does that mean that all seven found FuelWagon's 108 posts perfectly acceptable, or found them inappropriate but not attacks, or found them bordering on attacks but not quite attacks, or even just got bogged down with the enormous amount of evidence, and made an understandable error? I personally found that some of his posts were attacks, but if ArbCom members found that they were borderline rather than clear-cut, wouldn't it be fairer to say that Ed exaggerated, rather than the he made a false claim? AnnH (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an exerpt from the email I sent the arbcom mailing list on December 13th regarding the issues you brought up: I don't believe any of the diffs she cited contain personal *attacks*, but a reasonable person could disagree with me on this point. They are personal remarks; whether or not they are attacks is - at best- debatable Raul654 05:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Raul654 for clarifying that. I still think that the wording chosen is too harsh on Ed. If you felt that "a reasonable person" could think they were personal attacks, then you must feel that Ed could reasonably have thought they were personal attacks. So the blunt wording that he claimed falsely etc. suggests that he (perhaps deliberately?) made an untrue assertion (perhaps as an excuse to protect the page without justification?). It reflects badly (and unfairly) on Ed, and I feel that wording should, at least, have been softened by suggesting that he simply exaggerated the seriousness of inappropriate remarks, or something like that. Otherwise, it suggests deliberate untruthfulness on Ed's part, rather than a sincere opinion which happens to differ (legitimately) from that of the ArbCom members. (I'd be a bit surprised to find that the seven members who endorsed that finding all felt that Ed made a false claim.)
On a related note, if it can be accepted that Ed blocked FuelWagon justly and protected the talk page in good faith, then perhaps his "I'm getting away with it because I've been around a long time" remark could be seen as tactless and imprudent rather than actually malicious. I've noticed that he tends to change his mind a lot. Note how he signed the RfC against SlimVirgin, and then unsigned it, blocked FuelWagon and then apologized, opposed Lord Voldemort's RfA and then supported it. I would see it as a tendency to occasionally act or speak first and think second, rather than actually think he can break rules because he's been around for a long time. AnnH (talk) 08:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of SEWilco probation

The terms of the probation at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute_2 say: 

3) SEWilco should not use a bot to convert citations on articles, nor should he manually 
convert citation styles on any articles.

I'd like to understand if this diff is a permissible use of a bot, or a violation of the arbcom decision. On the face of it it seems like a contravention of the decision. Is there something I'm missing? I have blocked the bot temporarily (24 hours) while trying to understand this issue. If I'm mistaken and this is a permissible use, any admin should feel free to undo the block (but please explain to me how to distinguish permissible from impermissible bot edits). Thanks, Nandesuka 15:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SEWilco indicates on my talk page that he thinks its a permissible use because the article style already uses WP:FN. But the way the remedy is written is "should not use a bot to convert citations on articles" (emphasis added), not "convert articles". So if this use is permissible, a clarification is very much needed. Nandesuka 15:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article already uses WP:FN style, and I created a citation where there had been none.. A URL link alone is not a citation. "complete citations — also called "references," because the citations identify the referred-to sources — are collected at the end of the article under a ==References== heading". (SEWilco 16:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

He is correct, the article is already using Wikipedia:Footnotes style. He is technically violating the arbitration remedy but the violation is harmless. I don't think we will modify the remedy, but the evil addressed is changing a bunch of articles that are in some other format to the footnotes format without concensus not the particular use here. As we impressed on SEWilco, at great length, merely technical violations may or may not be enforced. Fred Bauder 16:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SEWilco is gaming. I just blocked RefBot indefinitely (second account created to evade ArbCom ruling) and SEWilco 48 hours (creating second account to evade ArbCom ruling) - David Gerard 18:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Motions to extend ban on Ciz editing

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz#Prevention_from_editing_Zoophilia is modified to:

Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) is prevented indefinitely from editing Zoophilia and its closely-related articles, or any editing related to the subjects of zoophilia, bestiality, animal sexuality, or human-animal relationships in any article, including their talk pages. Whether an article or page concerns these subjects shall be determined by the enforcing administrator.
Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz#Attempts_to_edit_Zoophilia is modified to:

If Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) edits Zoophilia or its closely related articles, or makes any edit which relates to zoophilia, bestiality, animal sexuality, or human-animal relationships in any article, or their talk pages, such changes made may be reverted by any editor and any administrator may, at his/her discretion, briefly block Ciz (up to a week in the case of repeat violations). After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.
Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz#User:_DrBat_--_continuing_breaches_of_previous_ArbCom_ruling

Motion to desysop Karmafist

Move to reopen Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing and desysop Karmafist (talk · contribs) based on inappropriate blocks of kmweber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) , see [9], Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Kurt and User_talk:Kmweber#Block_Notice.

[Support options split & comments copied/moved as appropriate. James F. (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)][reply]

Support reopening:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Concur. While we're there we should broaden the restrictions on POTW as well, possibly even ban him altogether. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree to reopen the case; do not agree to any foregone conclusions ➥the Epopt 19:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support reopening to consider all parties, but not necessarily this specific action. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I am willing to reopen Pigsonthewing, I am not willing at this stage to desysop Karmafist. He has twice indefinately blocked someone when a finite block was required? If he repeatedly redoes the indefinite block after other admins shoerten it then I will support a desysop. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:59, 21 Dec
Support desysoping:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Concur. While we're there we should broaden the restrictions on POTW as well, possibly even ban him altogether. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Reject. Karmafist said some things in the heat of the moment that shouldn't be held against him. He needs to ignore Kwebber and POTW and do something more productive and less frustrating, and leave someone else to handle those two. Arbitration, in this case, is not likely to produce a good result and would only exacerbate the situation. Raul654 20:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Reject for now - let's see if Karmafist calms down and Kmweber and POTW knock it off. If the behaviour continues for another day, then I'd support re-opening. Jayjg (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Emphatically reject. I strongly oppose desysopping Karmafist. ➥the Epopt 22:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I'm note sure; on the matter of reopening, I'm not opposed to it but am not entirely sure that it is needed. Certainly, I am with Epopt/Kat/Theresa in that I am not sure that karmafist needs desysoping (but I will, as always, keep an open mind). James F. (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

I'm not currently AC-active, but I want to say that this move to desysop Karmafist is premature. Kmweber has a history of driving otherwise calm people into an incandescent rage. Combine that with Pigsonthewing, who does the same thing deliberately, and I think very few of us would manage to keep our cool. Punishing Karmafist is not helpful IMO. Certainly please wait 24 hours for everyone to calm down a bit.

I've asked him to pretend Kurt doesn't exist from now on, and I think he will try to do so. See also the "Kurt" section on WP:ANI - I've unblocked Kmweber and asked other admins to keep blocks to loving and educational 24-hour zaps, but have noted that I'm not going to undo further blocks. See also User talk:Kmweber, down the bottom. - David Gerard 20:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I previously asked Karmafist to pretend that Pigsonthewing didn't exist, and he repeatedly promised to do so -- but didn't. His track record in this regard is absymal, and on my scorecard he is out of chances. Kurt may be the sort of person to drive people into incandescant rage, but Karmafist is the sort of person who gets driven into such rages very easily. If this is the "heat of the moment", it's a moment that has lasted at least a month now. All the evidence I see is that he is simply not fit to be an admin. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: Karmafist has said on my talk page he'll cool it and washes his hands of the problem, but reserves the right to point and laugh at me if it all blows up again, which is entirely fair enough - David Gerard 12:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others:

Do we really want the sysop bit to be held by people who can be driven into an incandescent rage? Come on, we should expect some degree of maturity and reliability from our admins, otherwise what's the point? - -Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kurt is pretty special that way. Phil Sandifer 05:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If losing your cool at any one time from some people continually annoying you, over and over, is a grounds for desysop, then I believe we'll only have 3 admins left, if we're lucky. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with Redwolf24 on this one. It's like Chinese water torture... when you're being constantly harassed by someone you're bound to act at least somewhat irrationally. I'm not saying that what he did was in the right, because it wasn't... but I am saying that if you're going to desysop Karmafist for an easily revertable action that stemed from being driven over the edge, then hold every single admin to the same standards, including yourselves. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kurt certainly is special that way. He achieved it with me, after all, and I don't think he was even particularly trying to - David Gerard 12:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to thank all those who offered kind words here, and offer forgiveness for the misunderstandings for those here who do not understand my zeal against those who wish to hurt Wikipedia or those who are caught in our broken system of internal governance. If any of you would like to further understand my viewpoints on situations such as those being discussed here, please feel free to contact me on my talk page, and before you come over, I'd like to remind you of the situations i've diffused at places like Ward Churchill, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Democrat userbox, on Kumanovo to an extent, in addition to being the current vote leader in the Esperanza Advisory Council Race, welcoming 550 users as of this edit, winning my rfa in October 53-2, and adding nearly 8,000 edits now to our project.
For a lack of a better analogy, I'd see a de-sysopping as a failure to fufill "Wiki-Bushido" in the eyes of my peers, thus requiring a "Wiki-Seppuku" more or less, which nearly happened 3 weeks ago.
I will do anything to protect Wikipedia, but I will not be shamed in the attempt to do so. I just wanted to inform you of this in case any of you hadn't heard before. karmafist 20:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We need more people like Karmafist who are willing to apply WP:IAR when it comes to trolls, and much less WP:AGF for people who have abused our trust over and over again. Zoe (216.234.130.130 22:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I am absolutely horrified by this comment, and even more horrified that there appears to be an increasingly large culture of admins who have such little regard for assumptions of good faith, particularly in those they disagree with. Kurt is a master of getting on people's nerves, but there is absolutely no way that Karmafist's actions can be read as in line with any precedent or rules. Phil Sandifer 06:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I just died from irony poisoning. Nandesuka 03:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Zoe! You remind me of something that's often overlooked in AGF, the "A". There's no point in assuming when you've experienced something first hand, and even though it's currently not widely seen as part of WP:V, Verification should be made with users just as much as it is with content. karmafist 05:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Amen! I'm just a humble ordinary editor who brought the problem at Ward Churchill to him, with trepidation that the best I could expect was some months-long painful process to deal with a POV-troll at that page User:Keetoowah. Though I would not have thought to ask, Karmafist pro-actively protected the page for a short time to fend off edit warring, launched a well written RfC, and then after giving plenty of opportunity for cooperation, blocked Keetoowah under an admittedly somewhat broad interpretation of a prior RfAr against Keetoowah. The end result of bold adminship is a usable, relatively high-quality page with one fewer POV-trolls. A little bit of WP:IAR combined with good judgement is exactly what we need to fend off the growing vandalism, belligerence, and POV-mongering that takes far too much effort to work around or against. We need 50 more admins like Karmafist! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No. We really don't. Phil Sandifer 06:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If has quit block warring with other administrators that will be sufficient Fred Bauder 23:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I never started, Fred. I figured that I was at the situation I described above, thus basically beginning what I figured would be the end of my time at Wikipedia. Then about 10 editors came out of nowhere, including the one who blocked me, said that it was nothing personal and they still respected me, and the situation ended. If you respect me Fred, you will not have a problem. karmafist 05:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It takes two to revert war. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has been critical of Karmafist's actions as an admin in the past, and who has also had run-ins with both Kmweber and Pigsonthewing, I can't say I blame Karmafist for blowing his top with either of those two editors. I would be comfortable with Karmafist retaining his adminship as long as he pretends they don't exist, as David put it. Karmafist acts perhaps a bit too rashly when someone pegs his trollmeter; he just needs to learn to let cooler heads prevail (and get community input) when these situations arise. android79 00:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Any motion which desysops Karmafist for doing his best to deal with Kurt and Pigsonthewing is completely off-target. While I enjoy "arguing" with Kurt on IRC I have seen first-hand just how much of a PITA he is. And looking through Pigs' comments doesn't exactly inspire confidence that he is out to participate nicely in the community. Karmafist is doing his best in admittedly tough situations to deal with two very argumentative and difficult people. I'm not surprised he gets angry sometimes. I also would point out that some of the current arbitrators have acted in a similar fashion to Karmafist in comparable situations - and I'd advise against them hasty decisions. Talrias (t | e | c) 04:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm one of the ones who questioned the block of Kurt, and I stand vehemently opposed to this motion. This motion is more of an overreaction to an incendiary situation than karma's block of Kurt was. The block was absolutely valid, it was only the length that was a problem, and it was supported by a couple of other admins. POTW has done nothing but attempt to incite something with karma recently, and karma has responded pretty well in my opinion. Add Kurt's bad faith/WP:POINT edits into the mix, and his reaction is understandable. Last I checked, not being human wasn't a requirement of having a few extra janitorial functions. If this turns into a consistent problem, then it's something to look into. At the moment, it's not. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 12:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=32654159"