Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 4

---

Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll may have been set up as a majority-wins poll, but the ArbCom clearly encouraged consensus on the matter. There is a clear lack of consensus on the poll, and yet so far three of the "admin judges" are treating it as a majority-wins poll. --SPUI (T - C) 06:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Your side has 41%, which is definitely not consensus for your side. Also, we have to have some convention. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no consensus, thus no convention. --SPUI (T - C) 06:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Back to self-law. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This a case which failed, specifically failed to adequately deal with the problem of SPUI's behavior. It should probably be reopened. Fred Bauder 13:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel that we've just avoided nuclear war. There is relative peace at highways for now, but if SPUI's behavior does not change, a further arbcom case could be inevitable. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask the arbcom for clarification. Specifically, I would like explicit endorsement or repudiation of the following principles (which form the basis for how I have been operating since I got involved in trying to shepherd the process along:

• ArbCom does not normally get involved in content disputes, but chose to in this case to try to get to closure on what had been a source of much contention and ill will.
• ArbCom in their finding said "consensus is encouraged"... I interpret that as "== consensus is NOT REQUIRED" meaning that if consensus cannot be achieved, othre means should be used. IS this a correct interpretation of ArbCom's wishes in this matter
• There has been a long process of evaluation of alternatives and after some discussion, a majority vote was held on principles. one principle won, with 59%. It is not our norm to accept majority votes as binding (see Polling is evil).
• I perceive The majority of participants seem to have arrived at a consensus to accept the majority, this once, without necessarily being happy about it, or thinking that this means we are changing general principles. IS this perception correct? If so, does ArbCom endorse it as a principle in this matter?
  • It is rather clear that the main troublemaker, SPUI, is not of this view and wishes to continue his campaign of disruption. I would focus on those who view failure to achieve consensus as a victory. Fred Bauder 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• There have been a minority of participants who have continued to argue that there is not a normal consensus here and who have ignored the above consensus to accept majority. Their actions have, in my view, been disruptive. DOES arbcom agree that arguing against this principle constitute disruption of the process?
  • Yep, playing games. Fred Bauder 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• The forum participants have developed a process in which everyone votes to determine opinion, and then a set of (admin) judges interprets the vote and decides what the outcome (what principle shall hold) shall be I adjudge consensus for that process. DOES ArbCom agree? Is agitating against the process disruptive?
  • disagreeing, no. agitating , yes Fred Bauder 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Some participants are saying that any objection by anyone to any judge knocks them out. I view there is not consensus for that viewpoint. DOES ArbCom agree?
  • Of course not Fred Bauder 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• This discussion has spilled over to many other places. That is not a good thing in my view. In some cases it smacks of forum shopping to me. It would be best if it remained in one place DOES ArbCom agree that it should remain in one place and that bringing it to new places (here and ANI perhaps excluded) is forum shopping and should be viewed as disruptive?
  • Yes Fred Bauder 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have made some statements that not everyone agrees with. The following references may be of some use.

• too harsh? (see the rest of that thread as well, I made some other statements.
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#59.25_.3D_consensus.3F thread

I have handed out a block to SPUI in this matter for what I viewed as disruption. It was reduced but not overturned. I feel SPUI returned to his disruptive ways last night but perhaps has settled down today. I would nevertheless welcome review of my actions and I seek clarification in the form of yes/no answers to the questions I pose above. I was counseled by some to let this go, to let someone else implement but i am one of the 6 "judges". Comment on whether I should leave enforcement to a non judge admin welcomed as well. ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a split in the Arbitration Committee on this question. Only one arbitrator, me, supports coming down heavy on SPUI. It will take a few more months of disruption before the rest will come around. Fred Bauder 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort, Lar. Please note that the opinions I expressed above are my own, not those of the Committee. Fred Bauder 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points in response. First, I think it would be best if I got a unified response from the whole committee, although I value your input! But if I get mixed yes/nos it may not be as helpful as a more definitive answer. Second, I'm not anti SPUI. And I'm not advocating that we "come down heavy on SPUI". Or anyone else. I just want to get to a resolution. Third, to the points raised elsewhere about new spirits of consensus, and does that contravene what I said about more new proposals being not helpful... well if everyone previously blocking working to a solution shifts, and with some compromise, everyone comes to a consensual acceptance of whatever state of affairs works for most everyone... great! That would be awesome, trust me when I say I would love to see that more than anyone. But if this lull goes back to disruptive behaviour, then I will seek to apply remedies. Hence my seeking clarification, even if the lull apparently continues, I don't want to (or whoever shouldn't have to) come back here later because I (or whoever) don't have what is needed. OK that was three things. :) ++Lar: t/c 18:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of the proponents of Principle II in the recent Highway naming poll are trying to comeup with a Manual of Style that addresses most of the concerns of Principle II supporters while keeping in line with the decision by the majorit to use the style of Principle I in the article title. This is being done at WP:USSH. I am under the impression that Lar and a few others think this is disruption. We are trying to gain real consensus by addressing specific problems with the chosen Principle without overturning it. I strongly believe that is not disruption. I hope most of thr ArbCom agrees. --Polaron | Talk 16:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not view creating a style guide to help people edit, and that helps them apply the accepted principle rationally, as "disruption", rather I find it highly useful. What I find disruptive is tagging an early stage proposal as a guide rather than a proposal. I think that's fixed though. Once the highway people reach clear consensus that it's accepted and that it's the way that people should edit I'd welcome it moving to style guide in state and getting added to the list of style guides in effect. ++Lar: t/c 19:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The state of affairs on Wikipedia is such that when we say consensus, we can't mean complete agreement among all parties. Our processes like AfD, RfA, and others, instead, have lowered the standard to a norm that the community sees as acceptable. Therefore, a bureaucrat can promote an administrator or an administrator can delete a page even with dissenters, provided that the amount of dissent is within that community standard. This is not the strict definition of consensus, but Wikipedia-brand consensus. Under that system, it is possible to identify this 59% vote as "consensus" provided that the community (especially administrators) is willing to enforce it. Especially in light of the fact that arbitrary decisions are better than indecision, I believe that we ought to do so; if we enforce it, it's as god as done. While there is no reason to stifle productive discussion and comprommise, I'm fairly certain that the community, as well, is at the point of enforcing the result of the poll as the less disruptive of the available options, in an effort to end the agony of this debate. Dmcdevit·t 22:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to the ArbCom if the members of this entire debate just sat down and had a civil conversation, and reached a virtually unanimous agreement on a compromise? They seem to be on track to do this now, but some are raising concerns about being outside of the process of the naming conventions poll, and that the judges of said poll have already ruled that there is a consensus. Personally, I don't think that matters, because it's always good to have more people agree, so there's no harm in having more discussion. At worst, it's just more incivil discussion and you won't be able to tell it apart from the rest anyway, but it doesn't seem to be heading that way, and is currently being rather productive. What does the ArbCom think? --Rory096 16:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to the ArbCom if the members of this entire debate just sat down and had a civil conversation, and reached a virtually unanimous agreement on a compromise? This is exactly what should happen. It is exactly what should happen for decision making on Wikipedia. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me too Fred Bauder 16:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, we made a few concessions in exchange for their support of Principle I. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I don't think any of the 'judging admins' object to sanity either. :] --CBD 11:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

---

This was originally posted under motions in prior cases, but only arbitrators can make such motions. I guess this amounts to be a request for clarification or further action in the Eternal Equinox case. A motion was subsequently passed. --Tony Sidaway 23:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Eternal Equinox came back a few days ago, editing her favorite articles as an anon, from her trademark range. She has already amassed a fairly impressive log of blocks and bans The user is editing by ArbCom permission, she's not banned; so could that permission be made conditional on her creating an account and being limited to using that only? I think I saw her claim a while back that she has munged the Eternal Equinox password--IIRC--but she could obviously easily create a new name account. The floating cloud of IPs she's using makes it very difficult to keep track of her edits and infractions, to block her (I got collateral damage on the brief range block I imposed last night) and to communicate with her. Bishonen | talk 14:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC).

I am fairly sick and tired of all this. I returned on September 5, 2006. It's now September 10, 2006 and I've amassed five bans/blocks. Pretty ridiculous-sounding for six days of editing. There seems to be a problem here, which is that the Arbitration ruling has gotten to those users who still won't leave me alone (Bishonen, Bunchofrapes, etc.). They are abusing the ruling as an excuse to block me whenever they feel it appropriate. In these five cases:

1. Bunchofgrapes blocked me for edit-warring with another user and refers to my edits of debate and discussion as "disruptive". Extraordinary Machine and I have been trying to achieve consensus — which is working — but Bunchofgrapes interfered with the excuse that I was being disruptive. Where am I disrupting?
2. Second ban/block: I declined the ban because it was obnoxious and ridiculous. Bishonen comes along and begins abusing the ruling by banning me because of my comments and why I thought it was unfair. This suggests to me that whatever they say is going to happen; that won't be.
3. Third ban/block: I stated that the ban at Cool (song) was insincere and I would continue editing it since I was trying to resolve issues that have been coming along pleasantly. (See the process on the talk page.) Of course, Bunchofgrapes bans the IP for "violating" his "ban".
4. Fourth ban/block: Extraordinary Machine, the user in question of the discussion at Cool (song) resets the ban, perhaps presumably to avoid discussing and achieving consensus. This suggests that he wants his edits to remain when I found some of them questionable. But the process is going well, like I've said.
5. Fifth ban/block: The most abusive actions taken of the ArbCom ruling was this one. I was trying to post a response on Talk:Cool (song), when suddenly I've been blocked. When I see that it's Bishonen, I cussed a lot at her, especially since this "ban" was absolutely notorious. What she claims here is almost entirely false.

• She says that I "repeatedly piddled" with the images on Simon Byrne. Utter nonsense; I edited twice here and here. Editing twice is not "repeatedly piddling" with an article. I was first reverted by Sagaciousuk for not providing an edit summary (which I'd forgotten). I said okay and went back and provided an edit summary. Bishonen then "magically" appears two minutes later and claims that I was toying with the image and claims I was "trolling". My browser indeed does have an image-display problem, and decreasing it by a single pixel would have made it the appropriate size for my monitor. She ignored this, but my main concern is that she is 100% convinced that I edited the article because it was authored by Giano. I detest Giano and had no idea that he'd edited this article. A few days before Belton House was on the main page; I knew he'd edited this article and didn't bother with it because I knew Bishonen would come up with an excuse. So when Simon Byrne appeared on the main page only a few days later, I didn't think twice that an article authored by the same user would appear soon after (this is something that should become official on Wikipedia). I didn't even make a major edit to the article and she says I was trolling. Two edits is not trolling, especially since I was first reverted for not providing an edit summary and because the user who reverted me does not have any affiliation to me. I had no idea Giano wrote most of the article until afterwards checking the history. Here is the "fifth ban", which is very misleading.

There is a problem with this ArbCom ruling and adjustments will have to be made in order to ensure that these users do not abuse it the way they have been. Also, I will absolutely not create an account since I'm only editing Wikipedia on occasion now. This is Hollow Wilerding, which you have been told (and obviously received the e-mail for since you wrote my name in one of the "bans"). I'll be sure to tell E.E. that you're failing to respond to him. Hollow Wilerding 17:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• I second Bishonen's request to limit this person or persons to one account, and would request that an Arbitrator propose such a motion as an additional remedy. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have made the motion, thanks for bringing this to our attention. Dmcdevit·t 18:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I've made myself quite clear: I will not access accounts. Also, don't abuse the ArbCom ruling. 64.231.113.136 22:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that rather than choose a logged-in account and stick to it you intend to use a variety of IPs? --Tony Sidaway 00:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Because I edit a few times per day now, unlike beforehand (which was very many), I choose to edit from an IP-only account. 64.231.154.178 21:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That reasoning is not sufficient. In fact, it does not even logically follow that editing anonymously is more useful for lower level of activity. However, it is a lot easier to violate article bans when you are a changing IP. Dmcdevit·t 22:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It may not be sufficient to you, but it certainly is to me. 64.231.153.78 20:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you guys believe us now, huh? Here you have the Hollow Wilerding demeanour in a nutshell. I request permission to ban her for more than a week from pages she disrupts. "Up to a week" is a feeble remedy for this editor. Bishonen | talk 21:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC).

This is not for you to determine or request; since the RFAr is effective, you are to operate it as stated. Abusing it, as you currently have been (blocking for trolling? What trolling?) is disruptive enough. Most of my edits since September 5 have been neutral and what you establish as "disruptive" has been far less than that. My last edit has nothing to do with "the others believing you now"; I stated that editing anonymously is sufficient to me because I'm not editing as much anymore (which was stated in an edit a bit further up); this is my second edit today. 64.231.153.78 02:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the above I suggest that any IP editor from Canada (especially but not restricted to Sympatico in the Toronto area) that disrupts articles in a recognizable manner should get a one-week anon-only block. Thatcher131 14:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

How biased and full of nonsense. 64.231.152.103 19:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• I endorse Thatcher 131's proposal. I dislike banns and blocks intensely but for this number/person I realistically see no option. Giano | talk 20:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Bishonen, she can block a disruptive editor for as long as seems reasonable. Arbitration probations are permissive with respect to administrator action; they are not intended to limit administrator action. Consult on WP:AN. --Tony Sidaway 20:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A reasonable period of time seems appropriate. I will complain if she intends on blocking for non-disruptive and purely discussion-related material, however. Also, "one week" does not apply to Talk:Cool (song), which is solely discussion (as of now). 64.231.152.103 21:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Eternal Equinox is inaccessible. If you want me to create a new account, it will have an entirely new name. 64.231.119.5 23:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I will make an exception to the "treat as banned" to reply to this. That's fine. The arbitrators already said that's fine. Please tell us what your new name is after it is created. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the new account. I don't want Bishonen, Bunchofgrapes or Giano posting on the talk page unless strictly necessary. Also, any unfair blocks will be discussed; edit-warring is not "disruptive" if it's progessrive. I want them to acknowledge this and stop abusing the RFAR. That's all. I have nothing more to say. By the way, you'll need to pardon me if I accidentally editing anonymously without realizing it (because I'm sure most of us have done this). Veltron 01:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, this is unacceptable. Posting on my talk page is not trolling. I'm utterly confused at admin actions at this point. Veltron 01:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Admins are discussing here whether they will be enforcing Remedy 7.3.1, "Irishpunktom and Dbiv are banned from editing Peter Tatchell for one year" with respect to Dbiv. Admin and ArbCom clerk Tony Sidaway has, in fact, said outright that he would "stop trying to enforce this remedy", saying that Ignore all rules applies here. [1] Is non-enforcement optional or dependent on the quality of the edits, or is this a bright-line ruling? --Calton | Talk 01:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's my personal opinion, made as a Wikipedia editor. My role as an arbitration committee clerk means that sometimes things I say may be misinterpreted, and I apologise for unintentionally misleading anybody into thinking that my opinion is worth more than anybody else's. I only meant (and I said as much) that I had decided that I myself would cease attempting to enforce the remedy. I object to no other administrator who enforces it and I will take no action to challenge enforcement (I also said as much). As far as I'm concerned this remedy is a fully enforceable arbitration ruling, equal to any other arbitration ruling in its legitimacy. --Tony Sidaway 02:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is no trouble, I really don't care either. Fred Bauder 17:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

---

just a quick note that now that User:Kehrli is banned from editing m/z or presumedly articles about mass spectrometry, he is now moving on to export his cranky beliefs onto physical constant and to dimensionless number (although i agree with him that renaming it dimensionless quantity was a good idea). but he has some personal pet theory that dimensionful physical constants are essentially equivalent to dimensionless fundamental physical constants which is contrary to the present widely accepted state of physics. we (User:Army1987 and i) have reverted his factually incorrect changes to both articles and have tried to reason with him from multiple angles and his responses is to say without any content that our explanation supports his fallacious position, to misrepresent our positions and repeat the misconception as if nothing was ever written by any of us to explain what was wrong with it. he is basically repeating that the widely accepted wisdom is a misconception and then replacing it with his own misconception. i think he is trolling, but am not entirely sure. i am sure he's a crank. i have now tired of dealing with him, but if he tries to reinsert this junk, i'm afraid an edit war will ensue. i need help from admins who are real physicists to be able to examine Kehrli's claims (which he tries to make sound reasonable, but they are fundamentally misconceived). r b-j 19:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Please see this WP:AN/I discussion regarding my involvement in this case. The general feeling, it seems, is that this case needs to be revisited for the following reasons:

1. I was never informed that I was a party to the case;
2. neither I nor any other editor could thereby provide evidence in my defense;
3. no evidence to which I could respond was presented against me;
4. and the action taken against me did not have the support of the required majority.

Thank you, in advance, for your time and consideration. Best wishes, --AaronS 01:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: I shall be very inactive until 30 September (preparing my thesis, taking GRE, and applying to grad schools). If it is decided that this issue should be re-examined, please keep this in mind. Better yet, feel free to keep this on the backburner and deal with more pressing problems for the time being. --AaronS 03:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The evidence was your edit warring and prior blocks. Please offer actual reasoning why you should not be on probation, rather than procedural arguments against how it was done. Dmcdevit·t 04:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If that is the evidence, here is my short response: two of the administrators who blocked me for WP:3RR have since re-examined their decisions and regretted them.[2][3]The first block was deserved, but I had violated 3RR inadvertently. I discussed the situation with the admin who blocked me, and he lifted the block, because I was at the time doing a lot of work to improve the New England article. I stayed away from anarchism for a while, because it is truly a difficult page to work with.

One always walks a thin line while trying to improve controversial articles. I have had the benefit of working with several excellent editors from all sides of the ideological spectrum. In fact, I'm amazed at how some people can have such strong feelings about either side of an issue and still work together and reach compromises through civil discussion. This is how things usually proceed at anarchism when a few inflammatory editors are not around -- namely, User:RJII, User:Thewolfstar, and User:Hogeye and their various admitted or proven socks. When they or their sock puppets are involved, things usually get heated up very quickly, and that's when edit wars start to crop up.

I try to avoid edit wars as best as possible. When I revert, I try my damnedest to revert without edit warring. Or, I only revert sock puppets of banned users, suspected or proven. I should note that I rarely revert people who are simply suspected of being sock puppets, unless they have come from out of nowhere and are making the same edits or arguments as a recently banned user without any discussion (see User:That'sHot and User:DTC). As soon as they start engaging in discussion, I don't care whether or not they are sock puppets, and am happy to have them on board as long as they play nicely. If a sock puppet is obliged to edit in the best interests of the article, then there's no harm done. Unfortunately, their talk page discussions tend to descend into some nasty stuff.

In conclusion, with an examination of the current evidence, if I were to be put on probation it would be for nothing more than having a one deserved 3RR violation block on my record, a block that was soon lifted. I am a helpful, cordial, friendly editor, and quick to apologize to those whom I have wronged. I do not like edit warring, and find it pointless. It achieves nothing. I don't mean that philosophically, either. I mean that literally. What an article says right now doesn't matter, so long as there are other people who think that it shouldn't say that, and who can back up their claims with verifiable, reliable sources. At the same time, socks of banned users should be reverted, if only because they are a nuisance. I also do not edit tendentiously. Very few of my edits are controversial, and they are usually either (a) common opinion or (b) backed up with sources.

I think that you will find that most of my edits are useful, and that all of the editors who get along well here also get along well with me. People need to work on controversial articles like anarchism, and those articles need to be watched; however, it is very difficult, time-consuming, and sometimes frustrating.

Lastly, if there were 11 arbitrators in the beginning, and 1 recused himself/herself, then 6 is still the majority; 6 is the majority in a group of 10, and 5 would only be half. Forgive me if I'm using the wrong numbers, but if I am not, then this whole discussion seems rather moot. --AaronS 13:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The abstention of User:SimonP from Remedy 3 was treated in the same manner as a recusal, reducing the majority for that motion to 5. The motion passed. Evidence was presented demonstrating that AaronS was blocked for edit warring, and a Finding to that effect was made in the case. I regret that neither the arbitrators nor the clerks informed AaronS that probation was being considered in his case. This was an oversight. --Tony Sidaway 04:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, since Aaron is currently busy, I will try to do what I can to explain why he should not be on probation. As you know, his first block was overturned after he explained the situation. The blocking admin in the second case later apologized and said they wouldn't have blocked had they had more information at the time of the block, but since the block had already expired by that time he was never unblocked. [4] It appears as if the blocking admin from the third block may feel the same way, although they didn't explicitly say they wouldn't have blocked, but I think it was implied. See for yourself and decide I guess. [5]. Anyways, most of the edit warring that happens at the anarchism articles is due to users who are now indefinitely blocked, or sockpuppets of those users before they are blocked themselves for being socks. A lot of outsiders don't realize this, so users like Aaron will occassionally be blocked. It's understandable, and it usually gets resolved without a problem. I personally think probation is inappropriate in his case, especially considering he was never even notified. The way I see it, the case for Aaron needs to be reopened. Some of the original supporting voters may change their minds after hearing Aaron's side of this. I'm not sure Tony if your post above is meant as a way of saying the case is closed and won't be reopened, but if so, that is not right. You shouldn't be able to decide whether Aaron still should be on probation since you (nor anyone else) can unilaterally put a user under probation. Aaron's part of the case needs to be re-voted on to maintain basic fairness. The Ungovernable Force 06:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just a clerk so I wouldn't be involved in the decision on whether to re-open. However as a clerk I rummaged around in the case and came up with what I thought might be relevant detail. --Tony Sidaway 06:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, just wanted to make sure. It sounded like you were turning it down without saying so explicitly. Thanks for the clarification. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 07:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Should enforcement point 2 in this case, Enforcement of administrative probation, be removed in light of the fact that Dbiv was not placed on administrative probation? Ral315 (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Does it really matter? David | Talk 11:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It makes no difference, the decision already states, "Should Dbiv be placed on administrative probation". It did pass, it's just irrelevant. Dmcdevit·t 00:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't matter; I was just curious why an irrelevant part would be included. I was under the assumption that even if an enforcement clause passed, it was not mentioned if the remedy didn't pass. Oh well. Ral315 (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually think anyone has thought about it enough to make a convention. :-) Dmcdevit·t 20:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

---

There is a new ruling that Eternal Equinox, aka User:Velten is limited to a single account; and after a lot of carry-on (some of it appears at the foot of this section), she seemed resigned to following it. However, today she again edited anonymously, supporting herself at Promiscuous (song) and making this sneaky revert. There was no apology or "oops, forgot to log in" or anything of that nature, in fact the IP had already been used for another edit four minutes earlier. I assume not very much good-faith forgetfulness in this case. (I know, I know, but with respect, the arbcom hasn't already spent as much good faith on the editor as I have.) She apparently "foresaw" herethat it would happen soon, even though I can't say I can remember the diligent Eternal Equinox (etc) persona having any tendency to forget to log in. Anyway. Does the ruling have any teeth? It doesn't specify any penalties for editing anonymously. Can she be blocked for it? If not, I foresee she soon won't log in at all. (As above, on the good faith already spent.) Bishonen | talk 19:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC).

"All edits by Eternal Equinox under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user." This was intended to mean enforce as per WP:BAN. Revert on sight, dole out whatever blocks are necessary to get it to stop. It's rather like fighting vandalism. Dmcdevit·t 05:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to Bishonen: yes, I predicted that I might edit anonymously and I did. (Occasionally it happened when I used Hollow Wilerding, but that was long ago, so I can't remember.) If I do this again and another edit following from the Velten account occurs, I'd appreciate that I don't have to explain myself. Like I said, it happens because the browser logs you out sometimes and I didn't realize it. So I don't want to have to explain each time; because I've told everybody here, you'll know that it's me accidentally editing anonymously.

However, I was editing Promiscuous (song) and Loose (album) as early as these edits:

• Promiscuous 1
• Promiscuous 2
• Promiscuous 3
• Loose 1
• Loose 2
• Loose 3
• Loose 4

To EM: indeed I'm a fan of Nelly Furtado, but Gwen Stefani is still the best; don't be silly now. I wasn't harassing you and please don't block me if you aren't aware of the details. Discussion should always be incorporated and consensus might be achieved.

By the way, the 64.231 cannot be blocked upon sight since it's from a library. If it's musically-related, it's likely me, but there's still a chance it won't be. I'm saying this just so everybody knows. Velten 21:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Your previous edits to Promiscuous (song) consist of nothing but updating chart positions and minor rearrangements of the text, which is what you have done for dozens of song articles. Are you meaning to tell me your decision to revert one of my edits and completely overhaul a whole section of the article wasn't because I'd edited it just six hours before? This edit to Say It Right is equally worrying. Strangely enough, your first non-chart edits to any Nelly Furtado-related article occurred right after I told you I was a fan of her and owned her latest album (and the tone of your reply indicated you weren't even sure who the woman was). Coincidence? I think not; let's not forget, from the same period, [6] and [7], [8] and [9], [10] and [11], [12] and [13], [14] and [15]. Or, from before that, [16] and [17], as well as [18], [19] and [20]. Or how about [21] and [22] less than three weeks ago: piddling edits made to then-FA of the day Simon Byrne, to which user:Giano made major contributions that led to it becoming an FA. And I haven't even dug up the diffs that show you making equally trivial edits to articles watchlisted by Bishonen, Bunchofgrapes, and whoever else you've decided to harass. It's quite clear all of these were made with the intention of irritating other editors and scratching away at their patience, and regardless of whether you'll admit it, you're doing this again. There's nothing vague or open to interpretation about it. Not only that, but you're edit warring on Promiscuous (song) over the same issues you edit warred about on Cool (song), from which you were banned from editing for a period after you attempted to assume ownership. You're on extremely thin ice here. Extraordinary Machine 14:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

1. That's what you do to; rearrange and/or rewrite the text. I still edited it before you, so you have no defense here.
2. I didn't know who Furtado is until you mentioned her? Stop being silly.
3. You never told me you had her album. Stop creating excuses to prove a point.
4. Those diffs were explained offline. The consensus of those edits were either coincidence, intentional, or I had information to update. Incase nobody has noticed, EM and I edit the vast majority of music-related articles and because of this, that's obviously not stalking. If it was, then all the edits you made directly after mine on a music-related article would be considered stalking.
5. I already explained that I had no idea Giano authored Simon Byrne. I knew he had edited the article featured days before, Belton House, so I didn't touch it. The fact that another Giano-article was featured three days later was relatively questionable. I've already explained the details.
6. It's quite clear all of these were made with the intention of irritating other editors and scratching away at their patience, and regardless of whether you'll admit it, you're doing this again — it's quite clear? Really? What's your source?
7. You are edit-warring on Promiscuous (song). You are responsible for not providing answers and removing content (which you are basing upon the Billboard format).

Velten 16:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

1. EE/Velten's claims above shouldn't be read under the assumption that they're true; sadly, she's once again defending herself with falsehoods and misrepresentations. As the diffs above show, the harassment goes back to January, at least, and the main reason I've mostly ignored it until now isn't that there wasn't an ArbCom ruling at the time that would allow me to "have my way" whenever I disagreed with her (which is what she's claiming on my talk page), but because I thought sooner or later she'd come round and reconsider her behaviour and attitudes towards other Wikipedia users. This wasn't the reason I didn't provide evidence at the RFAr; I was just too burned by the whole affair to think about it anymore.
2. Fast forward to a few months later, and EE/Velten's still trying to pull off his usual shenanigans. Now, it didn't occur to me to take the novel (at least to me) course of ignoring overwhelming evidence (including an MSN chat I had with EE herself, in which I told her I owned the album) that proved beyond reasonable doubt she had harassed myself and other users, allowing her to have things her way and letting her claim ownership over even more pages, and then not doing a thing as she mysteriously parachuted her way into an article I had just edited. If that's what's now being endorsed as Wikipedia policy, I'll know in future, and will call on admins (and be prepared for others to call on me) to assume someone is telling the truth even in the presence of clear and present evidence to the contrary. No, actually I'll not do that; even if the ArbCom were to approve of it, I find it incredibly foolish, and I'll not go along with it.
3. The "edit war" to which Velten is referring involved me restoring an edit identical to one I had justified and explained to death on another talk page (Talk:Cool (song), from which she was temporarily banned for causing more disruption, quarreling and attempting to assume ownership). After she reverted, I asked her to provide a source for a claim she made on the talk page that she said justified her revert; she instead opted to set up a straw man argument against me and accuse me of "making excuses" and "not providing answers". This alone isn't exactly EE at her most disruptive, but it gets quite close once one factors in her main reason for starting the edit war. Extraordinary Machine 21:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Anonymous IPs aren't accounts, so if Velten is limited to one account, she's following that rule. Mistakes happen. Do whatever is needed to protect Wikipedia, but don't punish someone for forgetting to login. It's easy to do (I do it myself regularly). - Mgm|^(talk) 04:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • From the ruling: "All edits by Eternal Equinox under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user." The ruling was in fact entirely about getting him or her to stop editing from a cloud of IPs. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That ruling is about to be changed. This library IP address will not be blocked if others are editing music-related articles. Velten 16:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom ruling states that: "All edits by Eternal Equinox under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user". However, the 64.231 IP address is connected to the Toronto Reference Libraries, which all parties involved in this case seem to have acknowledged. As a result, I hereby request that this portion of the ruling be lifted so that others can edit from the libraries if they desire to. It should be noted that the library has new material that can unblock Wikipedia-enforced bans, which Bishonen acknowledged. Please remove this from the ruling. Velten 16:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? I acknowledged what? The library has... What are you talking about? I think it's possible that your erroneous claim of my acknowledgment of this strange thing represents a mixed-up memory on your part of me telliing you that Wikipedia has new software that can block a whole IP range without affecting logged-in users. It's not much like what you're saying, but it's the only guess I have. Bishonen | talk 18:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC).

• I'd also appreciate it if Bishonen removed all content regarding me and/or EE from her talk page. She very suspiciously added this (without providing an edit summary expectantly) and I want it removed immediately. I don't care if Giano's name remains there though. Velten 16:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The RFAR and other bookmarks at the top of my page are there for convenience, as Thatcheer says. I need them there. But I can easily change the visible part of the one affecting you to something less conspicuous. I'm sorry it never occurred to me it might be disagreeable for you the way it was. Done. Bishonen | talk 18:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC).

The point is that IP edits to your favorite articles in your characteristic style may be reverted in order to create an incentive for you to stick to an account. I suspect if library users edit other articles no one will notice or care. As for the talk page, it looks like bookmarks to things that interest her, and you are only one of several. Thatcher131 16:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but my point was concerning the music articles themselves — reckless reverting and blocking when one doesn't know whether it's me or someone else is silly. Velten 19:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall it ever being proven that the 64.231 IP address belonged to a library; note this old but rather illuminating comment from Giano. Also, the "block anonymous users only" feature enables any other people editing from that IP range to create an account if the IP range has been blocked. Extraordinary Machine 17:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This business about "the library has new material that can unblock Wikipedia-enforced bans" is obviously nonsense too. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Velten, the 64.231.0.0 range includes 65,000 addresses, probably a library (why not) but also a big chunk of the Toronto area. We do have the capability of blocking anonymous editors but not registered users, but that is at our end, not the library, and it is not always used. The bottom line is that admins will use their discretion when looking at edits from that range. Productive and useful edits will probably not be reverted at all; disruptive edits to your favorite articles using your style will be reverted and probably blamed on you. Assuming you have turned over a new leaf, you should always log in, not the least so that your good edits and good behavior are properly attributed to you. If you forget to log in or are accidentally logged out, a word on your talk page or the talk page of the article you are working on will ensure there is no confusion. Good luck. Thatcher131 01:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

---

copied from Thatchers talk page, with details removed and replaced by 'X':

"" Blocking the anon from XXXXXXXX

Removed comments I did not post here --Golden Wattle ^talk 11:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, XXXXX has the 203.54.0.0/16 range (65,000 addresses) but lately she has only used 203.54.186.0/24 and 203.54.9.0/24, each of which range includes only 256 addresses. My guess is that only certain ranges are available to certain telephone exchanges or neighborhoods. If she comes back tonight on the 186.0/24 range, I'll block it too. I'm using the anon only blocking feature so the only users to be affected should be people in her local area who want to edit as anon IPs. (I should have enabled account creation, too, since the only thing we want to block is her anonymous editing.) There aren't any current autoblocks, and there shouldn't be any using the anon only feature, but if you see any you should release them. At this point the only long term solution is an arbitration that would confirm your decision to revert on sight. Thatcher131 22:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)"

• • Are u guys now messing up southern Oz's access to the Internet as well as mine? Isnt that denial of service? Maybe you should have got a job on the Sydney Road Construction then you could have done some lane closures there if you like to block peopel off from access. I thought you must have lifted the block as I accessed it earlier not expecting it to be unblocked (but your behaviour has been so erratic that anything was possible), so if I should not have posted what I did till 6am tomorrow, dont fret too much as it would have been posted anyway.

Dont you people think you are getting a bit carried away with yourselves? Are you children? I am starting to think that you may be as it seems you are playing something like a computer game with the target needing to be nuked and nil else will do.

If you are children then wik needs to note that in log on names or something. I do not usually log on to sites that children play on as too many weirdos also around them.

Re my ip, the server adjusts. Sometimes it runs through one server, then adjusts to another, then to another. It all depends on what other traffic XXXXXXX are carrying such as defence, media and private commercial, line loads and where there is space to put the cyber stuff. I do not live in a little town re my ip but on a major node. Thus, my ip range would be pretty wide as it goes all over the place. My log on varies as I dial in to other servers for other stuff so probably swap carriers here and there to do that. Hope that helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.54.186.193 (talk • contribs) .

---

I have asked for a clarification on my arbitration [23], but got no response there, so I will try it here. My comment was:

“

I'm confused. Somehow the ArbCom did not find my edits to be "tendentious," yet the probation is about that. How is this logically possible?

”

Intangible 10:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This should read edit-warring. If there are no objections, I'll change this in a day or two. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to combine this with the review of AaronS's arbitration decision. --LucVerhelst 19:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is quite clearly an error of notation rather than any kind of alteration to the decision. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It is, but both for the decision on Intangible as for AaronS's decision, I believe. --LucVerhelst 22:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the consistent wording would then be "for any disruptive edits." That's our convention, I don't recall our ever using just "edit warring" in the probation remedy, even when edit warring is the finding. Assuming there are no objections, I've fixed it. Dmcdevit·t 02:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not see why one should have to wait for User:AaronS to come back to Wikipedia. His review is pretty much irrelevant to the above question. Intangible 21:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but is "for any disruptive edits" a convention used when the only thing Arbcom really had a concern with is the two times I was blocked (one block for just putting a NPOV tag to the Anarchism article—an article which has had that same tag now for about two months)? Intangible 13:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I consider your removal of sourced information from Paul Belien disruptive, and was going to ban you from the article until I saw that you and Luc were talking nicely on the talk page. Your interpretation of reliable source policy is frankly ridiculous in this case. You can not exclude newspaper articles as sources just because Mr. Belien says in his own blog that he considers the reporter to be baised against him. Personal blogs are acceptable sources for non-controversial information about a person's life; they are not authoritative regarding that person's perceived enemies. This sort of problematic source removal is part of what got you in trouble before. The alternative to having individual admins making judgements on what is "disruptive" is to fully reopen the arbitration case to consider all of your recent edits, including to Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw. I hope you will avoid removing reliable sources from other articles in the future, as that will only create problems for all concerned. Thatcher131 14:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS says: "Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own name or known pen-name and not anonymously." Belien is professional journalist. He is also well-known, inside and outside of Belgium. Intangible 14:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if journalist A has argued that journalist B is biased against person C, that is not reason to exclude B's sources from the article but to include both A and B. In this case, journalist A argues journalist B is biased against journalist A (i.e. himself). That's an overwhelming conflict of interest and I doubt you would see the same logic accepted at Ann Althouse or Michelle Malkin for example. Maybe Arbcom should reopen your case. Thatcher131 14:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if journalist B writes that paleoconservatives are libertarians, which is refuted by journalist A, I'm not going to give undue weight to journalist B (probably none at all in this case). Intangible 15:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sam, there is a potential problem here. At the moment, Intangible is removing statements with reliable newspaper citations from Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw and Paul Belien; in one case because the version of a person's statement quoted in a French language newspaper differs from the version on Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw's own web site (hence, a mistranslation, according to Intangible); and in the other case because Mr. Belien has stated on his personal blog that the newspaper reporter responsible for the articles is biased against him. "Tendentious editing" was rejected as a finding of fact because it is content based. However, whether Intangible edit wars over his interpretations depends on the number of opposing editors and their tenacity. This doesn't seem right to me. Thatcher131 16:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS tells me that I can use both sources in those articles. Intangible 16:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording should just remove "by tendentious editing". You are quite right, of course, that the issue was more than edit-warring. Any other comments? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, as you can see above he has an interesting view of reliable source policy. If you leave it as, "may be banned from any article he disrupts," my question as an admin would be how it should be enforced. In the case of Paul Belien, can Intangible be banned from the article for his removal of sourced material even though he and Luc are talking politely? In the case of Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw, where there was disruption until the article was protected, should Intangible be banned from the article even though both editors were stubborn? One answer would be to file article RFCs or requests for 3rd opinions, and then ban from the article if he refuses to accept the consensus of outside opinion. That's a "process" answer although the gears grind slowly some times. Any further thoughts would be appreciated. Thatcher131 02:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I was working with Intangible to get Paul Belien a little more balanced. Since a civil discussion on the talk page didn't get us anywhere, I put an {{unreferenced}} template on the article page[24]. He reverted it immediately, saying that the article wasn't unreferenced[25], so I put some {{fact}} templates on the page[26][27], and the {{unreferenced}} template[28], hoping it would make my goal clear. About minutes later, he did this : [29]. Of course, the two can be unrelated, and (assuming good faith) he might genuinely be worried that there is a reference problem with George W. Bush being the U.S. president. --LucVerhelst 15:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I think the situation at Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw is somewhat different than at Paul Belien and calls for a different response. I'm waiting for a third opinion from a more experienced administrator. Obviously, Intangible should not make edits just to make a point; doing so repeatedly will likely trigger the disruptive edits remedy in his arbitration. Thatcher131 16:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

---

What would the proceedure be for getting off probation? There were four users placed on probation, SPUI, PHenry, JohnnyBGood, and myself. SPUI did have some run-ins at WP:SRNC, but has left. PHenry has not edited since the conclusion of the case. JohnnyBGood has drifted away from highway articles a bit, editing other articles. (but in effect not doing any mass moves). I started WP:SRNC, and the poll has concluded, and mass moves are being done to move the pages to the agreed upon locations. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The current probation is worded

2.1) Should SPUI, JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and PHenry disrupt the editing of any article which concerns highways he or she may be banned by any administrator from that article or related articles. All bans are to be logged...

I have to ask—what would you do differently if the probation were not in effect? What specific benefit would accrue to Wikipedia if the probation were lifted? As long as the parties involved continue to behave civilly and avoid the destructive behaviour that led to the arbitration in the first place, the probation won't be tripped.

I'm extremely pleased to see things finally being worked out. I remember the bad old days with the move warring, and the blocks, and the bloody stupid namecalling, and the pages and pages of sniping on WP:AN, and the borderline wheel wars that resulted, and the month it took to deal with the arbitration from submission to close. I'm enjoying the peace and quiet. I really don't want to go back to that mess, and I'm quite comfortable leaving the probation in place; I like having a remedy in place that encourages participants in the naming debacle to think twice before opening a new can of worms. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Basically, the only thing that bugs me is the word "probation." I have to ask, if there was no probation, wouldn't it be the same? Considering that if other users did the same actions they would be blocked too? I'm not asking for the probation to be removed right now, I'm just seeing how I would go about it. In reality there is a new user who is trying to open another can of worms related to the naming convention stuff, but he finally realized that he was getting nowhere. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If a new editor (or a 'new' editor) shows up in the highway naming disputes, I would be inclined to give that editor one polite, friendly, civil, and patient explanation of the current situation and the arbitration from which it arose. There's no reason, after all, to bite a newbie who innocently stumbles on the dispute.

If the polite and friendly explanation didn't work – and I wouldn't proceed if that condition hadn't been met – I for one would be willing to entertain, support, and enforce community-imposed article bans on parties not explicitly mentioned in the existing arbitration. (Such bans would best be requested/proposed on WP:AN/I.)

I can't see how the solution to bad behaviour by new parties is lifting restrictions on the old parties. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well my concern is I'm wondering what difference the probation makes, if anybody can be blocked. Not that I'm asking for it now, though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Probation does two things (as I see it). First, it allows an otherwise good editor to be banned from specific articles that he disrupts while allowing him to edit other articles and without having to block his account entirely. For example if Joe Smith is passionate about birds and Star Trek but only disrupts articles about birds, he can still edit Star Trek articles. There is very little precedent (as yet) for a community imposed article ban, so this would be difficult to apply to new editors. Second, it lifts somewhat the need to take an editor through all the prior steps of dispute resolution. A new editor who is disruptive needs to be treated per WP:BITE and helped, guided, hand-held, or whatever, until it becomes absolutely neccessary to impose sanctions. A prior editor on probation is on notice that, having gone through the dispute process in the past one way or another, is not entitled to the same gentle and forgiving treatment. (No opinion on the issue lifting probation in this case.) Thatcher131 12:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

---

I hate to be a pill, but in this case, two arbitrators amended the prinicple

• A set of users or anonymous editors who edit in the same tendentious pattern or engage in the same disruptive tactics may be presumed to be one user. The provisions of an arbitration decision may be enforced on that basis.

with the addition

• Yes to this when the ArbCom has had time and reason to come to grips with a situation. It is not a great idea for individual admins to apply the same reasoning, on the fly. Mistakes then get made.

Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is under a 5 day block for disruption and sockpuppetry. 64.230.112.190 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) today performed characteristic vandalism, including calling Warren Kinsella names [30] and blanking a section of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement [31]. Two other IPs 142.78.190.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 64.230.111.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which are consistent with Ellis' venues and manner, also edited articles from which Ellis is banned. Based on the findings in this case, should this IP be treated as an Ellis sock (in which case triggering enforcement against Ellis), or should they be treated as de novo vandals. Thatcher131 20:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Another wrinkle for clarification. The arbitrators' ruling is

"Arthur_Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from Warren Kinsella and articles which relate to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. Any article which mentions Warren Kinsella is considered a related article for the purposes of this remedy. This includes all talk pages other than the talk page of Mark Bourrie.:

"Today one of the IPs mentioned above made this edit, removing the Warren Kinsella section from the Bourrie article. This edit raises the question whether Mark Bourrie is still covered by the ban. Bucketsofg✐ 22:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume that means he is banned from all related article and talk pages including Mark Bourrie but not Talk:Mark Bourrie. Thatcher131 00:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the exception is to permit him to comment on the article about himself. Fred Bauder 20:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That is my reading of the remedy. FloNight 05:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Still wondering whether to hold Arthur Ellis responsible for the contributions of the IPs. Thatcher131 05:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the judgement call of the administrator who is familiar with the problem and the edits. If you are reasonably sure it is him, go for it. Fred Bauder 20:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Fred. Thatcher131 18:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

One more request for clarification.

"Arthur_Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from Warren Kinsella and articles which relate to Canadian politics and its blogosphere.:

Does that include the Rachel Marsden page? Marsden has been involved in Canadian politics. Geedubber 23:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Dmcdevit·t 15:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

---

1. Does not linking to purportedly unreliable websites also include the homepages of critics with their own articles of Sathya Sai Baba e.g. Robert Priddy (see [32]), Basava Premanand, M. Alan Kazlev (see here [33] one of the webpages on the website authored, owned, and maintaind by Kazlev, linked to in his Wikipedia article), Sanal Edamaruku, Babu Gogineni, the late Abraham Kovoor, and the late H._Narasimhaiah? If the answer is yes, how can this be reconciled with a seemingly contradictory guideline WP:EL that states "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if there is one"? SeeWikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/#Robert_Priddy for a description of this dispute. (amended 09:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC))
2. Does not linking to unreliable website also include wikipedia user pages such as user:Andries See [34] #Do unreliable websites also include the websites created and maintained by user:SSS108 especially for Wikipedia. In certain cases such as this one [35] the webpages on this website are simply copies that SSS108 took from the webpages of exbaba.com [36]
3. Is it okay to use webpages with copies of reputable sources on purportedly unreliable websites as convenenience links in the references. See e.g. here [37]If the answer is no, how can this be reconciled with a seemingly contradictory guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources regarding intermediate sources that states "A common error is to copy citation information from an intermediate source without acknowledging the original source." (amended 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC))
4. User:SSS108 removed a lot of information from the article talk page [38] that I had moved from the article [39] to the talk page [40]. In spite of my request to do so he did not justify in specifics why this removal was either justified by WP:BLP or the arbcom decision regarding posting external links. I object to mass removals of information from the talk page that are not motivated in specific terms if and where it violates WP:BLP or the arbcom decision. SSS108 stated the intention to remove more of my future comments from the talk page [41] Is SSS108’s or my behaviour a violation of talk page etiquette?
5. This may not be the place for it, but I also want to express my concern about the number of disputes between SSS108 and me on the Sathya Sai Baba article and related articles that seem to increase in the course of time. If it continues like this, then I will file two requests for comments per week without any end in sight. Regarding Pjacobi's request to step aside, I would like to point out that I am by far the greatest content creator on all articles related to Sathya Sai Baba during the past years. In the weeks that I was away from the article no new content or hardly new content was added to any of these articles. Andries 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC) amended 18:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Andries 13:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC) added question about contradictory guidelines. 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC) added new point expressing concern about the number of disputes. 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 18:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Point 1: Wiki pages about a certain person can include a link to his/her homepage. The link Andries was/is trying to include on Robert Priddy's Wiki page is not his homepage. It is an Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba Site (one of three maintained by Priddy). Priddy's homepage is already listed on his wiki page.
• Point 2: Andries agreed to the neutral geocities site in mediation with BostonMA [42]. This site does not link to or promote any pro/anti site. Furthermore, the articles that Andries claims were taken from the exbaba site are not copyright protected to the exbaba site (nor were they ever originally published on the exbaba site). Therefore, the exbaba site cannot claim copyright status to the articles in question.
• Point 3: If the reputable sources in question are duplicated on (never originally published on) biased, partison and controversial websites (such as the exbaba and saiguru sites), I think WP:RS prohibits this. Also, JzG expressed the opinion that citing these sources on any non-reputable website is a copyright violation [43] [44] [45].
• Point 4: See FloNight's Thread [46] & Tony Sidaway's Thread [47] & My Thread [48].
• Point 5: Pjacobi requested both Andries and me to step aside from the Sathya Sai Baba article [49]. I expressed my willingness to do so 3 times [50] [51] [52] . Andries has not expressed any willingness to step aside even once. Andries is reintroducing controversial edits without obtaining consensus. Andries should step aside and let other editors work on the article and he would not have to be repeatedly challenged. I am not the only editor disagreeing with Andries. All the other editors disagree with him about his recent edits. Even the person who responded to his RFC [53]. Yet Andries is still fighting it. SSS108 ^talk-email 07:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to comment here on my dual role in this matter. My first response on this was that it seemed to be a matter for administrators to resolve, and I investigated as an administrator and warned Andries politely in my role as an administrator that in my view and that of other admins he was contravening the ruling in the arbitration case.

Andries has come back politely with what amount, in my view, to clear signals that he requires much closer direction on this matter. I suggested that clarification from the arbitrators might be a good way of resolving this matter, and his query here is the response. Andries has shown by his responses and actions that he is eager and willing to comply with the arbitration and in my role as a clerk I commend his queries to the Committee, While this is clearly a dispute that could have become very rancorous, it seems to me that Andries is doing his best to avoid that path and seek clarification. I also commend SSS108 for his civility in the course of expressing a difference of opinion in a forthright and honest manner.

I hope that this is not "crossing the streams". I hope it's clear that my views as an administrator and as a clerk are quite distinct. My regard for both participants here is very high. Their honesty and civility is impressive. --Tony Sidaway 02:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Following the block by User:Zoe on User:Jgp, who had no prior history of any disruption, no known associations w/ED, and one readdition of the link, albeit in a profane way, how should blocks be doled out. His block, in particular, was indefinite, which seems entirely arbitrary and overblown. Please clarify. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Zoe made clear that if that user simply agrees not to willingly violate the rules, he can be unblocked. And indefinite != perma. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested in ArbCom's clarification. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You've already read it (but may not want to accept it): [

"So this link [45] in that context is a bannable offense? Humbug. SchmuckyTheCat 18:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"Yes, if you insist. Fred Bauder 18:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)" [54]. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If a user insists on violating the rules, he can be banned. Jgp insisted, and is now banned. As you already know, if jgp agrees not to continue his disruptive behavior, he will be unblocked. Is more (literal) wikilawyering on your part really in WP's best interest? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no wikilawyering, and I suggest stopping the attacks on my attempts for clarification. Jgf showed no "insistance," he called it stupid (and rightfully so) and added it abck, by my count, once. Certainly not evidence of continued disruption concerning the link. please stop and wait for us to get some official clarification without you attempting to muddy things up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Your unending advocacy of a blocked user despite numerous inconvenient realities is the very definition of lawyering (that's exactly what lawyers do). And your claiming I've 'attacked' your attempts is ludicrous. WP is for discussion and I'm allowed to discuss just as much as you are. Calling another user's contributions 'muddying things up' is bad faith and doesn't speak well for your willingness to engage in constructive resolution. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You've done just that. I'm certainly going to advocate for people unjustly blocked for first offenses. At this point, sicne you continue to misrepresent me, I'll wait for the clarification as opposed to say something I'll regret. I suggest you do the same. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. However, as I've said, you've had plenty of clarification already. Discussion is always welcome, so long as it is not an attack couched in stilted language (like claiming I'm misrepresenting you). Let's see what others have to say! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

---

There is no prior case from which a motion can proceed therefore this motion is out of process. The case that was proposed but not proceeded with dealt with admin abilities only ("This is a request for review of admin status" and "This is a request that his administrative status be reviewed."[55]) which is no longer an issue, nor is there a community ban against me as that proposal was defeated. This is therefore a request for probation for a case where there has never been a "trial" and is therefore inappropriate. If and when there is some sort of disruptive editing it would be in order to pursue an RFA through normal channels but this sort of a priori action is out of order. However, this request has been prompted not by "disruptive editing" but by content dispute and is an attempt by the person who prompted it to gain advantage in a content dispute through administrative means. I suggest that ArbComm members who wish to support this talk to Jimbo *first*. At the very least no action should be taken without a full and fresh RFA being undertaken. 74.98.234.104 12:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

'Homey' is Homeontherange (talk · contribs), who has been a party to three Arbitration requests - most recently, Israeli apartheid which closed last month. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A "full and fresh" RFA would involve many extraneous issues. The purpose of the motion is to clarify the conditions Homey may edit under. Fred Bauder 15:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The current motion against Homey is, in fact, out of process and inappropriate.

Certain editors seem to be under the impression that the user formerly known as "Homey" is (i) forbidden from editing under a different name, and (ii) forbidden from engaging in content disputes on certain subjects. Neither assertion is accurate.

Many of these same editors have themselves been conducting a campaign of harrassment against "Homey" over a period of several months. Tactics have included dubious 3RR blocks, unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry, threats of de-sysoping and attempts to resolve content disputes through the administrative process. These actions were always unjustified, and remain so now.

I would encourage Fred Bauder to reconsider his support for the present measure.

I will also note that HotR's having been a party to three arbitration requests is irrelevant (perhaps prejudicial) to the present discussion. The Israeli apartheid case involved several administrators, and was primarily focused on the actions of SlimVirgin and JayJG. No credible charges of misconduct were made against him in the other cases, both of which were resolved in his favour. CJCurrie 19:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Surely there are some allowable circumstances under which links to ED should be allowed? See here for full list of links. Among the hundreds of locations there are links to ED from various arbitration pages, signposts (I think the signposts links are all related to arbitration cases anyway), and numerous archives including AfDs. Could you clarify under which circumstances should these exceptions be made.--Konst.able^Talk 04:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • The remedy does not mandate a campaign of link removal, although if someone wishes to undertake it, that is fine. It is simply that links to the site are inappropriate and may be removed, or disabled, when encountered. Should a naive user make links, they should be warned and pointed to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to ED. There are no exceptions, but the remedy is mostly intended to be applied to links to hostile ED entries. Fred Bauder 16:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the clarification.--Konst.able^Talk 00:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

---

I'm having a major ongoing issue regarding an inappropriate block and a massive misuse of sysop abilities, and I wouldn't be surprised if one thinks I'm simply placing this here because Velten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User talk:Velten was protected not long ago. I am editing from an IP address because the original operator of Eternal_Equinox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wants to return to Wikipedia, but does not want to use the same account as I (Hollow_Wilerding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) currently am. I'll understand if this is removed, but there's no other way to ask this as of now.

While I'm here, I'd like to request something of the arbitration committee. In the past few weeks, I've been receiving increasingly abusive blocks from Extraordinary_Machine (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) which range from reasons such as "removed a template that I think should have stayed there" to assuming that I've edited from an IP address when it can't be proven. Again, I'm sure this will be ignored and removed altogether, but his abuse has got to stop. I'd provide diffs, but most are currently on User talk:Velten and I'm not up to it since this is likely not going to stay here. If I'm going to be placed on an ArbCom decision, there are going to be circumstances under which I can become blocked, because EM has so far abused it to his likening, which is evident through the following:

• First I made two edits to Loose (album) and Promiscuous (song) where we held a debate. Extraordinary Machine kept reminding me that I'm not supposed to engage in edit wars, but I was trying to express my view on the matter. He then went ahead and blocked me for a week because of this and called it "harassment".
• He gives me three-weeks worth of a ban for this and this. How in the world does this warrant a block?
• Because an IP address (74.117.11.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) edited Cool (song) with a similar edit summary to mine (which I do admit, find somewhat peculiar, and wonder if someone's out to get me), I'm positive Extraordinary Machine used this as an excuse to restart the three-week ban over again. I don't even know who this person is!

I've already waited two a half weeks based on his original ridiculous block. I'm not waiting again for something I didn't do. Can the ArbCom please do something? Thatcher131 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) said that he was concerned about this block and that it wasn't within the ArbCom's scope, which if I look at WP:RFAR/Eternal Equinox, is over two weeks the original punishment. This user is now deliberately trying to keep me away.

Could something be done? 64.231.64.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I would comment that it is not a good idea for admins to block in the case of disputes in which they are involved. Stifle (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It is permitted, but obviously this is becoming a personal dispute. Another problem is that Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eternal_Equinox#Eternal_Equinox_placed_on_Probation provides that Veltan may only be blocked for the maximum of a week and Extraordinary Machine is passing out 3 week blocks. It is very hard to say if the ip is Veltan, but it does seem likely. The dispute seems remarkably petty. I just don't get it. Fred Bauder 16:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Fred, I don't have any opinion about the dispute between Extraordinary Machine and Eternal Equinox, but we're getting somewhat contradictory clarifications about the maximum block thing. When I requested permission to pageban EE for more than the maximum week back in September[56], Tony Sidaway (clerk) replied, with every appearance of relaying arbcom policy, that there was no maximum: "Arbitration probations are permissive with respect to administrator action; they are not intended to limit administrator action."[57] I assume that's what Extraordinary Machine has been going by. However, Tony also recommended consultation on WP:AN. Perhaps that would be Extraordinary Machine's best policy? The problem with him leaving blocking to other admins is that there are only a few admins who care to, or dare, act in this complicated ArbCom case (see recent posts on User talk:Velten for expressions of this sentiment) and some of us (=me) have no comprehension of the intricacies of pop music articles. You could easily run out of remedy-enforcing admins altogether. Bishonen | talk 17:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

This is a rather long response, so please bear with me. I agree with Bishonen here, with the exception that I wouldn't really say there is a content dispute (if that's what is meant by "dispute"), because a) I'd stopped edit-warring with Velten before the three-week block, or the one-week block for that matter, for reasons I have outlined below, and b) disagreements over article content certainly wasn't Velten's main reason for initiating the dispute:

1. Firstly, it's already been established (at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox and the evidence subpage) that Eternal Equinox (talk · contribs) and Hollow Wilerding (talk · contribs) are one and the same. Already, alarm bells should be ringing that maybe her comments should be taken with not so much as a grain of salt, but several boxes of Morton's.
2. The main reason for the week-long block wasn't that she was edit-warring in a manner similar to her conduct on Cool (song) article (over which she attempted to claim ownership), but that she had edited the Promiscuous (song) and Loose (album) articles (and sneakily reverted one of my changes to the former in the process) just hours after I had done so. She has a long history of stalking and harassing other users, including myself; see the RFAr evidence subpage, [58] and [59]. (Velten has said that my evidence can be explained by the fact that we both edit pop music-related articles, which does absolutely nothing to explain her "stalking" edits to my own userspace or articles watchlisted by user:Bishonen and user:Giano, who never edit pop music articles.)
3. At Talk:Cool (song), user:Velten (Eternal Equinox's new username) removed a link to an old AFD discussion that had been initiated in good faith. She has a history of tampering with other people's comments and attempting to conceal discussions on that talk page that contain comments with which she disagrees; see, for example, [60], [61] (note the edit summary here) and [62]. She also continued to harass me on the Promiscuous (song) and Loose (album) articles, the latter of which I hadn't been edit-warring with her on (partly in an attempt to get her to stop stalking me there, and on other pages, and partly to demonstrate that the blocks had nothing to do with me trying to gain the upper hand in a content dispute). Because of this behaviour, I blocked her for three weeks.
4. Now Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eternal_Equinox#Remedies says that EE/Velten can be blocked for disruption "up to a week in the event of repeat offenses". If a user is blocked for doing something and then, after removing the relevant messages from their talk page, does the same thing again as soon as they're unblocked, I'd think it would be appropriate to place a longer block. With regard to EE/Velten specifically, user:Bishonen (as he mentioned above) said on this page "I request permission to ban her for more than a week from pages she disrupts. "Up to a week" is a feeble remedy for this editor" [63], to which user:Tony Sidaway replied "[you] can block a disruptive editor for as long as seems reasonable. Arbitration probations are permissive with respect to administrator action; they are not intended to limit administrator action." [64] The next option after one week on the block page dropdown menu was one month, which I thought was unreasonable, so I placed a three week block instead.
5. Tony Sidaway also said to consult on WP:AN, which I forgot to do initially but did after Velten submitted a request for unblock and user:Thatcher131 expressed concerns to me about the block. I said in my message that if anybody believed the block should be shortened to one week, they could feel free to do so and I wouldn't undo it. No-one undid the block; indeed, no-one other than Thatcher replied to the message. [65] Soon after, JzG (talk · contribs) declined the unblock request (citing Velten's attempts to game the system) [66], after which Velten accused him of not actually reviewing it at all [67].
6. Later, the 74.117.11.247 (talk · contribs) IP edited Cool (song). The IP originates from the Toronto area [68] [69]; the edit summary was very similar to Velten's, but that wasn't the main tip-off for me. Velten's claims that a Toronto-based IP user editing a Gwen Stefani article, who not only edits it but reverts an edit made the day before, is not her, simply beggars belief. In accordance with Wikipedia:Blocking policy, I reset the block. Velten posted a second request for unblock, including a demand to have my sysop powers suspended [70]; Redvers (talk · contribs) declined it and protected Velten's talk page because of abuse of the {{unblock}} template. [71]

I understand why this may appear "petty", but that's the problem: aside from irritating other users, her disruptive behaviour seems to be designed purely to establish how much she can get away with. "[S]he constantly attacks, trolls, teases, provokes, tries to get a rise, pecks away", Bishonen once said, and I think this sums it up perfectly. Her recent behaviour and comments such as [72] and [73] demonstrate pretty conclusively that her behaviour has changed little (if at all) since she started editing in mid-2005, and that she refuses to acknowledge community concerns. As she's made clear on her talk page and in her editing elsewhere, her view is that she needs (not just wants) to get her way, those who disagree with her are wrong (and haven't read into it, or are misusing their powers and must have them removed immediately, or are making up stories or excuses, or something else), and that's all that needs to be said.

I won't pretend to know what the long term solution is, but I do know that the problem she poses here is extremely serious. Extraordinary Machine 20:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean when Extraordinary Machine is simply silly. Here's a long post from me too.

1. He says it's been established that Eternal Equinox (talk · contribs) and Hollow Wilerding (talk · contribs) are the same editor. That is a rather bold statement since all the editors who participated in the RFAr are under no obligation to assume who is who; they have not met Adam or me and if that indeed was concluded there, it would be out of nothing more than ensuring that only one account be used to edit Wikipedia, even if they felt that there really were more than one person. What alarm bells should be ringing? You need to get your facts straight.
2. Extraordinary Machine claims that he first blocked Velten because I harrassed him on Loose (album) and Promiscuous (song). There are no signs whatsoever in the past month that indicate I harrassed him — here, here and here. If this is considered "harrassment", I'd hate to see what he considers "personal attacks". We had a disagreement over the inclusion of a chart at Promiscuous (song), and I found it peculiar. On the talk page, he posted this claiming "As well as harassing other users, you should be warned about disrupting articles by edit warring, which your ArbCom case prevents you from doing". The only logical assumption is that he posted the link to the ArbCom case in order to break my defense down in case others read the talk page. They would see that I am a "disruptive user" and agree with his view. He's also done this on Talk:Cool (song), Talk:Mariah Carey and Talk:Pieces of Me.
3. That request for deletion was not initiated in good faith. You didn't have the right to use that as one of your "reasons" for blocking me. You "considered" it to have been issued properly, but I didn't. Also, could you please provide links within the last four weeks that clearly show I've been "harrassing" you?
4. So you're saying that you'd place me on a three-week block for making this edit and this edit? Really?
5. After Thatcher131 (talk · contribs) did not respond to his initial backlash of the three-week block, I assumed he had forgotten about it or was not interested in becoming tangled in the web. I placed an unblock message on my user talk page and was declined by JzG (talk · contribs). He said I was "gaming the system". Immediately I was taken back and absolutely disgusted with this user's response. Gaming the system? What does that mean? This is gaming the system? I posted a statement here claiming that the user was full of nonsense and didn't review my block at all for that very reason. Gaming the system made no sense in this case of a block. Interestingly, one user claimed that my block was indeed overlooked.
6. 74.117.11.247 (talk · contribs) edited Cool (song) recently with an edit summary that I found very striking because it was written in a style that I typically use; this worried me a great deal because I figured Extraordinary Machine would assume that it was me, which seemed like the only logical case. It was, and he reblocked and told me to stop evading my bans. I said that it was not me and that it was someone out to get me here; I also said in that same edit that if I was going to evade my ban, I wouldn't be stupid enough to make it obvious that it was me by writing a fairly similar edit summary. And today, though I already know this will be overlooked as make believe, I found out it was indeed someone who strongly dislikes me who made those "Velten-like" edits.
7. Extraordinary Machine claims he reset the three-week Velten ban because of something I said here, which was posted well after he already initiated the block. If anything, he reset the ban upon noticing that the edit summary was similar to mine. Administrators are not supposed to lie to the Wikipedian government.
8. I request that Extraordinary Machine be banned from blocking me altogether and editing User talk:Velten. At first I accepted his one-week ban because I felt I had abused my ruling, but after that, it was becoming nothing more than a game to him: his power and my weakness. He claims that I'm editing articles that he's edited and even though they are music articles, I have done this to Bishonen and Giano before. That was long ago and I have no intention on interacting with them again. If I am continuously blocked for editing a music article around the same time he does, I'll always be blocked. This is abuse of the ArbCom ruling and he is too involved in the case to be permitted to come to such conclusions.
9. What am I to do about Adam wanting to edit from an account?

64.231.70.117 01:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, I am concerned that a three wekk ban exceeds the proscribed remedy, and I am also concerned that Extraodinary Machine may be too "involved" at this point to be making the blocks himself. However, I do not know enough about the situation to be comfortable unilaterally overturning the ban. Also, while I understand EM's comment about arbitration remedies being permissive, not limiting, I do note that the remedy is quite specific about allowing Velten to be blocked for a week; after 5 offenses, the maximum block time increases to a year. I personally would perfer to follow that schedule; if Velten is as disruptive as EM says then it won't be long before she reaches the 6th block, which could easily be 3 weeks or a month with no disagreement. Thatcher131 02:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

We did not include a block up to a year in this case. Maximum block is a week. Fred Bauder 05:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake for not checking again. Thatcher131 06:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a really obvious problem with the logic being exerted here. This user (a school boy in Canada who uses new account names when blocked, evades blocks routinely, and does this by using his school library's computers, whatever name you want to settle on for him) has consistently gone to assert his will over all others and childishly followed those who have prevented his ownership. Since the user's interest is confined to pop idols, he's going to go into all of them and exert the same basic habits and personality. So, if EM is one of our best pop idol editors who does not engage in hostile editing and doesn't get injunctions laid on him, sooner or later HW/EE/V will show up (not to mention the vindictive element left over from EM's evidence in the rfar) and begin doing the same things he has done consistently. At that point, EM is not an involved editor: EM is an editor who has been involved. I.e. he did not initiate a conflict with EE/HW/V, but had V/EE/HW attach himself to EM's ongoing edits. The block is consistent with trying to prevent continual disruption of editing on these subjects. The RFAR demonstrated that the problem user had been remarkably consistent and unchanged in a year of activity. He has been virtually monomaniacal. We have no past evidence of EM behaving in such a manner, so it's strange to think that he is suddenly "picking on" a user who has demonstrated a deep commitment to violating editing courtesy. Geogre 17:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The theory is that, at some point, he will grow up. Fred Bauder 17:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll drink to that. I just wonder that we're taking his martyrdom seriously at this particular point. He's not really complaining that newbie editor X blocked him, but that one of the people who has managed to work consensually and moderately on pop music has. EM might have been inappropriate, but it's just not as likely as that EE/HE/V has been picking at the article to try to get the last word, over and over and over. Geogre 19:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There is little practical difference between a series of one-week blocks and a longer block, except that other editors will have to put up with a small number of disruptive edits to trigger each successive one week block. Without an amendment from Arbcom, it seems that longer blocks are disfavored at this time. I suggest unblocking Velten, and Geogre and I can make ourselves available as uninvolved administrators to reblock, assuming Velten does not "grow up." I already watchlist arbitration enforcement. Will this balance the desire to protect a nice editing environment for productive long-term editors with Arbcom's intent to give Velten a chance to grow up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatcher131 (talk • contribs)

That sounds like a fine idea to me. But I have one problem still: how about EE? He is in fact not a boy, but a 21-year-old (...okay, fine, you can call him a boy if you want) and I'm a 24-year-old female. As long as EM is not involved in these blocks (because they've been questionable), I'm happy. Also, don't be fooled by Geogre's assertion that EM is the better pop music editor of us; that's a ridiculous statement and while he's definitely brought more music-related articles to GA status or a specific standard, this doesn't justify our — that being Adam's and mine — contributions. 64.231.75.70 23:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, while it may be redundant to announce now, I've completed EM's original three-week block and think I've entered the fourth week. I'm not positive though. 64.231.75.70 23:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I won't continue playing these silly little games with Velten; he knows exactly what he's been doing is purposefully disruptive and why he was blocked, so any further efforts to get him to admit this will be a waste of my time and that of most other editors here. I do agree with Thatcher131's suggestion to unblock Velten for the time being - if he decides to "grow up" as a result of this then that's that (though, unfortunately, I doubt this will happen); if he doesn't...well, he can be blocked again. (I think Geogre explained the situation accurately when he said it was a case of Velten following me across articles rather than a legitimate disagreement over content, but I'll refrain from placing blocks if I become as involved as I was before, although I didn't think I was involved too much.) I have a suspicion he's gone back to editing from his cloud of IPs anyway. Extraordinary Machine 20:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you did me a favour. Could you please provide evidence that I was harrassing you which led you to initiating a three-week ban? Your previous post had six essential points, each with several diffs and other links, with the exception of She also continued to harass me on the Promiscuous (song) and Loose (album) articles, the latter of which I hadn't been edit-warring with her on (partly in an attempt to get her to stop stalking me there, and on other pages, and partly to demonstrate that the blocks had nothing to do with me trying to gain the upper hand in a content dispute). Because of this behaviour, I blocked her for three weeks, which was the reason why I brought this here in the first place. Some links would be appreciated. Velten 21:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I still have not received suggestions about Eternal Equinox and his will to create a new account. Thoughts? Velten 21:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That you consider your multiple 'personalities' to be in fact different people does not mean that we have to believe you. We are not obliged to pander to your fantasies or your disturbed mind - or your pretense at such, if that's the case. Different treatment for differing alleged "identities" is not going to occur. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Extraordinary Machine has unblocked Velten so will see how he/she behaves going forward. I would suggest that Extraordinary Machine ask for a review before blocking, but it would not be inappropriate to block first if the circumstances warranted it and then post a request for review at the noticeboard or arbitration enforcement. I would also suggest a maximum block length of 1 week per Fred's comment. Of course, if Velten continues to be disruptive there will be little practical difference between a series of one week blocks applied every 8 or 9 days versus a single longer block. Thatcher131 22:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Thatcher131's proposal is fine. However, I don't think it's up to Morven to decide how many "personalities" I have or how many friends I have that edit Wikipedia. Once EE returns to Toronto, I'll tell him that he's free to create an account, unless you want him to edit from this account too, which he's somewhat protested to. Velten 01:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, playing Columbo here, assuming that what you have said on this page and at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox/Evidence#Overview of my history on Wikipedia are both correct, then you are Courtni, former owner of User:Hollow Wilerding and now User:Velten. Adam, who seems to have been a housemate, shared Hollow Wilderding with you, then when Hollow Wilerding got in trouble, he created User:Eternal Equinox. Since Eternal Equinox and Hollow Wilerding shared the same style and interests, he was eventually identified, and (he says) hounded, so he acted out. It also sounds like Adam is currently living with you but is moving out eventually.

Well. Hmm. We have numerous editors who are housemates or even married, and obviously share a computer, but they have different interests and different personalities, and are not disruptive, so the issue of identity never comes up. On the other hand, when two disruptive accounts share the same computer we have no choice but to assume they are controlled by the same person.

You're in a tough spot. Following continued disruptive editing you are restricted to one account. But you claim that "you" are two people. Shared accounts are not allowed, so assuming your story is true, Adam should definitely register and edit from a new account. If he does this secretly, and behaves himself, no one will ever know about it. If he resumes the disruptive behavior that got Eternal Equinox put on probation, he will probably be labeled as a Velten sockpuppet and both your accounts will be sanctioned. Harshly. I suggest that he announce his new account here and agree to submit to the same probation as Velten (which he deserves, being both Eternal Equinox and partly Hollow Wilerding), even though that might annoy the arbitrators who have heard the "it was my housemate" excuse about 10,000 times, and will now think I am hopelessly gullible. The only think I know for sure is that if checkuser ever identifies a disruptive account coming from your computer, you're going to get nailed, whether it's you, Adam, or the cat. (And I am only this gullible once.)

I'm more than a little dubious, and I'm posting this here rather than your talk page so I can be slapped down by the arbitrators if I'm out of line. But there is nothing especially unusal about my comments; as Mindspillage has said on more than one occasion, we have no way of knowing how many banned users have reformed and quietly come back under new identities; we only know about that ones that continue the behavior that got them in trouble in the first place. Bottom line: which kind are you? Thatcher131 02:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, since Adam won't be back for a while (actually, he doesn't plan on moving out, but everything else you said was correct), there's no problem right now. Later, I hope that we can edit together. The reason he's a housemate of mine is because we share similar interests and therefore edit the same articles. It's not impossible, but I can see why everybody is so reluctant to accepting this as more than make believe. (We met at a Gwen Stefani fanclub for goodness sake! What more can I say?) If he registers a new account, I hope everything can simply settle down. Velten 03:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

---

User:SlimVirgin reverted this edit by 172.194.169.47, with no editing memo explanation. I didn't see the need to do that, so I put the external link back in this edit. SlimVirgin then left a message on my talk page implying that I could be blocked for doing so. I asked for clarification as to whether she was threatening me with a block, and she replied with these words.

I don't plan to replace the external link on the Lyndon LaRouche article, but I would like to know whether SlimVirgin is accurately describing the Arbitration Committee ruling, and whether it really applies to an external link on the Lyndon LaRouche article. There are about 19 footnotes and external links to LaRouche websites on the Lyndon LaRouche article. Are they all forbidden by the Arbitration ruling as well? If not, what makes this particular link different? Please post your answer at Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche#Policy_Question so that other editors will be aware of it. Thanks in advance for your time. --ManEatingDonut 22:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin may have been confused. The relevant ArbCom ruling, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche, states:

• Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.

Thus, LaRouche sources may be used for LaRouche articles. However the link that was added was not relevant to the biography of Lyndon LaRouche, and should haev been remoevd for that reason, not for violating this ruling. -Will Beback 03:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

First, for the benefit of the ArbCom, the issue is that the LaRouche publication ManEatingDonut wanted to link to was about a living person.

Will, I would interpret the ArbCom rulings as meaning that LaRouche publications may not be used as sources about third parties, regardless of whether it's in articles about LaRouche or elsewhere. (There's the ruling you quoted, and there was mention of the issue during a case involving Chip and again in relation to Cognition, but I'd have to search for them.) ArbCom apart, the content policies indicate that LaRouche publications may only be used in articles about the LaRouche movement to make points about that movement, and may not be used as third-party sources, whether in articles about LaRouche or anywhere else. The relevant policies are WP:BLP and WP:V. The latter says that sources of dubious reliability — defined as "sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight" — may be used in articles about themselves so long as the material "does not involve claims about third parties ..." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin is correct here. The ban on LaRouche publications being used for any other subject than LaRouche and related subjects includes attempts to get around it by talking about other people on the LaRouche articles. LaRouche publications are useful sources about LaRouche's views about LaRouche himself and his organisations / affiliated parties, but are not acceptable sources about anyone or anything else. Will Beback is also correct that in any case the link given was not on topic for the article and thus deletable anyway. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Explained that way, it seems like a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the ruling. -Will Beback 23:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have looked over the article in question (the one that was the target of the external link) and it appears to me that it is entirely "relevant to the biography of Lyndon LaRouche." It discusses many of LaRouche's various campaigns and issues. It is mainly a rebuttal of the theories of Berlet, theories which dominate most of the Wikipedia articles on LaRouche. But I am mainly interested in a precise clarification of what the Arbitration ruling means, because I have seen Berlet threaten other editors with this ruling as well (see Talk:National_Caucus_of_Labor_Committees#Disputed.) Perhaps there should be clarification on this example as well. The edit that appears to have provoked the threat is here. --ManEatingDonut 15:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The material on the external link mainly concerned Chip Berlet, not LaRouche, thus removal was appropriate. Fred Bauder 20:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There is an additional issue that was under consideration in the first LaRouche case - the fact that LaRouche organizations publish an extremely large amount, responding to all criticisms. Excessive citation of this material when describing controversies surrounding LaRouche leaves the mistaken sense of giving LaRouche the "last word" in every dispute. Phil Sandifer 23:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses, but may I also ask whether there was something wrong with this edit referred to above? --ManEatingDonut 06:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems OK, perhaps I'm missing something though. Fred Bauder 18:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

But following this way of reasoning means that we should also remove the homepage of Michael Moore from the article Michael Moore because it makes negative statements about George W. Bush. I think that is absurd. Moore is notable because of his criticism of Bush. Andries 18:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think if LaRouche is defending himself against the insinuations or statements of another person, he may (perhap reasonably perhaps unreasonably, but understandably) refer to that person in negative terms and may provide reasons to doubt or question that persons motives. To allow that first person (in this case Berlet) the liberty to criticize LaRouche (through the article and links) and yet NOT allow LaRouche to fire back in some way, is a distortion of NPOV. --Blue Tie 06:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Anton Chaitkin, not Lyndon LaRouche, is the source for the rebuttal. He begins his response, printed in LaRouche's "Executive Intelligence Review", by calling the critic:

• ...a sewer creature who has been paid throughout most of his adult life to slander American political leader Lyndon LaRouche,...[74]

"Sewer creature". Yes, I guess that is "firing back". Should we add a counter-counter-response saying that the critic is not regarded as a sewer creature by a broader audience? And then a counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-rebutal to that?

Stepping back, let's remember that our aim is to have an NPOV biogaphy of a notable political figure. Even the most revered political figures have their critics, and LaRouche is no exception. Excessively adulatory biographies do not achieve this project's goals. Lets' just mention the opposing viewpoints and be done with it. -Will Beback 11:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Dispute about the fact whether an article about Sathya Sai Baba in salon.com qualifies as a reliable source. article in salon.com This question has already been treated extensively in mediation. [75] Now user:SSS108 changed his opinion because he states that salon.com is a self professed tabloid and because he states that it is only published online. He says that he was unaware of this during mediation. Andries 17:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose a centralized discussion for the question whether salon.com is a reliable source. Talk:Salon.com/as_a_source_for_Wikipedia. Andries 23:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

During mediation, I was under the impression that Salon.com was a published magazine. Since that time, I have since discovered that Salon.com is exclusively an internet tabloid. Goldberg's article is only available as an internet resource and has never been published by multiple reliable media sources. It is only available on Salon.com. David Talbot (founder of Salon.com) described Salon.com as a "progressive, smart tabloid" [76]. When it comes to Biographies Of Living People, the standards are higher and stricter when the material in question is critical and potentially libelous. Since this article contains critical, negative and potentially libelous information against Sathya Sai Baba, it does not (in my opinion) meet the standards for reliable sources as outlined in WP:BLP and WP:RS. SSS108 ^talk-email 21:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Arguing that salon.com is not a reliable source is on the verge of evidencing bad faith. How many strikes will people get? JBKramer 22:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Salon.com, as an online tabloid, is generally considered reliable because their articles are published by reputable or reliable sources. The article in question has not been published by other reputable or reliable sources. The article looks and sounds like a tabloid-article and it is suspect for this reason alone. No one is attacking Salon.com as an entity. Rather, due to Salon's online tabloid status, the article in question has it's reliability in question. SSS108 ^talk-email 00:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JBKramer that SSS108 attempts to remove information sourced to salon.com is close to being disruptive. Salon.com is never on paper and is used extensively throughout Wikipedia for living people, because it is a fine, accessible reputable source. It is irrelevant by whom or where is salon.com is cited because salon.com itself is a reputable source. The only reason why SSS108 wants to make an exception for the Sathya Sai Baba article seems to be because he does not agree with the critical stance of the Salon.com article on Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 00:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Salon has an editorial board, an editor-in-chief, and an extensive corrections section. I see no reason not to treat it as a reliable source.Thatcher131 00:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I made my case here: [77] & [78]. People are confusing Salon.com with a particular tabloid article on Salon.com, a self-professed online tabloid magazine (that has not been published anywhere else except on Salon.com). This particular article does not meet Wikipedia's policies of reliable sources, in my opinion. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the Salon article is a reliable source for the fact that there are numerous allegations. I would not use material regarding any particular allegation. That relies only on the victim's testimony. Any particular reported instance may easily be false. Salon is not a tabloid in the sense that its contents are reasonably considered unreliable. Fred Bauder 17:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fred, so are you saying that the following articles can be cited on Wikipedia? Since I do not hold a favorable opinion of Scalia, I will cite Salon.com and it's article about him to support the widely held opinion that he is "martyr", is a "a poster boy for intolerance, vitriol and questionable ethics", writes "masterpieces of contemptuous nastiness" and turns up "the volume on his vitriol so high that it's hard to hear anything" [79]. Fantastic! SSS108 ^talk-email 19:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Violating WP:POINT is a blockable offense. JBKramer 19:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

JBKramer, ArbCom is setting the standards. Are these the standards that ArbCom is saying are allowable? The above example shows the flaw in the reasoning of allowing stand-alone sources (which can be used and abused to push an agenda). I am surprised that no one is concerned about this. If Salon.com is allowed as a reliable stand-alone reference, anyone can make the argument that I just made above and get away with it. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not a court, and you are not convincing anyone. I suggest you stop now. JBKramer 19:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I will, once other ArbCom members hopefully comment on it. And I will accept their majority opinion on this matter. I am not alone in my objection either. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that any source that mixes up editorial content with regular reporting content should be treated differently than an ordinary news source, particularly when it is openly and intentionally biased in one direction as an active editorial decision. That is what Salon does and is the cause of my concern regarding it being an undisputed sole source. I believe that Salon as a source should be disputable on the basis of original source bias. --Blue Tie 01:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

---

It would appear that I am under the continuing harassment by User:Davenbelle (aka User:Moby Dick) and User:Stereotek (aka User:Karl Meier aka commons:User:Igiveup). see: Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Disputes#Complaint_about_abuse_of_adminship_by_Cool_Cat.

While I understand other projects are beyond the grasp of en:Arbcom, I'd like a way to deal with this issue. At the very least an arbcom opinion on the matter (non-binding as far as commons is concerned perhaps but would be a notable opinion helping desicion making process).

--Cat out 16:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat edited my user page on commons and I reverted him. He then reverted back and protected my user page. And *I'm* harrasing him? --Moby 09:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The complaint is filed mostly against Karl not you. Though, the short timespan for an inactive wikipedian such as yourself to notice it is of course also curious. Your last edit was on 3 July...

--Cat out 09:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Question: is it really so remarkable that someone might login to read (including checking one's own talk page and watchlist) even when not editing for a while? I'd think it as normal as checking one's email inbox even when not sending email for a while. Asking as a relative newbie, passing by. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 10:35, 12 Nov 2006 (UTC).

He ONLY had 3 edits prior to the incident. Reverting my edit to his userpage was his 4th edit. Unlike a wikipedia, on commons there really is nothing to read. I seriously doubt he was just browsing images in the time being... Needless to say he was convicted of stalking me twice in the past as linked above.

However, my complaint is for a different reason. The remarkable thing is that an uninvolved and also relatively inactive party (User:Igiveup) filing the complaint practically behalf of Moby and Him being another convicted stalker. His complaint just one hour and 30 minutes after my edit - that seems highly unlikely to be a coincidence.

--Cat out 10:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my newbie question; I appreciate it. Looking at the edit history with your seven edits to his user page, I see you'd not only added a sockpuppet warning but blanked out the prior content of that page (until the revert); I just don't see why. I also don't see how his complaining about what you did to his user page makes him a harasser. As to his only making four edits (the 4th being his revert), I see the first two were creating his user page and the picture for it, and the third was a vote opposing your promotion. After that, doing what you did to his user page could be interpreted as a reprisal — please notice, I'm not saying it was, I'm just pointing out the risk inherent in making that kind of edit in that situation. Under the circumstances, are you sure you want to follow up that interaction by bringing accusations here, given the risk of reinforcing that interpretation? I'm certainly not on ArbCom, it's just another question from a newbie. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 11:36, 12 Nov 2006 (UTC).

The harasser in this case isn't Moby Dick, it's Igiveup (aka Karl Meier, aka Stereotek). Who has a history of personal attacks and harassment here on en.wiki.

I am really tired of dealing with Davenbelle/Moby Dick and Stereotek/Karl Meier/Igiveup. They had been stalking me with intervals (overall non-stop) for nearly two years now.

If harassment is indeed prohibited behavior why am I still dealing with it?

--Cat out 17:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"The harasser in this case isn't Moby Dick".... In that case, you might want to strike through some text above, e.g. "It would appear that I am under the continuing harassment by User:Davenbelle (aka User:Moby Dick)"....

..."it's Igiveup (aka Karl Meier, aka Stereotek)." Whose "harassment", according to the link you provide, consists of filing a complaint — about your twice blanking out Moby's user page, and on the second occasion using your brand-new Commons admin power to protect the blanking against Moby's restore. So anyone who refers to that as abuse of power is "harassing" you? Is it also "harassment" for anyone else to point to the same edit history and draw the same conclusion?

Cool Cat, you initiated the interaction there, carried your grudge from Wikipedia to Commons, and when you were simply and formally called on it, you reported that back to Wikipedia as "harassment" against you, to get those who complained of your harassment blocked. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 01:30, 14 Nov 2006 (UTC).

This user has been blocked indefinitely from commons for "exhaust[ing] the patience of the community" ^link. --Cat out 23:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I see the actual reason given is "For making threats against Cool Cat and others". How curious.   What threats? Specifically? Is there a quote, a cite, a diff, anything to substantiate exactly what threats were made, when or where? "Making threats" is a crime. Alleging that is a very serious accusation. And it is false. Does NPA not apply on Commons? – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 00:02, 15 Nov 2006 (UTC).

---

I'm told this is the appropriate place to come for this appeal. In July, I was placed on probation as part of the decision in this RfA. I do not believe this decision was just, and I have chosen not to participate as an editor at Wikipedia rather than continue editing while subject to an unjust probation. In the nearly four months since that decision, I believe, subsequent events have demonstrated rather starkly that arbitrator Fred Bauder's initial assessment of the cause of the dispute was correct, and that JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and I should never have been placed on probation in relation to this matter. In addition, the underlying dispute has been harmoniously resolved, which suggests that the need for probation, assuming such need ever existed in the first place, has now ended. Accordingly, I request that this probation be formally lifted. Thank you. —phh (^t/_c) 01:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Motion made at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FHighways.23Probation. Fred Bauder 20:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to the points below: a) JohnnyBGood just left the project, leaving at least a few months of good behavior behind him (from July until now). b) My block was controversial, but if my probation is not lifted for a while because of it I will understand; however it should not reflect poorly on the other editors. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, I'm right here in case anyone had wondered. I just blanked my talk page and userpage :) JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

---

There is currently an edit war on the article Temperature record of the past 1000 years. One of the participants is User:William M. Connolley. WMC's edits were surprising for me; I checked his history, and found that ArbCom has previously had him on 6-month parole for trying to impose an extreme non-factual POV on climate-related articles. In my opinion, he is continuing that.

That is not a fitting or correct description of what has happened. ArbCom has not had im on a parole for "trying to impose an extreme non-factual POV on climate-related articles", but rather for reverting without sufficient explanation in an on-going edit conflict (in which the other parties where sanctioned much harder), and moreover, it has lifted this sanction after reconsideration.--Stephan Schulz 11:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of what happened was based on the discussion that ensued following his ReqfAdminship. I think that I summarized the relevant parts of that, but I was unaware of the subsequent lifting.  TheSeven 13:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what you get for using bad sources. The original cases are available (see my links). There is no need to use second-hand comments made by people during a heated RfA debate.--Stephan Schulz 16:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There is one action by WMC that I have a general question about. After the edit war started, I put a Disputed tag on the article. WMC reverted the article to the version that he preferred and removed the Disputed tag. As far as I can tell, there are no Wikipedia policies/guidelines about removing Disputed tags. My question is this: is there such a policy and, if not, should there be one? I am not an expert Wikipedian; my (possibly naive) view is that it would be preferable to have some policy/guideline prohibiting removal of disputed tags while an article is being actively disputed.
TheSeven 09:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Its unclear to me what this has to do with the arbitrators. TS has just had this pointed out to him, but it doesn't seem to have done any good William M. Connolley 13:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess the tie is to our action in the climate change case which arguably constitutes a "black mark" against you. However one of our principles is that if a user moves on and becomes a productive and respected editor they should not have old issues like this thrown up to them. So the inquiry is without merit as far as I am concerned. Fred Bauder 16:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at Talk:Temperature record of the past 1000 years. Without much more intense analysis than I (or the other arbitrators) have time to do, it is not evident whether a dispute tag is justified or not. Fred Bauder 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I guess my question was not worded well. My question is a general one, and the mention of WMC was to give an example. Herewith, my question:

Is it inappropriate for someone to remove a Disputed tag during an active dispute and should Wikipedia have a policy that pertains to removal of Disputed tags?

My question arose because it seems inappropriate to me for someone to remove a Disputed tag during an active dispute. In the example that I gave, the removals have been continuing (i.e. the Disputed tag has been removed while simultaneously a statement that I, and others, believe to be incorrect has been reinserted). But this is only an example; it is the general question that I put to ArbCom.
TheSeven 17:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Not seeing this a good venue for this question. --FloNight 18:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

---

As far as I understand it, Brion Vibber's dismissal of the remedy Giano II in RFAR/Giano, which was passed 6–0, as a "whim"[80] means that Giano is unable to vote for or against new Stewards in the current Meta elections, because he's putatively too new. (The account Giano II hasn't been editing for the required three months.) I suppose this (minor) aspect of the problem could be fixed, provided anybody cares? Bishonen | talk 02:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

I think it's unreasonable to keep Giano from expressing his opinion because it is clear to just about anyone that he has the requisite experience with some account or another. I'd support waiving this restriction in this case. I suspect the place to ask for a waiver is on Meta though... A suggestion, he should place his votes now and let the election officials sort it out later. ++Lar: t/c 03:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Brion's comment is specifically in reference to expungement of block log information. I am not sure that he has commented on the password reset request, for which I think there would be less objection. —Centrx→talk • 05:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I imagine that this is a situation where common sense has to come into play: I'd imagine he should be allowed to vote for Stewards and also eligible to both vote for and run in the current ArbCom elections if he so chose. At the worst case, someone with checkuser rights could verify that Giano and Giano II are the same person. Was this done during the arbcom case? ~Kylu (u|t) 05:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Putatively"? I learn a new word. You know what I'd really like? A new fruit bowl. Will you be my friend? El_C 09:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Have a shrubbery, Commandante. Meanwhile, I'm hoping for clarification from the Committee, as per the heading I posted under. If there was no objection to the password thing, nothing has happened about it, either. Voting now and later having the status of the vote somehow or other "sorted out" seems a quite unsatisfactory procedure to me. Bishonen | talk 09:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

• Thanks for the concern, here are my views: Frankly, one wonders why we have an arbcom, if developers are ultimately in control, but I do remember the "editor" who launched the RFArb seized rather gleefully (a little revealingly gleefully I thought [81]) on that statement. Perhaps though I just have a naturally suspicious mind. Come to think of it though checkuser did not reveal too much about that user either, so perhaps I'm not really Giano at all, perhaps there's two of us. Goodness wouldn't that be marvellous for Wikipedia? For clarity I scrambled the User: Giano account because I did not want to be branded with Carnildo's lies on my block log for ever. It is just a pity that those that re-promoted him, did not feel the need to undo the harm he caused first. I don't want the account with that block log - because whatever anyone says "mud sticks" and if ever my real identity was to be revealed, I don't want that taint anywhere near me. So unless Brion Viber executes the Arbcom's findings he can place the User: Giano account somewhere appropriate - if he would like a suggestion as to where, he can email me. It seems rogue admins can place any slur, at whim, they feel like on a block-log and only Brion Viber has the power and authority to remove it - now there is some food for thought. Giano 09:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • And it seems you'll never pass up an opportunity to remind the whole world of all the wrongs done to you. If you really wanted to avoid the "taint" you'd take a different name altogether. Mackensen (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not that I'm in any hurry for the clarification, but this unseemly comment while we wait is more than I can stomach. I truly regret ever mentioning the matter, and urgently request the clerk—a clerk—any clerk—to remove my query and the entire thread. Don't put it on the talkpage, just get rid of it. Please. Bishonen | talk 12:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

---

I have made motions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pat8722/Workshop#Motion_for_Clarification and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pat8722/Workshop#Motion_for_Clarification_and_Motion_for_Procedure] but have not received a response. What is the procedure for notifying arbcom that I have motions outstanding? (I had assumed the workshop page would have been kept on an arbcom member's watch list, but I am now wondering if that is the case). My motions are requesting clarification or their words, and detail on the procedure they have requested I follow in my future action. pat8722 02:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll look at it. If I feel it has merit I will put in at /Proposed decision and it will be voted on. Fred Bauder 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't edit outside your own talk page. Email us if you return to editing. Fred Bauder 16:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. - Mike Rosoft 22:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• On 11 June 2006 User:Tony Sidaway extended the block of FourthAve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for evasion of his ban.
• On 11 July 2006 User:Dbachmann undid the extension, citing some clause of the arbitration case. I believe that this was mistaken, so I have restored Tony Sidaway's block. Please correct me if I am wrong. (I won't change the duration of the block any more.) - Mike Rosoft 20:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• User:Scobell302's message on my talk page:
  • FA's last known edit is [82] from the IP 67.1.121.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on September 23, 2006. If that counts as evasion, his ban timer should now be set to September 23, 2007.

Mike Rosoft 20:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Your reasoning seems sound per Wikipedia:Banning policy. If you want an answer from the arbitrators you'll have to post at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification. Thatcher131 20:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Violation of the ban results in a reset. Fred Bauder 21:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Although not provided for in the penalties, I have indefinitely blocked Terryeo as described at [83]. The reasons amount to malicious and targetted harassment of users as part of his unabandoned quest to advance his POV on Scientology. Phil Sandifer 18:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the necessity of this, but would not say ab initio that you have abused your discretion. Terreo does fine on Wikinfo, but our expectations are quite different. Fred Bauder 16:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Your link doesn't seem to work. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct link is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive62#Terryeo blocked. The edits in question [84] and [85] link to a site that tracks the activities of Scientology critics. Thatcher131 02:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The block looks good to me. Charles Matthews 22:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

---

The duration of Fys' probation (enacted 21 Sep 2006) is not clear. Is it for one year (as for Karl Meier and Irishpunktom) or indefinite, and if one year, does the year extend from the date of the case or the date of the amended decision? Thatcher131 21:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

NB - the use of the term "also" in the decision clearly implies that it has the same duration as Irishpunktom. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 21:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and ends on same date. Fred Bauder 01:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I've blocked ManEatingDonut (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche, which says "Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense." See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche#Enforcement.

ManEatingDonut was warned on Oct 23 about reinserting LaRouche material, [86] and took part in a request for clarification on this page about it. [87] Despite the warning, on Nov 18, he removed the redirect of Eurasian Land-Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to Asian Highway Network and twice reinserted a LaRouche-related text. The Eurasian Land-Bridge is a name that some people use for parts of the Asian Highway, so the title is redirected there. However, it's also a name used for a more complex idea that LaRouche claims is his. Herschelkrustofsky/Weed Harper wrote the original article that included LaRouche's views; [88] it was redirected to Asian Highway Network in September 2004. The text was restored and rewritten a little by NathanDW, [89] another LaRouche supporter, on October 31, 2006; reverted by Will BeBack; restored by ManEatingDonut on Nov 18; [90] reverted by SlimVirgin; restored by ManEatingDonut on Nov 22. [91]

I've blocked him for 24 hours for the repeated re-insertion, but I'd like to make the block indefinite. He has made 186 edits since August, almost all promoting LaRouche. He has edited logged out (acknowledging that it was him) and used the same AOL IP range 172.192.0.0 - 172.194.0.0 that Herschelkrustofsky/WeedHarper used. There's no firm evidence that it's the same person, but I believe he may be from the same LaRouche group in Los Angeles. As any proposed ban needs to be confirmed by the ArbCom, I'm asking here for your thoughts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Good call. Both user:ManEatingDonut and user:NathanDW have followed almost the exact footsteps of User:Herschelkrustofsky, including the same aggressive promotion of LaRouche that got HK into trouble. NathanDW says he's independent of the LaRouche movement but his single-minded edit history belies his claim. Both of these editors appear to be sock or meat puppets of HK, and both should be banned indefinitely based on the previous ArbCom decisions, including Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Sockpuppet abuse: "Herschelkrustofsky is restricted to one account for editing. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely." -Will Beback · † · 10:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Righteous Fred Bauder 21:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that no one thought to notify me of this. I left a note on SlimVirgin's talk page asking her to warn me if she thought I was violating an arbcom decision, preferably before blocking me rather than afterward. I made my views on LaRouche clear to the only person who asked me, at User talk:Astor Piazzolla. It is wrong to accuse me of "promoting LaRouche" when I have added almost no material to these articles -- I have only opposed edits that I thought were biased, or looked up sources and added them when sources were requested. As far as those other people are concerned (Herschelkrustofsky, etc.) I became aware of them for the first time when I discovered the talk page of Eurasian Land-Bridge. Apparently there was a lot of conflict between them and SlimVirgin and Will Beback. I have no interest in reviving that conflict, and it is unfair to somehow involve me in it.

I came to this page tonight to ask further clarification. The arbcom decision that I have read says "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." This is now being interpreted by editors at the article Lyndon LaRouche to include the article Lyndon LaRouche as well, and material is being removed such as a quote from Eugene McCarthy that appeared in an EIR interview, or in this case, a quote from Mexican President Lopez Portillo. Since the arbcom decision explicitly says "other than the article Lyndon LaRouche," I would like to know if you think that this behavior is justified. --ManEatingDonut 07:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What does information about Eugene McCarthy or Lopez Portillo have to do with LaRouche?

May I also ask a question here? I read the arbcom decision, and I can find no explanation for the ban on the use of EIR as a source. EIR has been published continuously for over 30 years, and is included in the Google News feeds. Is there any evidence that there have been factual errors in EIR? Has EIR ever been sued for libel? If not, why is EIR being singled out for special exclusion? --Tsunami Butler 22:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what EIR is, but if it is produced by the LaRouches it is unacceptable. The reason is that it is original research. Fred Bauder 22:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

EIR is "Executive Intelligence Review" and is the main publication of the LaRouche organizations. See http://www.larouchepub.com/ 6SJ7 22:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Please bear with me on this -- all I know about original research is what I read on the policy page (WP:NOR,) and this seems to be an unusual cirmcumstance. In the opinion of Wikipedia, what is the difference between EIR, and other political journals such as The Nation or National Review? Are they also considered original research?

2. The Eugene McCarthy question has come up at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche. McCarthy was closely associated with the LaRouche movement beginning in the early '90s, when he chaired hearings into Justice Department misconduct organized by a LaRouche group, the Committee to Investigate Human Rights Violations. In '96 he signed the ads for LaRouche's exoneration that appeared in the Washington Post and Roll Call. He continued to work with LaRouche until he died last year. The dispute at the LaRouche article is over whether the arbcom decision prohibits the use of a quote from this interview which appeared in EIR. Thanks for your consideration. --Tsunami Butler 06:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The arbitration committee has specifically decided in the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche that Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles. In other words, Lyndon LaRouche, his movement and its publications are not considered reliable sources for anything except what Lyndon LaRouche, his movement and his publications think about something. In this particular case, a LaRouche quote could be sourced to a LaRouche source but a McCarthy quote can not be. Perhaps you can find the quote reported in an alternate source that has not been determined to have reliability problems. Thatcher131 20:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

1. This goes to my other question above, but in what way was EIR "determined to have reliability problems"? Is there evidence, for example, that they have published factual errors?

2. How is an interview considered "original work"?

3. How do you make the determination that McCarthy is not part of LaRouche's movement? It seems to me that he is. --Tsunami Butler 00:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

People who follow these things know. Fred Bauder 01:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my persistence, but I am here requesting clarification, and as I understand it, this is the place to do so. Surely the policy made by the ArbCom can be explained. There must be some kind of clear criteria the the layman can understand. I am trying to find out whether this publication, EIR, has a special, unprecedented, unique status at Wikipedia, or whether there is a clear guideline that applies to it, and presumably, other, similar publications. Also, I don't know which question you are not answering. --Tsunami Butler 03:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing unique here. Partisan sources are not considered reliable except with respect to their own opinions about things. We would not rely on sources controlled by the Democratic Party (US) for a factual description of George Bush's presidency, we would not rely on the CCHR for a factual presentation on the benefits of psychiatry, and we do not rely on LaRouche controlled sources for factual descriptions of things outside the LaRouche organization. It's just that unlike the many other situations I could mention, pro-LaRouche editors have been so persistent that a special arbitration finding was necessary to establish the principle. Thatcher131 12:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that is somewhat more helpful. There are still some things that are unclear to me. I listed the examples of two highly partisan political journals, The Nation (partisan to the left) and National Review (partisan to right,) both of which cover much the same range of issues as EIR does. Would these publications then also be considered original research? I am also asking for further clarification on whether Eugene McCarthy should not be considered part of the LaRouche movement, since this issue remains unresolved at the Lyndon LaRouche talk page. His involvement in the movement was quite extensive, and it would seem dishonest to write him out of the history. --Tsunami Butler 15:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The journals you mention are not the result of one man's unique vision, in the sense that LaRouche publications are. They often contain fact based information from reliable sources and can sometimes be used. Information about Eugene McCarthy from a reliable source could be used, but not from a LaRouche journal or website. Fred Bauder 15:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Both the Rachel Marsden and Marsden-Donnelly harassment case articles have been deleted by administrators in the last day (and protected to prevent re-creatin). Some editors have argued that references to Marsden's past controversies are inappropriate for the article.

The Marsden RfA determined that "Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden, may, when they violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, be reduced to a stub by any user or deleted, together with their talk pages, by any administrator. Removal of poorly sourced negative information or of blocks of grossly unbalanced negative material is not subject to the three revert rule. Such material may be removed without limit". It also ruled that the Marsden and Marsden-Donnelly articles, in their existing state, were in violation of BLP.

Questions: (i) Do references to Marsden's past controversies inherently violate BLP, or would a fair and neutral overview be permitted? (ii) Is page deletion an appropriate remedy to this situation? CJCurrie 06:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

More questions: (iii) Interpretation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is often a matter of debate. May speedy deletions of Marsden-related articles be overturned through the usual channel of Deletion Review? (iv) Are we supposed to delete based solely on whether the current version of a page violates WP:BLP, or may we delete based on the existence of previous versions that have violated WP:BLP? Kla'quot 06:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC) (v) Why didn't Arbcom go ahead and delete the articles themselves as soon as the case closed? Kla'quot 07:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Our ultimate goal is an NPOV article on Masden and her controversies. This could be achieved by deleting the existing content and starting work on a new version, or it could be done by refining the existing pages. The ArbCom made no firm assertion of what path is the better one. However, deleting the page and protecting it against all attempts at recreation is certainly not going to help us achieve the desired goal. - SimonP 14:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Protection would only be appropriate if anonymous users were trying to reinstate an unacceptable article. Fred Bauder 22:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Kla'quot 03:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

---

The following was copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone#Sources for popular culture to Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Popular culture and fiction some time ago:

[...] when a substantial body of material is available [...] the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included.

Some questions have risen as to the interpretation of that phrase ("can't work out what it's trying to say" [92]). Could the arbitrators clarify what the above sentence means? Or would they say the sentence should be clear in its context (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone#Sources for popular culture)? --Francis Schonken 22:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In order to keep the discussions on a single spot, may I ask the Arbitrators to post their clarifications at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Unclear sentence? Tx! --Francis Schonken 10:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What's unclear? In the context of the case, it says that, given a large corpus of material on a topic, that has not been subject to scholarly analysis, it is acceptable to quote selectively and with qualification from it. Charles Matthews 10:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

---

I'm happy to see the 4th vote to accept this RfA. Without some conclusion on the matter Robert Folsom is likely to just keep on reverting any edits that his boss doesn't like. (Un)Fortunately, it is now time for my Christmas holiday, and I will be travelling and doing all those Christmas things for the next three weeks. Is it possible to get this delayed for 3 weeks? I'm sorry if this throws a wrench in the usual process.

Happy Holidays,

Smallbones 09:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

When the case is opened (likely 24 hours from now), you can place a motion for continuance on the workshop page. Thatcher131 12:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Zer0faults, now editing as NuclearUmpf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is under probation and may be banned from articles he disrupts. A complaint was filed at WP:AE alleging disruption at September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (with a related discussion here). I looked into the situation, and found an edit war over the insertion of an external link. I counted 18 insertions of the link by 5 editors (11 by NuclearUmpf) and 17 removals by 7 editors over 7 days, with no attempts made to follow any dispute resolution process (third opinion, RFC or mediation). There was extensive discussion on the talk page but it was fruitless, as it revolved around whether the link met the external link policy, rather than what seems to me the more important issue of even if it does, should it be included as a matter of editorial judgement. I offered an opinion on the link, and declined to enforce NuclearUmpf's probation, as he was only one of twelve people involved in an edit war, including at least one admin, none of whom sought help through the dispute resolution process (I left open the possibility of future action if Nuclear continues to fight the issue after DR). [93] (One other uninvolved editor has also offered an opinion on the link [94].) My judgement has been called into question by two editors, one of whom said (in email) "You have effectively taken the power and credibility from the arbcomm, saying their rulings mean nothing." I request a review by the arbitration committee. Thatcher131 14:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I twice asked Tom Harrison to discuss the issue on the talk page, and was twice ignored. On the third time I went to ask I found his talk page protected and made an AN/I post requesting someone ask Tom to participate in the discussion. I am also the one who started the discussion on the talk page after witnessing the link being removed without a reason being given. The link was originally provided by user Lovelight from what I had seen. So while I did not pull in a third party or goto RfC, I was the one who attempting to discuss the issue and frame the debate for it to be discussed. Some of my reverts are reverting people who did not even leave edit summaries, like Tom Harrison, who did not give a reason ever in his edit summary for why it should be removed. If I am to be punished for "edit warring", then tis only fair that Tom Harrison, RX Strangelove and all other users participating receive the same punishment for also participating, and perhaps a greater for not even attempting to discuss the issue, where I at least did that. I would also like to note that RX filed his complaint in retaliation for me asking on AN/I for someone to get Tom to participate, the complaint was made the same day, an hour after my AN/I post which did not even mention them, showing its in bad faith. I would also like to point out that I did work with one user who was open to discussion, that being PTR, who myself and them felt that narrowing the link to the specific day of the 9/11 attacks would be a fair middleground, and it was done and Lovelight was asked to agree and they did. --NuclearZer0 20:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to apologize to Thatcher131 for any angry emails they may have gotten in response to this issue, as they have been nothing but fair handed in my opinion and I have always stated I would follow their decisions. I would also like to point out that neither RX nor Tom has attempted, since protection was removed, to seek a form of mediation. If this issue was so big to them that they had to revert constantly without summaries etc, wouldn't they have attempting some mediation by now? --NuclearZer0 20:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You're only responsible for what you write. I just feel that with multiple editors questioning me I would like a reality check. Thatcher131 21:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

First time I've noticed proposal for link in question was around memorial. Notion reoccurred last month. As seen through discussions, my opinion about the link is as of valid, valuable, and well cited resource. Especially if we are talking about final, well focused and narrowed version. I'd say that arguments were made clear and that continuous removal of link without proper response wasn't all right… …from more than one perspective I'm afraid. Lovelight 21:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Please have a look at Robert Priddy. IMHO User:SSS108 is boldy misinterpreting [95] the ArbCom ruling. It doesn't apply to the article Robert Priddy (as he is neither Sathya Sai Baba nor an affiliated organization). And if I'm not completely mistaken, the ArbCom ruling only applies to User:Andries and User:SSS108. --Pjacobi 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Robert Priddy is a former SSB devotee who wrote a hagiography, then became disillusioned, left the group, and wrote an attack book. While a typical author's web site might be expected to contain information about past and future projects, a calendar of book signing appearances, etc, Priddy's web site contains attacks on the SSB movement drawn from personal experience and original research and appears to violate the ruling in this case (which I think applies to content, not the editor who adds it). A clarification would be appreciated. Thatcher131 22:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is because Priddy's notability today is mostly rooted in its attack site. Like Tilman Hausherr and http://www.xenu.de or Jack Chick and http://www.chick.com. --Pjacobi 22:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If Priddy's self-published observations and opinions about SSB make him notable and get a link, does NPOV require that we link to the self-published observations and opinions of a pro-SSB web site that is critical of Priddy? Thatcher131 01:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably, although I would take a look at it first. If it contains plainly false and defamatory material we should probably not link to it. if it just contains assertions that Priddy is a sorehead and exaggerates Baba's faults; it might be OK. I think there is an underlying problem with any of this material being encyclopedia however. A brief note that Baba is suspected of molesting young male devotees ought to suffice as well as a note that it is suspected that he uses slight of hand to produce his miracles. Problem is, like Little, Big the further in you go, the bigger it gets. Fred Bauder 14:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not comfortable that the anti-Priddy web sites are suitably encyclopedic. Are you saying Priddy's article can link to Priddy's site criticizing SSB? I certainly agree with you about the general direction these articles should go with negative allegations; unfortunately that is not happening under the current decision with the current editors. Thatcher131 14:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thatcher131, if you think that Robert Priddy's criticism of Sathya Sai Baba is not notable then this should be solved with an AFD (the previous one failed). It should not be solved by omitting the one fact which Priddy makes notable i.e. his websites critical of Sathya Sai Baba. Let us follow generally accepted policies and practices for the article Robert Priddy too. Andries 06:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The websites critical of Robert Priddy authored by SSS108 are highly defamatory and contain hardly anything than original research. They should not be linked to because Priddy is not a public figure in the sense of e.g. Sathya Sai Baba who himself blurred the distinction between private life and public life with his claims of being an embodiment of truth, purity, and love and attracted followers with these claims. In addition, it would be at best inconsistent to forbid in the entry Sathya Sai Baba critical websites containing partially original research and partially reputable sources, like www.exbaba.com and www.saiguru.net, while at the same time allowing websites with only defamatory original research at the entry Robert Priddy. Andries 20:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a new case involving these articles is being accepted, so this dispute can be addressed there. Newyorkbrad 18:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Pjacobi makes the mistake in that he comparing people who have been referenced in reliable and reputable sources with Robert Priddy who has not been referenced by even one single reliable or reputable reference. Pjacobi attemtped to argue for Priddy's attacks against SSB by citing Indymedia (a public forum where people can post whatever they want whenever the so choose under any name they so choose. This doesn't sound encyclopedic to me. Let these distinctions be known. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, non-notability should be solved with an AFD, not by omitting a website by the subject that makes him notable. I have been saying this at least ten times. Andries 06:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it correct for me to assume that the current ArbCom case [96] is going to deal with this issue, as stated by Newyorkbrad? SSS108 ^talk-email 05:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

---

After his third arbitration case, Instantnood was placed on indefinite (both regular and general) probation. Instantnood violated his probation by POV-pushing at Single-party state. I reported him on the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard, and Eagle 101 blocked him for 24 hours and placed him on 1RR.

My first question: Are admins allowed to place a user on 1RR, or is only the Arbitration Committee empowered to do so? If only the Arbitration Committee can place a user on 1RR, can they only do so as a remedy during an arbitration case involving said user?

Instantnood's POV-pushing sparked an edit war between him, Huaiwei, and several others. During the heated discussion on the talk page, Huaiwei has made personal attacks on Regebro, and Regebro has made comments which are, at worst, personal attacks on all Singaporeans, and, at best, incivili and assumption of bad faith. In addition, Nightstallion's use of rollback in a content dispute may constitute abuse of administrator privileges.

The ongoing mediation will probably fail; in fact, the Mediation Cabal rejected the case. Regebro has filed an RFC against Huaiwei, and Thadius856 has filed an RFAr against Huaiwei (not related to the dispute on Single-party state).

My second question: is this dispute serious enough to warrant filing of an arbitration case? I believe arbitration is neccesary to review the conduct of all involved parties, impose binding sanctions, and put a stop to the conflicts between Huaiwei and Instantnood, as other attempts at dispute resolution have failed, and Instantnood has repeatedly ignored consensus. However, since arbitration is not a laughing matter, and I don't want to waste the Arbitration Committee's time, I would like to get some consensus before filing an arbitration case.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, it is time for you to stop reapeating the claim that Instantnood was POV-pushing on Single-party state. He wasn't, as I explained to you, and as you half-admitted in the discussion on the arbitration enforcement page. Instantnood has surely done many things wrong. None of these he did on Single-party state. The only things that have been done wrong there are personal attacks by Huaiwei, and an editwar also started by Huaiwei. Start an arbitration case if you want, but stop threatening to start them and stop trying to blame the dispute on somebody who is hardly even a part of the dispure. Or in short: Please lay off the intriguing. --Regebro 19:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your questions, No, Yes, and No; and, Perhaps.

More clearly (;-)): no, admins can't (yet) decide to place a user on 1RR (this is the "law" of policy, not us - if you want to make it so, try to convince the community into making it policy, though personally I think it unlikely to make it, and not a terribly good idea without quite a significant level of suffrage required of the deciders); yes, the Commmittee is the only body currently "allowed" per policy; no, the Committee can (and does) make extraordinary remedies in exceptional circumstances (that is, apply remedies without the fag of having a case), and, more normally, can "tack on" additional remedies as and when it suits us to former cases on subsequent (and, normally, consequent) matters concerning the individuals in the previous case.

Arbitration is indeed "not a laughing matter". As to the specific circumstances you highlight, I think that you should attempt mediation in good faith rather than writing it off before it has had the chance to suceed (or fail), which your phrase "mediation will probably fail" rather suggests.

James F. (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

---

A finding of fact in the RPJ case mentions the site spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk (founder John Simkin), characterised as propagandistic in relation to uncritical inclusions as factual of material on the Kennedy assassination. The Spartacus site contains unrelated historical material on many subjects. Having heard from John Simkin, and having myself linked to Spartacus pages on numerous occasions, I would like to clarify that (as far as I'm concerned) the FoF in the case is not intended as a blanket condemnation. Editors should exercise good judgement as to tone and factual reliability of these pages, case by case. Charles Matthews 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and have posted on this matter at Wikipedia:Village pump (news). I have used the site in the past, and I certainly don't think it should be banned from Wikipedia, and the ArbCom finding should not be interpreted as such. It is still a site that needs to be treated with caution and not depended on too heavily, especially in controversial articles. - SimonP 02:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

While I would not use the site for any purpose; the question of whether a site is a reliable source depends on the nature of the subject and how it is treated by the site. In the RPJ case, which focused on aggressive advancement of conspiracy theories of the JFK assassination, most of the problem with use of the site as a source was caused by use of selected pages from the site to advance contentious points. Fred Bauder 13:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

---

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)

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)

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)