Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- 2/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions
1) -Ril- is not banned for the duration of this arbitration from anywhere in Wikipedia. Except for subsequent violations of 3RR or simple and obvious vandalism. Any other blocks will require the public agreement of the majority of arbitrators active on this case.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Because the amount of times recently that people who have enmity with me have used flimsy excuses to impose indefinite blocks is getting beyond the pale. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 01:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3A-Ril-

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

=Proposed final decision=

Wikilawyering
1) Wikilawyering, the practice of using of legal technicalities with respect to Wikipedia's policy, is considered harmful.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This formulation does not address the problem with Wikilawyering. Basically it refers to use of pettifogging tactics to justify or excuse behavior which violates some Wikipedia policy or guideline. Our policies are often phrased in rather general terms, for example, we require that a user not engage in disruptive behavior. A user engaging in wikilawyering may advance the argument that the particular type of disruptive behavior they are engaged in is not explicitly forbidden. In the case of -Ril-, this was his essential defense regarding his use of ~ as a signature; we had no explicit rule against it. Essentially we are talking about an effort to throw sand in everyone's eyes, and while they are blinded, continue to engage in whatever disruptive or obnoxious behavior they are engaged in. I will try a formulation as principle 1.1. Fred Bauder 16:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Too vague. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikilawyering is a good description of SimonP's attempts to avoid consensus on Bible verse articles. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In my case the "disruptive or obnoxious behavior" was simply signing. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Thoughts? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks a bit ambiguous to me. Also, I don't know about others, but I'd prefer a short phrase to the effect of "violating the spirit of policies without breaking their letter" than a term where the definition varies between editors. Rob Church (talk) 22:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikilawyering
1.1) Behavior which violates Policies and guidelines cannot be excused by raising legalistic technical objections. A user who makes a practice of engaging in wholesale violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines under a smokescreen of legalistic argument may be sanctioned; in extreme cases, by banning from the site.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Basically wikilawyering won't work and if engaged in habitually is disruptive enough to justify banning in extreme cases. It simply wastes time and energy and rewards trollish behavior. Fred Bauder 16:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agree with Fred. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 17:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Spirit of policies
1.1) Wikipedia's policies are written with a spirit, rather than a codified set of rules, in mind. Where the spirit of these policies is broken, the results are considered as harmful as direct disregard for their letter.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Good metaprinciple, although needs copyediting Fred Bauder 16:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Sounds good. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * As an alternative to Wikilawyering, above. Rob Church (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The spirit of the law is intrinsically subjective
1.2) Anything that relies on the "spirit" not "substance" of a policy or guideline is by definition subjective. I.e. one man's violation is another man's compliance.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The proposed principle assumes suspension of common sense, an unacceptable basis for a principle. A Wikipedia user, administrator, or arbitrator, is expected to use common sense in the interpretation and application of Wikipedia policies. That means taking into consideration the purpose of any policy or guideline as it relates to the mission of Wikipedia. If that rational connection is lacking or faulty in that literal application of the rule produces harm rather than good to the project then it should not be literally applied; instead the purpose of the rule should be considered in crafting a commonsense solution. Fred Bauder 16:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Clerks are only ordinary users
2) The position of "Arbitration Clerks" confers no rights above those of an ordinary user. (This is stated in Arbitration committee/Clerks)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This is true, but clerks "have our ear". A clerk that consistently makes useful proposals will be followed by the arbitrators and relied on in the crafting of decisions. However this state of affairs is only potential, no current clerk has achieved that competence at present. Nor has any other user. Fred Bauder 16:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * True but irrelevant Wikilawyering. Clerks have no special rights, but they do have certain responsibilities, and this implies the privileges to do what needs to be done to discharge their responsibilities.  That includes the paperwork of opening arbitration pages.  Robert McClenon 15:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Creating arbitration pages after the arbcom have opened a case is one thing, opening it themselves is quite another. I'll tell you what; next time a case is requested against you and one arbitrator supports opening it, I'll open the case before any other arbitrators have a chance to reject it. That's fair, isn't it? --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, no arbitrator has ever accepted a case against me. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 20:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * -Ril- is not a clerk. If he were, then he would be able to open cases after the arbitrators accepted them.  If he were to open a case prematurely, then the arbitrators could close it.  I do not understand the issue.  Robert McClenon 21:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I may not be a clerk, but clerks have no special authority, and hence anything that clerks can do I may do also. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, and arbitrators are ordinary users too. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 14:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, they have been explicitely empowered to judge other users, unlike administrators. Its a bit like the difference between a judge and a council official. Council officials can't imprison you for a crime, even though they can impose noise abatement orders, and fine you, wheras judges can. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Ordinary users are not arbitrators
3) Ordinary users may not open arbitration cases, merely request them


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I gather from the comments that -Ril- is objecting to Johnleemk opening the case. This is nonsense. Once there are four votes to accept the case may be opened, no matter how many arbitrators voted to reject it. It is simply paperwork. Fred Bauder 16:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Irrelevant Wikilawyering. Arbitrators vote on whether to open cases.  Arbitrators have delegated the ability to do the paperwork of opening case pages.  Robert McClenon 15:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

-Ril-: The ArbCom created the positions of clerks, because they thought that clerks would be useful, which they are. Are you really trying to antagonize the ArbCom when you are before them? Robert McClenon 15:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. 1) The case had four accepts, no rejects, and a couple recuses. This is sufficient to cause the case to be accepted. 2) Johnleemk is a clerk, this is a job the clerks do. 3) If it really mattered, the arbitrators would have deleted the case, yes? --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The case had 4 accepts and 3 recuses, that leaves 9 arbitrators, who could easily have formed a reject majority had they been given a chance to comment before Johnleemk opened the case. As for the arbitrators deleting the case, that requires them to have noticed Johnleemk's edit on WP:RFAR first. The 9 didn't get a chance to comment, and I doubt they watch the page history in extreme detail (I doubt anyone watches a page's history in extreme detail). --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * But it's not a majority vote. Read the policy, cases are generally considered accepted when any four arbitrators vote to accept it. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 20:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That was when we had about half as many arbitrators as we have now. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have an issue with policy, don't blame people who had nothing to do with that policy's creation. Johnleemk | Talk 15:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ril, the policy has not changed. Reject votes do not subtract from accept votes. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 15:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Disruptive editing
4) Editors who habitually disrupt the project of the development of the encyclopedia can be subject to bans even if their behavior is not explicitly prohibited by any Wikipedia official policy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Yes, although it is doubtful that some explicit policy would not have been violated upon which a decision could be based. When this is done, it may seem that an injustice is done, in that it may seem that a gross punishment is being handed out for some relatively minor violation. The real story is that they are being disciplined for general disruptiveness. Fred Bauder 16:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I disagree. This is too subjective - what one user counts as disruption will be quite normal behaviour to another. Explicit bans are required by official policy, anything else opens the doorway to corruption (e.g. UninvitedCompany's behaviour). --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Normal to you, maybe. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 21:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Normal to anyone except those who object to the actions in dispute. Someone editing George Bush' article to point out that most of the world view George Bush as the greatest threat to world peace would be quite acceptable to many (given that it is attributable to a well publicised factual survey), yet pro-George Bush editors would call it "disruption". That is a subjective claim. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, those are opposing points of view, both of which should be fairly presented in the article. Fred Bauder 16:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So you agree that my inistance that the former also be fairly presented in the article was not disruption, and didn't give UninvitedCompany/MONGO/Noitall a right to block me/accuse me of disruption? --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Definition of "disruption"
4.1) According to the blocking policy, blocks for "disruption" may be made. But the Blocking policy then goes on to state that this "disruption" consists of changing other users' signed comments, making deliberately misleading edits, harassment, and excessive personal attacks. The Blocking policy also highlights the subjectivity of the disruption clause.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The inventive troll can certainly find other ways to disrupt the site; the intelligent and responsible administrator is expected to respond appropriately, not be hamstrung by lack of an explicit prohibition. Fred Bauder 17:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * What about irresponsible and corrupt administrators vs. intelligent and responsible editors? --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Definition of disruption
4.1.b) The purpose of Wikipedia is the development of an encyclopedia. Disruptive behavior is behavior that interferes with the development of the encyclcopedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Too broad a brush, much behavior that does not advance the development of the encyclopedia is simply ineffective or misguided. Disruptive behavior, while it may not be rationally calculated to interfere with the development or maintenance of the encyclopedia, is not merely mistake or error but vigorous intentional activity which diverts attention from the work or damages it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Bauder (talk • contribs) 17:24, March 10, 2006


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Definition of disruption
4.1.c) The purpose of Wikipedia is the development of an encyclopedia. Disruptive behaviour is behaviour that interferes with the development of the encyclopedia, but the definition of what constitutes "interference with the development of the encyclopedia" is expressed in the blocking policy, though is otherwise extremely subjective.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * No, we need to look at results, not merely at whatever is expressed in a particular written policy. Fred Bauder 17:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Identification of disruption
4.2.a) Some behaviors are clearly disruptive even if they are not explicitly defined as such by an official policy. The ArbCom has the authority to identify disruptive behavior and to take action against it up to and including bans.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Yep. Fred Bauder 17:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Only the ArbCom. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * ..."Administrators and the ArbCom have the authority..." silsor 18:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Identification of disruption
4.2.b) Some behaviours are clearly disruptive even if they are not explicitly defined as such by an official policy. However, due to the subjectivity of whether something is disruptive or not, administrators outside the ArbCom do not have the authority to take action against their perceptions of disruptive behaviour, unless the ArbCom have identified the behaviour as such, or the behaviour is clearly identified in policy as such.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * No, the arbitrators may overrule such a determination by an administrator, but in clear cases the administrators need to take prompt and effective action. Fred Bauder 17:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:

Disruptive behavior, while it may not be rationally calculated to interfere with the development or maintenance of the encyclopedia, is not merely mistake or error but vigorous intentional activity which diverts attention from the work or damages it.
 * Comment by others:

Disruptive behavior
4.2.c) Disruptive behavior is vigorous intentional activity which diverts attention and energy from the work of creating a reliable reference work or damages its usefulness.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Not perfect, but good in most cases. Disruption can be unintentional or lack vigor. The definition should not be extended to mere error or misdirection. Fred Bauder 17:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I agree with this. This would specifically exclude "vigourous intentional activity that diverts attention TO activities that work AGAINST the creation of a reliable reference work", e.g. diverting attention to User:Hipocrit's "SIIEG" wikiproject of anti-Islam pov pushers (now deleted), or making the community at large aware of the "wikipedians for decency" (aka "wikipedians for censorship") wikiproject. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Use of the disruption clause
4.3) It is an abuse of adminship to use the disruption clause of the Blocking policy to block a user who has not committed those offenses that are defined as disruption in the clause, and where any other allegations of disruption are clearly subjective. Particularly when imposing an indefinite or infinite block.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Nonsense, anyone who has behaved in such as way that an indefinite block is being considered, has engaged in serious sustained interference with the operation of the site, exactly what they have done can be sorted out later. Fred Bauder 17:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Wikilawyering. Also irrelevant to the case, since this is a request for the ArbCom to define disruption.  Robert McClenon 15:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Since most of the "evidence" is on the subject of alleged "disruption", I feel it is important for the ArbCom to be certain about exactly what "disruption" is. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Inline comments on RfArs
5) "In-line" or "threaded" responses to statements in an RfAr (typically disagreeing with a previous statement) are inappropriate. Statements by each party should be made in their own section.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Yes, make any responses in your own section. You may quote the material you are responding to in your own section, then reply to it. Whether -Ril- finds it "acceptable" or not is irrelevant. Fred Bauder 20:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Apparently this needs to be restated. Robert McClenon 21:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not acceptable, not least because it makes it impossible to plausibly reply to some statements. A statement that is misleading, e.g. "this is a content dispute" when in fact it is "not a content dispute, but about a user attempting ownership and ignoring consensus" needs to have a direct response. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The currect system can get messy, especially if the involved parties are prolix. But as long as it is the system that is "enforced" isn't it pointless to complain about it?  A better question would be: Is there any ongoing discussion about ways the system may evolve?  brenneman  {T}  {L}  05:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Should we enforce the letter of the system or the spirit of it? --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of inappropriate statements
6) Either arbitrators or clerks have the right to delete misplaced comments in an RfAr.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Part of the duty of the clerks is to refactor requests. Users such as -Ril- are not allowed to. Fred Bauder 20:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Only arbirators. If ordinary users, such as clerks, had the right, then I have the right to completely delete this principle, and my opponents comments in this RFAR. Clerks are, after all, only ordinary users, and do not have any special authority. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Clearly whomever does the deletion, it's a disservice if it's not done tranparently. Isn't the issue about comments being "disappeared" and wouldn't it go away if a note like "moved to foo" was left in the place? -  brenneman  {T}  {L}  04:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion process
7) The process of considering whether to delete articles is inherently contentious. It is therefore especially important for editors involved in this process to assume good faith, be civil, and otherwise avoid being disruptive.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Yes, nasty deletion behavior is productive of forks Fred Bauder 20:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Not inherently, some articles are deleted quite without any opposition whether substantive or minor. It is however plausible that the deletion of certain articles may be highly volatile. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Dispute resolution
8) The dispute resolution process is intended to resolve disputes. Editors who use it to worsen disputes may be sanctioned.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Yes, assuming such a finding of fact could be made. Fred Bauder 20:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I agree. I would question why therefore Noitall and UninvitedCompany were not sanctioned for converting my RFC against UnivitedCompany (for misuse of adminship) into an attack on my person. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Administrators may not block users they have a personal dislike for
9) Implicit in the Blocking policy is the fact that sysops must not block editors with whom they currently have personal or religious/political enmity.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Administrators should not block users they are involved in a dispute with. Fred Bauder 20:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed that sysops should not block editors with whom they are involved in disputes. Agreed that sysops should not block -Ril- because of personal enmity, although -Ril- provokes personal enmity.  The claim of religious or political opposition to    -Ril- is absurd.  Robert McClenon 16:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It may sound absurd, but UnivitedCompany blocked me shortly after admitting to being "extremely prejudiced against Islam" and shortly after I had been involved in edit conflicts against Noitall and Germen who were extreme anti-Islam pov-pushers, conflicts which UninvitedCompany was clearly aware of at the time. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Extremely islamophobic administrators may not block people editing in a clearly dis-anti-Islam way
10) Editors who noticably and strongly oppose anti-Islamic editors may not be blocked by administrators who are extremely anti-Islamic, as this is a form of biased enmity falling foul of the implicit caveats in the Blocking policy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * True, but an administrator who is "extremely islamophobic" ought not to be an administrator in the first place.


 * Comment by parties:
 * HUH? --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would have requested that this be summarized in a way that I could understand, but Phroziac's comment is to the point. Robert McClenon 00:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I get it now. This is about UninvitedCompany, see . Out of context, it looked completely irrelevant. :) --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is about UninvitedCompany. As a principle it must avoid being less than general, hence the lack of specifics. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's way too specific to be useful, in my opinion. However, I'm not completely sure what it means, so I can't suggest anything better... --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 05:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It means (a) if you are vehemently opposed to Islam and (b) a bunch of other editors are pushing a pov that is vehemently opposed to Islam, you may not knowingly block any editor that the pov pushing bunch are in conflict against on Islam-related articles. I.e. you may not help your side out by blocking their opponents, particularly if you have support the views of your side extremely strongly. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I have seen UninvitedCompany speedying some selected religious humour templates that he personally finds offensive, this goes against consensus on deletion review to leave religion userboxes undeleted and send any dubious ones to TFD. In regards to the february userbox fiasco I find this highly inappropiate behaviour from a bureaucrat. I requested he restore the templates and send them to TFD in recognition of consensus but ive been ignored. Discordance 17:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Confusing and offensive signatures
11) It is a long-established Wikipedia policy that confusing or offensive usernames (whether intentionally or unintentionally) may be blocked. As an extension of this policy, the ArbCom concludes that it may take action against editors who use confusing or offensive signatures.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Yes Fred Bauder 20:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * True, but I don't feel it's relevant. -Ril-'s current signature does nothing other than make him look like an ass. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Blocks against users in arbitration
12) Administrators should avoid imposing long-term blocks against editors who are the subject of ArbCom cases, since the ArbCom has the authority to issue injunctive relief when necessary. This principle does not preclude short-term blocks for 3RR, simple vandalism, or personal attacks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * An administrator should not vary their behavior based on whether there is an arbitration case. The arbitrators can unblock anyone if necessary. If an indefinite block is justified there is no reason to be having an arbitration case anyway. Fred Bauder 20:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think that this needs to be restated. I partly agree with -Ril- on this.
 * Yes, but not sure what this has to do with anything going on at the moment. This is why UninvitedCompany's indefinite block did not last. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, Phroziac still went on to impose a further indefinite block while an RFAR was proposed against -Ril- (the RFAR still went on to fail). --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It was obvious to me at that point that it was going to be rejected. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 17:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Sockpuppets
13) The use of sockpuppets is strongly discouraged. The use of sockpuppets to avoid blocks is absolutely forbidden.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * True, but no need for the emphasis. Fred Bauder 20:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Sockpuppets to avoid questionable blocks
14) The use of sockpuppets to avoid questionable or inappropriate blocks is absolutely forbidden. The blocked user should instead request other admins to unblock him.  The use of sockpuppets in such cases is disruptive and shows contempt for procedures.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I see no problem in using a sock to request relief. Using it to continue editing is unacceptable. However emailing the administrator who blocked you and requesting aid on the wikien-l mailing list should occur first. Fred Bauder 20:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Request how? Given that a blocked user is unable to mention it on arbitration, or on WP:AN/I. And when their talk page is protected as well (which UninvitedCompany did to -Ril-'s), they are not even able to contest it there. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * By email, if all other mechanisms are blocked. Robert McClenon 12:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Most, if not all, arbitrators have their emails listed on WP:ARBCOM. Several admins also list their emails publically, and most admins have set up an email address, and Special:Emailuser can be used to email them, if you have done the same. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 05:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Special email user isn't very functional any more. You need to "register your e-mail address" or something, in order for it to function. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * All you have to do is click a button, and click a link it emails to you. Just like 99% of all other sites that require email addresses. The process is automatic when you sign up or change your email address, after it was enabled. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 17:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a theater
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and a project developing an encyclopedia. "Performances" having comic but no encyclopedic character are inappropriate.


 * Comment by Arbitrators
 * Yes, should such a finding of fact be made. Fred Bauder 20:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties
 * This includes the use of sockpuppets to engage in personal attacks on the puppetmaster. Robert McClenon 13:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is certainly true, if you discount everything that contradicts it, like the non-deletion of WP:BJAODN, and the existance of the "wikipedia department of fun", but I'm not sure exactly what relevance it has. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Sockpuppets
1) When -Ril- was previously blocked, he used sockpuppets (as listed by Dog glasgow in Evidence) to avoid blocks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Avoid blocks to what end? To edit, or to complain about the block? --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

-Ril- abuses dispute resolution process
2) -Ril- has established a pattern of using the dispute resolution, especially requests for arbitration abusively, including making repeated unfounded accusations of misconduct against ArbCom clerks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Exactly. :) Especially the Johnleemk and UninvitedCompany requests. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The request against UninvitedCompany was due to UninvitedCompany imposing an indefinite block against someone (-Ril-) who was at the time involved in disputes against anti-Islamic pov-pushers, while UninvitedCompany (self-admittedly) held an "extremely strong prejudice) against Islam. This strikes me as a justified RFAR for abuse of adminship. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

-Ril- uses deletion process disruptively
3) -Ril- has established a pattern of using the deletion process disruptively.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This appears to be an attempt at revenge for the KJV/200 verse-articles issue. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

-Ril-'s use of Arbitration has won support and plaudits
4) -Ril-'s use of Arbitration has won support from editors (e.g., ) and arbitrator(s) (e.g. )


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * There was nothing wrong with the KJV rfar itself, though it does look to me like -Ril- simply wanted to harrass SimonP. I haven't seen anyone support or plaudit -Ril- for any of the excessively stupid ones though. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The only significant conflict I have or have had with SimonP is about the KJV/verses issue. Raising an RFAR on it isn't harassment, its about ending the conflict. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What conflict? You don't even edit those articles. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 16:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The conflict over the existance of the source text and organisation by verse - SimonP and I have been heavily involved in that conflict - see the KJV rfar. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 18:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

-Ril- has thrice been unilaterally blocked indefinitely
5) -Ril- has been blocked for an indefinite/infinite period 3 times - each time being subsequently unblocked . None of these blocks was sanctioned by an unrecused arbitrator or any prior ruling, while in each case one or more arbitrators sanctioned or supported the unblocking.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Two of the admins blocking -Ril- had previously been in dispute with him
6) Both Phroziac and UnivitedCompany had been involved in disputes with -Ril- prior to eeach indefinitely blocking him (e.g. ), UnivitedCompany having extremely strong views.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Was I in a dispute with him before I first blocked him? I don't really remember, but if I did, then it was probably a bad idea for me to block him indefinitely. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You called me "stupid". --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't remember that. However, I consider using a personal attack against you to be different than being involved with a dispute. But ok. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 16:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Michael Snow is regurgitating evidence presented 1 month ago
7) The majority of Michael Snow's "evidence" alleging that -Ril- is CheeseDreams was presented to the Arbitration committee approximately 1 month prior to this case.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Michael Snow's regurgitated evidence was rejected once already
8) Roughly one month prior to this case the arbitration committee rejected the "evidence" of any connection between -Ril- and CheeseDreams.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Opening cases is not something ordinary users are permitted to do
9) In opening cases, "arbitration clerks" perform a task which only arbitrators are permitted to do.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * We expect clerks to open cases. Fred Bauder 00:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Inane wikilawyering. This behaviour is sanctioned by arbcom. If they didn't like it, they would be reverting it. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What the clerks are doing is clerical paperwork, consisting of the opening of web pages, equivalent to the opening of case jackets in court rooms. The voting on whether to open cases has not been delegated.  Robert McClenon 03:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If voting about opening has not been delegated, how do you justify closing the vote about opening when under 1/3 of non-recused arbitrators had actually voted? --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

The community has not granted any authority whatsoever to "arbitration clerks"
10) No policy, or election, conferred any rights whatsoever (above those of an ordinary editor) to the "arbitration clerks". (Evidence:Their not being elected, and no policy even mentioning them existing.)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The arbitrators appointed them and assigned certain duties to them. They do their tasked based on our authority. Fred Bauder 01:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Inane wikilawyering. Arbcom appointed them. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The community did not appoint them. Neither was arbcom given the authority to appoint them. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Many editors have attacked any potential interference of evidence/statements by Clerks
11) Many editors, not merely -Ril- have repeatedly expressed strong antagonism against any clerk editing their comments, statements, or evidence, on RfAr. This is not to say that editors object to addition of summaries, if that does not constitute.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Many of the Clerks are attacked by the community for their own behaviour
12) Many of the clerks, for example Tony Sidaway and (now ex-Clerk) Kelly Martin, are people who elsewhere have
 * Failed to get elected to the arbitration committee, despite standing
 * Had RFCs co-signed by large proportions of the community placed against them, or multiple Arbitration cases against them, or both.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I don't see this as a problem unless it affects their work as clerks. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It demonstrates that not only are they unelected, and not supported by policy, but that they are unlikely to ever be supported by the community. I.e. it is not the case that the community would trust them even though they were not elected and no policy advocates them. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * They are supported by policy. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 17:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No they are not. Now in order to avoid turning this into a pantomime, could you point to exactly which policy you think supports them, and which part of that policy? --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Parts of this RFAR are a "revenge attack" for Ril's protestation against Clerks
13) Ryan Delaney and Phroziac has filed his portions of the evidence, and his part of the opening request as a "revenge attack" for -Ril-'s public condemnation of the position of "arbitration clerks".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I.e. Ryan and Phroziac are trying to silencing the opposition, and cow those who are less vocal, if you will.
 * If that is true, then -Ril- is guilty of the same tactics. -Ril- is unmistakably seeking to silence and cow his critics by requesting that they be banned.  Robert McClenon 15:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Two wrongs do not make a right.
 * The important point is that there is a difference. They are attempting to silence criticism of their actions, while I am arguing for the silencing of their criticism of my existence and person. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but parts of this rfar definitely were against -Ril-'s protestation against the clerks. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Parts of this RFAR are a "revenge attack" for Ril's protestation against SimonP's behaviour
14) Doc Glasgow and SimonP's portions of evidence, and their part in presenting this and SimonP's prior (rejected) case against -Ril- are "revenge attack"s for -Ril-s determined opposition to SimonP's behaviour in regards to the source text of the KJV in bible chapter articles, and the existance of bible verse articles.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I.e. Doc Glasgow and SimonP are trying to silencing the opposition, and cow those who are less vocal, if you will. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See above comment. Robert McClenon 15:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hardly 'assuming good faith'. Actually, I havn't participated in this case and I don't intend to (except when my name is mentioned). I simply allowed evidence and diffs, gathered for the prior case, to be copied to this case when (I believe with Ril's approval) it was split off from the other. I am pushing for no particular outcome to this case, I don't think Ril is Cheesedreams, and I'm content to leave any other consideration of his behaviour to Arbcom. --Doc ask?  20:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This point is in reference to Doc glasgow submitting the evidence in the KJV case, a case which was centred on consensus about the KJV and SimonP's alleged attempts at ownership and disregard for consensus, and was not centred on me. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

-Ril- has not violated any of the definitions of "disruption" in the blocking policy
15) -Ril- has not forged other users signatures, refactored their comments so as to change the meaning, made deliberately fraudulent edits, harrassed any users users, nor made personal attacks, whether excessive or not.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Yes, he has. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 16:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No I haven't. Now in order to avoid turning this into a pantomime, could you actually post some "evidence" to back up your claim? --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

-Ril- was not a banned user immediately before Phroziac, UninvitedCompany, and MarkSweep each blocked him
16) -Ril- was not and is not on Wikipedia:List of banned users. Thus -Ril- falls under none of the categories of Banning policy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The second statement does not follow from the first. Admins may block for conduct defined in Blocking policy.  The ArbCom may ban for conduct defined in Banning policy.  Users are added to the list of banned users after they have been banned.  Robert McClenon 16:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * They are often banned before being blocked though. :) --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nominated for Wikilawyering BJAODN. Robert McClenon 16:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Banning policy is irrelevant here, only the blocking policy is relevant. We blocked -Ril- indefinitely because we didn't feel that any other admins would revert us. When I blocked him, I felt this way as the UninvitedCompany block was removed because arbcom wanted him to be able to participate in the arbitration case against him at the time. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * David Gerard (at that point an arbitrator) and one other arbitrator argued that the block should be removed in general as I was a "good editor". It was Fred Bauder that argued it should at a minimum be removed so that I could actually take part in the arbitration against me.
 * The point of this statement is to demonstrate that the Banning policy did not in itself justify blocking me. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

-Ril-'s signature
17) -Ril- used a confusing signature, consisting of four tildes, until he was ordered by the ArbCom to use a non-confusing signature. He has since then used a signature of "Victim of signature fascism".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * It is true that I used four tildes as a signature, the arbcom ordered me to change it, and that I now use "victim of signature fascism". I disagree that the original signature was confusing - it was clearly associated with me. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

-Ril-'s signature is offensive
18) The ArbCom finds that -Ril-'s signature "Victim of signature fascism" is offensive.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Yes, his signature is symptomatic of his alienation from Wikipedia decision making. Fred Bauder 01:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I really don't think -Ril-'s signature does anything other than make him look like an ass. Therefore, we shouldn't force him to change it. ;) --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Alienated" and "offensive" are two very very different things. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 18:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

-Ril-'s requests for injunctions
19) The ArbCom finds that -Ril-'s repeated requests for the ArbCom to issue injunctions against its clerks is vexatious.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I disagree that they find this. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? That makes no sense at all.  The ArbCom is the judge of fact.  If the ArbCom finds a fact, there is no disagreeing that they have found a fact, only with whether you agree with them.  (It is true that, as of the time of this writing, the ArbCom has not yet ruled.)  Robert McClenon 12:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is phrased in such a way that to find it true would be tantamount to saying "the ArbCom finds that the ArbCom finds that -Ril-'s ....". They would have to have found "that -Ril-'s ...." was true before they could find that "the ArbCom finds that -Ril-'s ....", and since the former finding does not exist on this page, this would not be possible. As a professional linguist, this facet of the point is important to me. More clearly I can express my opinion here as "I disagree that they find this", i.e. "I disagree that it is currently the case that their opinion is this, since they have not yet made a finding on the matter". --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

-Ril- is CheeseDreams
Based on the evidence presented by Michael Snow, the ArbCom finds that -Ril- is CheeseDreams.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

-Ril- is not CheeseDreams
The evidence presented by Michael Snow (claiming that -Ril- is CheeseDreams) is spurious and insubstantial, as well as having previously been rejected by the ArbCom.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Strawman arguments
-Ril- has used sockpuppets, including and, to present strawman arguments, accusing everyone in sight of being -Ril- sockpuppets, no matter how obvious it is that they aren't.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Posted. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 16:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Melissa was apparently not an actual sock of his, oops. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 23:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Melissadolbeer really is seperate editor making quite absurd accusations - the accusations began when I placed an AFD against Authentic Matthew, which she had created, several editors (including myself) voted to delete, so in order to prevent it being deleted, Melissadolbeer made an RFAR against everyone who had voted to delete (Me, Doc Glasgow, JamesGibbon, and several others) claiming they were all sockpuppets of me. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Other disruption by sockpuppets
The ArbCom finds that -Ril- has used sockpuppets, most notably User:Melissadolbeer, to engage in personal attacks on -Ril-, either to disrupt the encyclopedia, or as a performance, or to confuse. The ArbCom finds this use of sockpuppets, regardless of its purpose, to be disruption.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Melissa was apparently not an actual sock, oops. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 23:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A clerk may wish to remove this as 'withdrawn' - it is not only unsubstantiated, it is obviously erroneous. --Doc ask?  12:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's quite absurd really. I would like to know whose sockpuppet she is though. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Alternative finding of fact on Melissadolbeer
The ArbCom finds that User:Melissadolbeer was not a sockpuppet of -Ril-, but another disruptive editor. The ArbCom finds that User:Melissadolbeer engaged in deliberate disruption.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * If the preponderance of the evidence does not suppor the conclusion that Melissa is a Ril sockpuppet, she has still engaged in extremely disruptive behavior.


 * Comment by others:

Burden of proof
The ArbCom is not a criminal court. The burden of proof for findings of fact by the ArbCom is a preponderance of the evidence. The purpose of the ArbCom is to protect the development of the encyclopedia from disruption. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required. The ArbCom may take any action up to banning a user based on a preponderance of the evidence.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Depending on the situation, we often just require some evidence. Fred Bauder 01:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required. Otherwise I could make up all sorts of spurious nonsense about Michael Snow being a sockpuppet of Snowspinner (see his account name), and being a disruptive troll who attempts to have legitimate users blocked, is excessively litigious, and deletes hundreds of articles and templates out of process to deliberately disrupt Wikipedia. Oh, I seem to remember that a case against Snowspinner for doing just that was already made, maybe not the best example. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I already said I was wrong... --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 21:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Template
1) text


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

-Ril- banned from posting to RfAr and RfC
1) -Ril- is banned from posting to the requests for arbitration and requests for comment pages, their talk pages, and any subpages, with the exception that -Ril- may reply in the proper section to any RfC or RfAr filed against him.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I would rather put him on probation which would permit banning if he engages in disruption. Fred Bauder 01:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Now this just looks like an attempt at silencing criticism. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This appears to be going too far. Opening and injuctions are the meat here, not the talk as I understand it.  What is some mutually-chosen third party acted as a "filter" for -Ril-'s post to the relevent pages:  R posts to Foo's talk "I'd like to open this RfC ," Foo looks it over edits is as required and posts it... or not.  Still has freedom of speech **shudder** but slightly moderated.  brenneman  {T}  {L}  05:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Alternative ban from injunction requests against clerks
1.1) -Ril- is banned from requesting that the ArbCom issue injunctions against its clerks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I think it is sufficient that -Ril- understand that the clerks are appointed by us and are doing what we requested for them to do. Fred Bauder 01:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * His previous requests of this sort have been vexatious. In the unlikely event that there is any real abuse by clerks, other parties will request relief.  Robert McClenon 21:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Other parties did. See for example Thryduulf's statement about Robert McClenon's deletion of comments in the KJV RFAR. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

-Ril- banned from deletion process
2) -Ril- is banned for one year from participating in any deletion-related process.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Rather rely on probation. Fred Bauder 01:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Now this just seems to be an attempt at revenge/silencing for the KJV/verses issue. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with this sanction, after having examined Articles for deletion/Authentic Matthew (inconcluded). -Ril-'s behaviour on this AFD made consensus impossible. He used numerous sockpuppets, such as -Teenangel-, Melissadolbeer, and Poorman. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 18:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Melissadolbeer/Poorman/Teenangel are not my sockpuppets. I was trying to have the article deleted - I was the one who merged it out of existance in the first place - Melissadolbeer was the article's creator (and existed before I joined wikipedia) - and Poorman/Teenangel are her sockpuppets - and she was trying to save the article. She also tried to open an RFAR against me at the time, alleging that Slrubenstein, Doc Glasgow, Fish Supper, Jamesgibbon, and others, were all my sockpuppets (they, like me, had voted to delete), in order to stop the AFD from succeeding. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * (note: i admitted i was wrong) --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 03:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Probation
3) -Ril- is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from editing any article which he disrupts.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Any page, also general probation which would permit banning from the site. Fred Bauder 01:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * This seems to be an attempt at silencing. This is totally unacceptable, particularly in the light of the KJV RFAR. Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 03:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds completely unreasonable to me - it effectively says that SimonP and Doc Glasgow (who are administrators) can assert their POV without being opposed (e.g. by banning me from the articles claiming I had disrupted them) - it totally violates NPOV. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 18:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Deletion of posts
4) Any posts made by -Ril- to the RfAr or RfC pages or any related pages may be deleted by any editor without regard to the 3RR rule.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This seems to be an attempt at silencing. This is totally unacceptable. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

-Ril- banned for one month plus one week
5) -Ril- shall be banned for one month plus one week, as previously ordered and not imposed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * As far as I am aware, the ban was imposed at the time. I certainly didn't edit for one month and one week after the case was closed. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with -Ril-. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 02:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * This would be needless punishment, the issue that prompted that case is dead now. Whatever block ends up being imposed on Ril should reflect the problems with his current conduct. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

-Ril- banned for offensive signature
6) -Ril- shall be banned for two weeks for the use of an offensive signature. This ban shall run consecutively with the previous bans.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This presumes the signature is offensive. I dispute that it is. I further dispute that any policy allows bans for the use of any form of signature, even "Jimbo wales is satan" in the signature wouldn't constitute a bannable offense except maybe as a personal attack against Jimbo. My signature is not a personal attack. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think the current signature does anything other than make -Ril- look bad. Additionally, -Ril- has proved that short bans will not affect his behaviour. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 02:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

-Ril- banned for sock puppets
7) -Ril- shall be banned for two weeks for the use of sockpuppets to avoid blocks. This ban shall run consecutively with previous bans.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

UninvitedCompany de-sysopped
8) For abuse of administrative privileges in blocking a user indefinitely without prior sanction by the arbitrators and when having strong prior antagonism against the user, UninvitedCompany is to be de-sysopped for one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * No, ancient history and -Ril- is disruptive. Fred Bauder 01:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * This happened in august, so I don't see why it's relevant. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Its relevant because it was not dealt with at the time, and if the next remedy against Phroziac is passed, then UninvitedCompany, whose action was far more demonstrably corrupt, ought also to be punished. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Phroziac de-sysopped
9) For abuse of administrative privileges in blocking a user indefinitely without prior sanction by the arbitrators and when having strong prior antagonism against the user, Phroziac is to be de-sysopped for three months.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Probably could use some evidence of the prior antagonism. Also, it's not clear why a block would require the sanction of the arbitration committee. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it was indefinite (a.k.a. infinite), and was based on nothing except the spurious claim that I am CheeseDreams. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael Snow de-sysopped
10) For abuse of administrative privileges in blocking a user indefinitely without prior sanction by the arbitrators, Michael Snow is to be temporarily de-sysopped for one month.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Not clear when he did this. If an error was made, it was corrected. I don't agree with his conclusion, but it was not that far-fetched. Fred Bauder 01:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Sysops strongly cautioned
11) User:UninvitedCompany, User:Phroziac, and User:Michael Snow are all cautioned not to use their sysop privileges against editors with whom they are involved in conflict. They are further cautioned to be civil even under provocation.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Not sure if this is relevant, but if it is, than i support it. :) --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Michael Snow banned
12) For harassing -Ril-, in repeating to -Ril- and elsewhere in the community, accusations formally rejected by the arbitration committee, Michael Snow is banned for one month.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Ridiculous. Michael Snow is presenting a mix of old and new evidence, and I see no "formal rejection" by the ArbCom anyway.  Robert McClenon 15:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Formal rejection here. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

-Ril- shall not be blocked indefinitely without permission from the ArbCom
13) As a precaution against any further action by an Admin with a grudge against -Ril-, no admin shall block -Ril- indefinitely or infinitely without the block first being sanctioned by a majority of unrecused arbitrators.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I'm thinking probation, which would permit lengthy bans for disruptive behavior. Fred Bauder 01:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * As the initiator of this case, I actually support this remedy. Since the conduct of -Ril- is a matter before the ArbCom, it should be decided by the ArbCom, and administrators should accept and enforce the judgment of the ArbCom.  This should not preclude administrators from imposing blocks for up to one week for 3RR or personal attacks.  Robert McClenon 15:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's needed. There is no community support for such blocks, and therefore they will get reverted rather quickly. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think its needed because its already happened 3 times. I would rather not be blocked in the first place than have to continuously get myself unblocked. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal


 * Comment by others:

Arbitration clerks may not open arbitration cases
14) As ordinary, unelected, users just helping out, Arbitration clerks may not open arbitration cases.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Arbitration clerks may not refactor or delete evidence other than their own
15) As ordinary, unelected, users just helping out, Arbitration clerks may not refactor other people's evidence, they may however present their own summary of the evidence submitted by others, if they do so in addition, not replacement, to that other evidence.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Arbitration clerks may not refactor or delete statements other than their own
16) As ordinary, unelected, users just helping out, Arbitration clerks may not refactor other people's statements, though they may present their own summary of the prior statements, if they do so in addition, not replacement, to those statements.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Doc Glasgow and SimonP banned
17) For using arbitration as a form of revenge and an attempt to stifle justified opposition, SimonP and Doc Glasgow are banned for 3 months.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * 3 months rather than 1 because harassment is seriously unacceptable behaviour. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I find this strange, as other than permitting evidence I supplied from the KJV case to be copied to this case, I have not so far participated in this case. --Doc ask?  18:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is in regard to Doc Glasgow's submitting of that "evidence" in the KJV case, a case that was not centred on -Ril- and nor on behaviour of -Ril- outside the KJV issue. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigh. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 05:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ryan Delaney and Phroziac banned
18) For using arbitration as a form of revenge and an attempt to stifle justified opposition, Ryan Delaney and Phroziac are banned for 3 months.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * 3 months rather than 1 because harassment is seriously unacceptable behaviour. I have put this seperate to SimonP and Doc Glasgow as they have different reasons for committing their harassment. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Wow, this is so absurd, I can't even come up with a witty comment to retort it with.--Sean Black (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What is absurd? That harassment is unacceptable, or that Ryan Delaney and Phroziac are treated seperately to SimonP and Doc Glasgow? --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

-Ril- banned for one year
19) (using any account or IP address) is banned for a period of one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Posted because I posted it in the other case, where it's pretty much irrelevant. And I know this is going to look like I'm retaliating, but I'm really not... :) --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It definitely looks like you are retaliating, not least because you have provided no reason for the ban. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I posted the reason on the KJV workshop, and if I stop being lazy, i'll have some evidence to show a reason. :) --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 05:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * On re-reading the history of -Ril-'s use of sockpuppets to disrupt the deletion process, and other use of sockpuppets, this looks like a reasonable remedy. Robert McClenon 13:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Robert McClenon is convinced that Melissadolbeer is my sockpuppet, and basing his support of this remedy upon that. This is absurd. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Ban reset to one year
Based on the finding of fact that -Ril- is CheeseDreams and the fact that CheeseDreams was banned for one year, the ban timer is reset to one year following the date of the closing of this case. This ban will run concurrently with all other bans, but will be reset by any violations of the ban, whether from -Ril-, from CheeseDreams, from any sockpuppet, or from any reincarnation.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This presumes that the spurious claim about me being CheeseDreams has some form of validity. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Melissadolbeer banned from posting sockpuppet allegations
Melissadolbeer is banned from posting allegations that anyone is a sockpuppet.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think this should be passed, but at the same time I don't see what it would achieve - melissadolbeer will just create a new account to post the allegations with. It's a bit like saying "willy on wheels is banned from moving pages". --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Melissadolbeer isn't a party to this arbitration. People that act like that without editing articles, as her recent sockpuppets have, can be blocked as soon as it's obvious. Her recent sockpuppets have been blocked after their first two or so edits, with no-one contesting it. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 21:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Melissadolbeer on probation
Melissadolbeer is placed on Probation. She may be banned from any article that, in the judgment of any administrator, she disrupts.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Melissadolbeer has only really edited 2 articles in the past year. One of those was Authentic Matthew. The other (Christian love - the last version she worked on is here) she added just as flaky information to. She seems to be a sockpuppet specifically to create those edits, and no others. I'm convinced that someone else operates her - and I would prefer the probation to apply to her sockpuppeteer - she hasn't shown any sign of intending to edit any article bar Authentic Matthew and the other one. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Melissadolbeer is not a party of this arbitration. Anyway, Melissadolbeer's sockpuppets can be blocked on sight, as their first edit or two makes it obvious that they are here to disrupt, not to write an encyclopedia. User:Melissadolbeer is not blocked, and has not edited from that account in many months, so arbitration decisions against her wouldn't really be useful.
 * Comment by others:

Melissadolbeer's puppeteer shall be blocked for a year
When discovered, the sockpuppeteer of Melissadolbeer shall be blocked for a year for trolling, harassing a user, and abuse of sockpuppets.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Melissadolbeer is herself someone's sockpuppet.


 * Agree. Robert McClenon 20:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I requested a checkuser for one of her recent sockpuppets on IRC earlier, and the checkuser provided no useful information on who might be the sockpuppeteer. Checkuser data is only stored for a relatively short period of time, so, the original Melissadolbeer account cannot be checked. The lack of information could be either that the real account edited from a difeerent IP to evade detection, or hasn't edited in a long time. So, this type of arbitration decision isn't really useful. Maybe -Ril- can help. :p --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 21:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Avoidance of conflict of interest
1) User:UninvitedCompany, User:Phroziac, and User:Michael Snow may not impose any blocks against -Ril-, so as to avoid both conflict of interest and the appearance of conflict of interest.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I have recently formed a very strong opinion about -Ril-, and don't plan on imposing any more blocks on him. Therefore, this isn't a very useful decision, atleast for me. :) --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 02:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is just to assert the fact, so that you can't revoke your choice. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This would be a ticket for -Ril- to act like a madman! MyNameIsNotBob 00:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but maybe because my name is sometimes shortened to Bob. Robert McClenon 21:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Unsanctioned indefinite blocks shall result in the blocking admin being blocked and de-sysopped
2) As a precaution against any further action by an Admin with a grudge against -Ril-, any admin which blocks -Ril- for a period greater than one week without the block first being sanctioned by a majority of unrecused arbitrators, shall be de-sysopped for three months and blocked for the same period of time that they blocked -Ril- for.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Inane wikilawyering. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This would give -Ril- a special privilege that is not given to other disruptive editors, exemption from blocks longer than one week except by the ArbCom. Disruptive editors are normally dealt with by escalating blocks.  If there is a problem of admins engaging in vendettas against disruptive editors, it should be dealt with by policy, not by a special privilege for one disruptive editor.  (It is true that some disruptive editors have antagonized particular admins.  That is to be expected, since one of the responsibilities of admins is to restrain disruptive editors.  Whether a policy is needed can be discussed elsewhere.)  -Ril- is not the only disruptive editor who likes to antagonize admins.  Robert McClenon 15:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Desysopping just for blocking one user is too harsh of a punishment. We have hundreds of admins, and it cannot be expected that all of them know about this arbitration case.  If a good admin blocks Ril for 8 days for a good reason, then they should not be blocked for that long themselves. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Adminship is no big deal - Jimbo Wales; so why should de-sysopping be a big deal. Admins must be held accountable for their actions, and we have hundreds of admins to replace any that might be desysopped. It is not all that relevant whether an admin knows of this RFAR or not - abusing the blocking policy should not be acceptable under any circumstances, whether they have read this page or not. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 18:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocks
3) -Ril- may be blocked for between 48 hours and one week by any administrator if he posts to any page to which he is not permitted to post.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Blocks
4) Any editor may be blocked for between 48 hours and one week by any administrator if they posts to any page to which they are not permitted to post.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is kind of an obvious point. If they are not permitted to post to a page, then they ought to be blocked if they do so. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: