Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 9

Procedure advice
Just trying to clarify the procedure for requestion arbitration.

--Iantresman 13:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) As the requestor, do I complete the template, or a copy of the template?
 * 2) Do I complete the template and THEN tell the acused, or ask the acused if they want to take part in arbitration, and then complete the template if they want to cooperate?
 * 3) I presume that IF arbitration is accepted, then there will be a further opportunity to present evidence on both sides?
 * 4) Is there a standard template to add to the accused talk page, notifying them of arbitration? A kind of digital summons or subpoena?

Three proposals
1. Sanctions may only be imposed on the actual parties of the case (the plaintiffs and respondant(s) ). This is to avoid the bizzare kafka-esque case of Yuber where a witness was convicted and punished instead of the guilty defendant. This sort of drive by conviction totally discredits any idea that the ArbCom is impartial.
 * Were there two Yuber cases before the ArbCom? In the one whose record I read, the two parties who were both placed on probation were the party bringing the complaint and the party against whom the complaint was brought.   Robert McClenon 17:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

2. The respondant, or any party facing sanction may have one preemptory recusal. That is to say that they may request and have granted the recusal of one of the arbitrators for any reason at all. In order so as not a bias the voting, the identity of the recused arbitrator will be kept secret from the ArbCom. When the voting is completed and finalised, but before the final closure of the case, the identity of the recused arbitrator will be revealed, and their votes discounted. This procedure will encourage Arbitrators to be impartial and will protect the respondant from biased and unfair arbitrators.

3. Popular Nullification. And arbcom judgment may be nullified if by an RfC with a clear concensus is established with at least 70 approve votes is passed. This policy will serve as a check upon an imperial and capricious ArbCom.
 * I would agree that if we had an imperial and capricious ArbCom, we would need a check. There is already a check defined, which is the right of appeal to Jimbo Wales. Robert McClenon 17:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, and that check is infallible. FuelWagon 17:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is&mdash;inasmuch as Jimbo is accepted to have the final word and absolute rule over Wikipedia, his decree is infallible and by its very nature in line with policy. In principle, there is also the option of further appeal to the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I suspect that Jimbo would be rather uncomfortable with being called infallible. It's more accurate to say that, since Jimbo administers the servers on which this copy of Wikipedia is hosted, Jimbo gets to decide what he is willing to let his servers be used for, and we adhere to that. Plenty of people argue that Jimbo is not infallible - hence forks. Phil Sandifer 18:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Klonimus 09:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * One proposal: Don't do any of these things. Phil Sandifer 23:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Phil/Snowspinner, none of these proposals are good ideas. Let me run through why:
 * This isn't a criminal trial. There are no plaintiffs and respondants.  There are only people giving evidence for the Committee to come to an appropriate response.  The ArbCom is not overly legal for the reason that this allows a proper examination of evidence without undue bureaucracy.
 * To be honest, I cannot see what this is aimed at. All it is doing is driving down the number of people able to vote and putting more stress on the ArbCom.
 * If the ArbCom makes a shocking decision, either the community will force them to come to their senses or Jimbo will step in. I have not encountered this imperial and capricious ArbCom.
 * [[Sam Korn ]] 23:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a democracy and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is all the response these proposals require. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, and the wikipedia dispute resolution system isn't neccessarily fair, either. But we like to gloss that over whenever possible. FuelWagon 17:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

For the record, as a recent returnee to the wiki after an ArbComm sanctioned, self-imposed six month ban, still fresh in my mind are the various ArbComm processes I experienced. My thoughts on this are:


 * 1) By and large, excepting a few points I think could be improved, the process was reasonable and fair.
 * 2) No ArbComm member gave even the slightest hint of taking joy in dishing out sanctions.
 * 3) The nature of ArbComm complaints does give the advantage to complaining parties who complain in unison against a particular Wikipedian, as they can coordinate their complaints to wrest article editing access away from disfavored editors.
 * 4) Doing less reverting and more talk page dialog (not insults, dialog), keeps editors somewhat immune to complaints.
 * 5) ArbComm complaints are a double-edged sword. What you charge against another, will become a standard you yourself are measured against.
 * 6) Regarding ArbComm sanctions, while you are learning the ropes at the Wiki; as in motorcycle riding: "You never really know where the limit is, until you go down".
 * 7) ArbComm actions help set useful limits

Rex071404 216.153.214.94  02:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

William M. Connolley's parole violation
William M. Connelley has violated his parole. The one case I have personal knowlegde of is his reverts in de lomborg case. It was a argument between me and Ozetto, which was also discussed on the talk pages. WMC didn't participate in this discusion, yet he reverted the text whitout explaination in the comment or on the talkpage. In his own words WMC can't be bothered with his parole. If you let WMC get away with this wikipedia will degenerate into a reverting encyclopedia. Where the one who can shout the longest wins.

This just one case but their is a strong suspicion that he has violated his parole numerous times. WMC refuse to defend himself. He leaves it to some supporters of him to challenge the meaning of his parole. I hope you can clairify the issue and the appropiate action is taken. --MichaelSirks 19:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've had a similar experience with this guy. Just take a look that the Autodynamics article history. He certainly likes to keep up the reverting game (can't say that I was much better in this example, but I'm not the one paroled). The article is full of POV phrases like "this is correct" or "this is incorrect". He didn't even bother keeping my cleaned-up references, which is apparently not under any dispute.--Tbainbri 23:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Tbainbri I think your posting here, in an unrelated matter, seems to me vindictive. As is being currently discussed, there is nothing inherently POV in WMC's position in Autodynamics. It is still under discussion.--CSTAR 03:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sirks is trolling. He appears to be proving himself wrong: he is shouting loudly but not winning. I've responded on the talk page, as you can clearly see. Indeed, I assume you already have seen, since it will be on your watchlists. William M. Connolley 22:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC).
 * WMC says I am trolling. But the only thing I do is ask where he responded on the talk pages for this specific revert. But he refuse to anwser this question instead he accuse me of trolling.--MichaelSirks 19:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The above revert I was refering to is on the 23 october in the lomborg article. When you look at the talk page you will see no entry of WMC. So it simply isn't true what WMC is saying. So here he is clearly in violation.--MichaelSirks 15:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's make it obviously clear. The history page of the lomborg article. The revert I am referring to is the one of 23 October with the comment "rv to Orzetto". The history of the talk page. No talk entry of WMC on the 23 of october. So when he says that he responded on the talk page it's obviously not true. Let him show me where he added a talk page entry concerning this revert.--MichaelSirks 18:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't there something more productive you could do than complain about a two week old revert? Phil Sandifer 18:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * A quick glance at his contribs would appear to suggest that he has nothing else to contribute, sadly. William M. Connolley 20:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC).
 * I take it this an admission that WMC has broken his parole. Else he would have substantiated where he discussed his revert on the talk pages.--MichaelSirks 21:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If this was a "one-off" where WMC had admitted that he had violated his parole I would have left at that, but it is not. It is also not true that only now (two weeks after the event) I am reporting this. (Please follow the links)What we see is a pattern of behavour. The question is; Does WMC have a parole and is Wikipedia ready to enforce this parole. Or are there some other rules for WMC?--MichaelSirks 19:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Question about a not-so-recent incident
I seem to recall someone got banned for sabotaging his own RfA page with condescending comments about the arbitrators. Which case was this? - it was one of those stubborn ones, I remember, with the, uh, "defendant" declaring to all and sundry that this was a kangaroo court and he wasn't going to be bound by the Committee's decisions... Does anyone else remember this? 206.114.20.121 21:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds like Njyoder to me, except I don't think he has been banned (yet). Bishonen | talk 21:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you thinking of Paul Vogel? &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 22:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo-User:EffK-user:Str1977
I request that User:Str1977 be as permanently as possible banned from further papal whitwashing on WP, and  that Jimbo be  estimated  as having relevance to the affair, as I have several communications with him pertaining to such whitewash. I respectfully ask that this matter go straight into serious consideration as my entire history upon Wikipedia has  been entirely taken up with an edit war with this one single User:Str1977, who has falsely claimed himself as mediator upon my  Famekeeper Rfc. i have for approximately one year desired and clamoured for help, mediation and arbitration  to the point where Jimbo  suggested WP was unable to include me and my thoughts. I claim good faith and good source and reason and moral necessity, and ask that sufficient  notice be allowed  to this case of  utter complaint. I believe Jimbo himself to have exhibited a regrettable dismissal of the relevance of this to WP and to civilized society, and therefore come here for  serious help in a serious matter which  retraces endless step from today- at the Reichskonkordat. I iterate that my FK  name tags change purely because I lose cookies when  my hard drive dies or I re-ghost. My usernames are entirely above board nevertheless and my user contributions throughout serve any advocates  if taken from the beginning of my WP time as User:Flamekeeper. This need for WP protection concerns the history of the papacy and Hitler, so  be warned that murder was involved  and illegality persists  today, both canonically and civilly(see Enabling Act etc.) EffK 03:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

RFAR headers
Why not use larger headers to separate cases on the RFAR page? -St|eve 02:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I changed the template. Looks ok. If you want to change all the other go ahead or let things take their course Fred Bauder 02:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Ive also reformatted the template and its instructions to be entirely hidden - people may have to clean up visible instructions text (indented to format as codeboxes), but should be ok. -St|eve 06:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Probation Committee
Clarification needed: Did the ArbCom officially sanction or approve this, and if not, is this officially recognized by you (referring to the ArbCom)? The wording is ambigious and makes reference to the ArbCom several times. Many thanks. Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 01:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Can one of you take a look at TDC's statement in the middle of the template. Methinks that it shouldn't be there, but I'd rather not touch it. Thanks! Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 01:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a very new thing, and they are a bit confused about what their purpose is. From discussions with them (they wanted to talk to an arbitrator about their project and asked me), they want to tackle two issues: (1) enforcing probation, and (2) being a source of mentors for future arbcom-designed mentorships.
 * The former job, enforcing probation, is something left up to any admins who want to do it. If they want to organize a project to do it on a more organized (but still unofficial) basis, so be it - it's totally within their prerogative.
 * As far as mentorships are concerned - mentorships have generally been a great deal of work for arbitrators to arrange. The arbitrator advocating the mentorship has to get the mentee to agree to the mentorship in principle, then has to select and track down potential mentors that are (a) willing to do it, (b) acceptable to the other members of the arbitration committee, and (c) acceptable to the mentee. Having a pool of people willing to be mentors makes this marginally easier, and is an idea I have been advocating for a while now.
 * So that's basically it in a nutshell. No, they are not official in any way, but they have potential to be useful to the committee (once they sort out their identity crisis). &rarr;Raul654 01:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks! Some discussion over at the talk page has also clarified things, but I was confused because the page had said it was an auxiliary of the ArbCom and made other references to the ArbCom, making it ambigious whether it was an official branch of the ArbCom. I think that part's been removed now. Thanks again, Raul! Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 01:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

We've changed our name to the WP:MENTCOM. Our goal is now to make ourselves an available pool of mentors. The mentors will not block anyone they're mentoring, but rather the enforcers will if there's any violation. We'll also utilize an IRC bot working as a live user watchlist, showing every contribution. This will only be used on Jarlaxle and MARMOT for now. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Why does Wikipedia need users who must be monitored so closely? Wyss 00:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That question is no more or less reasonable or helpful than asking why Wikipedia needs you. Phil Sandifer 00:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Fred Bauder

 * Why is Fred Bauder allowed to vote on whether an RfA against himself is to be accepted or rejected?
 * What you need is four votes for, votes against don't matter anyway. Fred Bauder 22:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Even so, it seems wrong to me. Wyss 22:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Without judging the merits of the case, it is clearly wrong for FB to be voting on whether to accept a case against himself. His answer above is inadequate and disturbing. William M. Connolley 18:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC).


 * Is his statement in the RfA a resignation from arbcom?
 * Of course not. Fred Bauder 22:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If you have no more time for Wikipedia, how can you continue to serve on arbcom? If it's not a resignation, what is it? Wyss 22:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Why aren't the numerous specific policy violations listed in the RfA being addressed? Is it tacitly OK for a member of arbcom to violate WP policy?
 * Ted Wilkes made no valid policy violations which needed to be answered. Fred Bauder 22:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken. Readers are invited to re-read it if necessary, thanks. Wyss 22:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ted Wilkes' request for an RfA is not an appeal of a prior arbcom decision and therefore any votes to reject it which are based on that reason should be disqualified.
 * It looks like an appeal to me Fred Bauder 22:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken, it's an RfA about your behaviour. Wyss 22:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Finally, why has Fred Bauder's behavior on my talk page remained unsanctioned?
 * I don't think I did anything wrong. I asked to to respect the result of the arbitration Fred Bauder 22:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You did not ask me to respect the result of the arbitration. You threatened me with an RfA with no prior warning or contact at all. Why are you misrepresenting your behaviour on my talk page? Wyss 22:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Wyss 22:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It is noted, Jdavidb, that you chose wrongheaded middle school sarcasm as an alternative to answering my questions. I am curious however, how Fred Bauder can continue to effectively serve on arbcom when he himself says he no longer has time for Wikipedia. Wyss 22:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * How is it possible (speaking only for myself here) for the mind to be boggled and bored all at once? :) Wyss 00:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You do realise that the office of arbitrator is one of the most privileged posts one can hold on Wikipedia. Users holding that office should inspire confidence and trust amongst other users. According to the "evidence" Ted has provided has not exactly treated other people in real life that well. This raises serious questions over whether the basic principles of fairness mean much to this person. It is a totally reasonable inference that if he doesn't treat people appropriately in real life, where real sanctions can be imposed, he may treat people even worse in a virtual environment. I not saying that he certainly will or won't, I'm just speculating that his soundness can be questioned. He has recently been granted access to CheckUser, considering the "evidence"; do you trust him with that power? 62.216.16.184 22:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * So don't vote for him in the upcoming elections. Could someone please summarize briefly exactly what actions on Wikipedia the complaint is about? There's so much verbiage, it's hard to figure out what the actually problem is. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In short, he actively took sides with a vandal on probation for repeatedly (many dozens of times) copy-pasting fabricated and unsupported tabloid stuff into a few celebrity articles and their talk pages. He called the vandal a user in "good standing" after arbcom had placed the user on probation and created a new "mentoring" committee with people he'd picked himself in order to assist the user in continuing to vandalize the article. I feel justified in using the term vandal, by the way, because the one-topic user, who originally posted anonymously before being forced to get a username as a part of a previous mediation which he then delayed in order to avoid being caught by checkuser (he seems to be a WP admin under another username) was indeed placed on probation for his behaviour (and has already violated it). Wyss 23:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * So, in other words, nothing that's mentioned at all in the summary of the RfAr? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The pith of it's in there, try reading it again? Wyss 23:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Since I'm obiously retarded, could someone with better skills at explaining things to the mentally deficient than Wyss has please tell me where the pith is that Wyss is referring to? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Wyss, is there a certain diff you're referring to where Fred says he no longer has time for Wikipedia? I'm asking because he seems to spend quite a few hours working on ArbCom cases and says here (three edits ago) "That said, my personal situation does give me time to do work for Wikipedia, a very worthwhile project." Carbonite | Talk 23:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I misread his statement, thanks for pointing it out. The non-sequitor of someone being disbarred for soliciting a client for work as a prostitute and then saying All in all, I think it worked out well enough I guess, caused my mind to add a word that wasn't there. Wyss 23:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

From a purely proceedural point of view, I think a request for arbitration against an arbiter would automatically mean that the arbiter in question should be recused from the request. It doesn't look like the remaining arbiters are going to accept the case anyway, but that's separate from whether Fred Bauder should vote on whether to accept or reject the request for arbitration against himself. Whatever happened to Fred in the real world isn't a violation of any wikipedia policy that I know of. Voting to reject a request for arbitration against himself, however, does seem completely inappropriate as an arbiter. FuelWagon 23:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If you read the RfA carefully, you'll see that it addresses specific WP behaviour problems, although I agree that the character background material comes through so loud and clear that one might come away from the text with only that in mind. Nonetheless, I think the arbcom members who have rejected this RfA so far are violating WP policy in doing so. If they can't take the time to carefully read stuff, how can they be trusted to make decisions? Then again, that's why Wikipedia is so badly broken. Low-traffic science, math and IT articles tend to be quite reliable, but the high traffic content has deep troubles and arbcom seems to either not understand scholarly sourcing methodologies, or doesn't care when it comes to certain types of articles, never mind they don't seem to read talk page archives on the RfAs they're deciding but that's a wonted bad habit across WP. Wyss 23:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And petitioners who can't take the time to read that their statements should be 500 words in length and at least arrive in the ballpark of that shold be rejected out of hand. If there's a complaint, phrase it coherently - don't expect the arbcom to be psychic. Phil Sandifer 00:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure psychic powers are part of the required skill set for reading, but maybe Ted Wilkes can edit it down when he has a chance. Wyss 00:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No, but extraordinary patience and a stable-mucker's shovel apparently is. There's a 500-word limit, and it's not ArbCom's job to indulge anyone's logorrhea problem. --Calton | Talk 01:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It is very interesting that users Ted Wilkes and Wyss, who frequently worked together in deleting my contributions to Wikipedia articles, are now working together in denigrating a member of the arbitration committee, simply because his opinion was not in line with their personal view. Could it be that User:Ted Wilkes is identical with multiple hardbanned User:DW? See also. Onefortyone 23:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Readers will note that here, the vandal reverts to his old tactic of hollow sockpuppet accusations. He succeeds at this because he knows arbcom members don't bother to read talk archive pages. Also note his easy use of WP jargon, indicating wide experience with WP under another username. Wyss 00:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You have repeatedly called me a "vandal" as Ted Wilkes did. I would interpret this as a personal attack. Onefortyone 00:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've explained my use of the term above. Readers are again advised that 141 is on probation for his editing behaviour and frequently distracts attention away from his vandalism by claiming to be an innocent victim of personal attacks, reverts and so on. Wyss 00:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It is unwise to use a term with an official meaning like "vandal" informally. Phil Sandifer 00:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm using it formally. 141 is a vandal who is currently on probation for his editing behavior. Please read the talk page archives for Nick Adams, Elvis Presley and James Dean if you have further questions about this. Moreover, Fred Bauder's description of 141 as a WP user in "good standing" after arbcom put him on probation is one of the reasons Wilkes filed this RfA. Wyss 00:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Did you mention that User:Ted Wilkes, who started several edit wars with me, took me to arbitration, simply because he didn't agree with my edits which were supported by many independent sources? The arbitration committee only says that Onefortyone "may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research." As this is not the case, I have not been banned. It seems as if you and Ted Wilkes are not willing to accept my contributions, which, according to administrator FCYTravis are well sourced. Onefortyone 00:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It takes two to have an edit war, 141, and every editor who has tried to work with you has pronounced your sources to be unacceptable. Arbcom members are likely unaware of this because they don't read talk page archives, in this case partly because you have filled them with novel-length copy pastings of repetitive, unsupported celebrity gossip which, given human nature, is so boring I can understand the reluctance of someone to wade through it. You understand that too, of course, which is why you use it as a tactic. You are a talented and knowledgeable vandal and hence immensely more destructive to WP's credibility. Meanwhile, if arbcom members are unwilling to do thorough research on the stuff they decide, they shouldn't be serving on arbcom, or it should be revamped altogether. Wyss 00:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * None of the findings in the Onefortyone case point towards vandalism - they look to me like POV pushing, but that's not vandalism. Phil Sandifer 00:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly copy-pasting both fabricated and unsound sources into articles and talk pages until they are novel-length with redundant content is vandalism. If arbcom didn't notice this because they didn't bother to read the talk page archives carefully, that points to a much wider set of problems. Wyss 00:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No. That's not vandalism. It's still bad, but it's not vandalism. Phil Sandifer 01:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It is bad, it is willfull, it is patient, it is vandalism. Wyss 01:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please note that constant repetition of a false statement doesn't magically transform it into truth. --Calton | Talk 01:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Please note that Ted Wilkes has clarified and re-summarized his RfA regarding evidence of Fred Bauer's misconduct as a member of Wikipedia's arbcom on the project page. Wyss 01:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, he's added more verbiage to it. If he wants to clarify, he should cut it to 500 words, and clearly note which Wikipedia policies Fred Bauder has allegedly violated. Phil Sandifer 01:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd be quite happy to cut it to 500 words. It probably won't be the the 500 that he'd prefer, but it will be exactly 500, and every word of it will have been written by Ted Wilkes. --Carnildo 01:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's like a Wikipedia remix track! :) Phil Sandifer 01:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There will be a dance version, right? --Calton | Talk 01:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Readers will note that in true bureaucratic form, these Wikipedians are focusing on (and joking about) form, not content. Wyss 01:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You seem to be suffering from a misconception that the two are somehow separable. The form of the request is rambling and overlong. Hence its content is obscured, reading primarily as claims relating to Fred's personal life or dealing with Jimbo, which would be Jimbo's issue, not the arbcom's. Phil Sandifer 01:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, anything to avoid the issue I guess. Wyss 01:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No one's avoiding the issue, merely giving it the respect it deserves. --Calton | Talk 01:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Calton | Talk, have you familiarized yourself with the background on this or are you only guessing? Wyss 01:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course I have -- I even plowed through Ted Wilkes' eye-glazing symptom-of-logorrhea-problem he posted on the main page, despite its extraordinarily bad signal-to-noise ratio. Do you have reason to doubt I have, or are you merely desperately throwing whatever made-up mud you think will stick? You're reminding me of the old lawyer's joke (NOT the "old-lawyer's joke", Fred), "When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the facts are against you, pound the law. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table."


 * Careful you don't bruise your hand, there. --Calton | Talk 02:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific about the background materials you've checked into? Your own signal-to-noise ratio got rather high in that last post. Wyss 02:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Uh uh, mud-boy, don't dodge my question. And ArbCom is supposed to plow through Ted Wilkes' 3000-word ramble without blinking, yet you managed to stumble reading the 92 words in my 'graf?


 * On second thought, don't bother answering: your initial reply speaks volumes about the bad-faith, double standards, and lack of intellectual honesty you're bringing here. --Calton | Talk 02:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Here, Calton starts blatant name-calling along with emotional, unspecified accusations of bad-faith, double standards and so on... Wyss 02:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * They're not unspecified, but as you seem to have trouble reading a simple less-than-100-words statement:


 * Bad faith - constant misuse, despite multiple corrections, of the word "vandalism" and variants thereof.
 * - charging others with name-calling, despite constant characterization of others as "trolls" and "vandal"
 * - making unfounded and insulting implications (see passive-aggressive) about my standing to comment, and immediately changing the subject when challenged.
 * Double standards - And ArbCom is supposed to plow through Ted Wilkes' 3000-word ramble without blinking, yet you managed to stumble reading the 92 words in my 'graf?
 * - insulting others (see, for example, jpgordon, above) while being hypersensitive to perceived slights.
 * lack of intellectual honesty - Constant use of irrelevent details, plus the bad actions detailed above, in pursuit of an agenda.


 * There, is that sufficient, or do I need to go out and get the butcher paper and crayons?


 * Enjoy yourself. Me, I'm going to lunch. --Calton | Talk 02:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's mistaken but if you would take the butcher paper and crayons over to my talk page (as someone has kindly asked), you can write "mud-boy" with them, hold up the paper and make a raspberry sound or whatever, if you want, ok? Thanks :) Wyss 03:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I write short words. You not grasp sense, but throw dirt in its place. But you ask Fred and others to grasp very long words by Ted. This make no sense. This called "double standard." You use long words wrong (like "vandalism") even when people tell you it is wrong. You call people "trolls" for when they say you are wrong. This called "bad faith."


 * I write short words. You not grasp sense, but throw dirt in its place. I say I will write with big letters and short words. I say I will send to you so you can grasp sense. You still not grasp sense but throw more dirt, so I make more clear now. See?


 * Where can I mail notes to you? I will use as many stamps as I need. --Calton | Talk 04:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Just a question, Wyss. Why are you so deeply engaged in this mud-throwing campaign started by Ted Wilkes? Onefortyone 01:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Readers will note that 141 not only uses the tactics of a vandal (see the extensive notes above along with the referenced talk page archives), but those of a troll too. Wyss 02:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You are now calling me a troll. That's your second personal attack in this thread. Onefortyone 02:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Readers will note how 141, who is on probation for abusive editing tactics and is not the subject of this RfA, has injected himself into this discussion as a victim. Wyss 02:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Was this trip really neccessary? FuelWagon 02:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This is absurd. If there's a complaint to be made about Fred's behavior here at wikipedia, it should be strong enough to stand on its own. Tossing in details about his non-wikipedia life is inappropriate, regardless of content or truth. He has a long record here by which he can be judged. It's also a classic smear ... if you haven't got the goods on Fred's behavior here, just sling a bunch of mud and hope some of it sticks. Sadly, that seems to be a succesful technique in public life; I hope that won't be the case here. Derex &#91;&#91;User_talk:Derex&#124;@]] 02:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Apparently it was neccessary. FuelWagon 02:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Since he advertises himself on his user page as a retired lawyer, there is a concern that JW wouldn't have invited him onto arbcom if he knew he'd been sanctioned and banned from practicing as a lawyer, especially under the circumstances which are available in the public record. Moreover, he didn't disclose it, and has apparently misprepresented the facts when confronted on the issue in the past by at least one other editor. Wyss 02:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * replying on user talk pages. FuelWagon 02:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Like Wyss, I'm somewhat concerned that Fred feels it is his right to vote to reject an arbcom case brought against himself. Whether or not the issue itself has merit (I don't really know, although on first glance it seems a bit silly and I agree with the various arbcom members who have voted that it seems to be outside arbcom's purview), it seems clear that Fred should recuse himself, and I think it shows poor judgment that he did not do so. john &#91;&#91;User_talk:John Kenney&#124;k]] 07:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Half the arbitrators could be editing Wikipedia from prison, and they'd still be doing a fine job serving our community. Our lives outside Wikipedia have no bearing whatsoever on our status as Wikipedia editors. Szyslak ([[Image:Szyslak sig.png]] [ +t, +c, +m, +e  ] ) 13:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ordinarily I would expect an arbitrator to recuse him or herself in the case of an arbitration which they are a party to, but in the case of this irrelevency it didn't really bother me. Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 14:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest recusing regardless. If a case is completely lacking in merit it will get tossed ANYWAY... and if recused you (and we) don't have to listen to charges of 'bias'. The APPEARANCE of impartiality is often at least as important as the actuality. --CBDunkerson 14:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? Votes to reject are meaningless. If it's accepted, then he should recuse. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * A vote to reject could influence other arbcom members and observers. He should recuse. Wyss 16:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Why? Please see several pages of invective and argument hereon. That's why. Recusal is not just for the protection of the person bringing the matter, but AT LEAST as much so for the protection of the 'judges'. Yes, it seems absolutely clear that this motion was in no way harmed by Fred not recusing himself. However, it seems equally clear that Fred WAS (see aforementioned pages of nonsense). Recusal is a shield that works both ways and protects the community in the process. I'm arguing wisdom, not propriety. --CBDunkerson 14:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Please provide citations supporting your assertion that Ted Wilkes' RfA was both frivolous and in bad faith, which are serious accusations. What has Wilkes misprepresented? What evidence is there that he has been insincere? There may be a valid point of discussion as to whether any individual's activities outside Wikipedia are ever acceptable as a topic in any Wikipedia procedure, however to my knowledge this is not yet covered by any official policy. Personally, I would never have filed an RfA against Mr Bauder (I just told him I thought he should quit arbcom, before I knew the first thing about his background). However, I agree with Wilkes that a Wikipedia user who represents himself as a retired lawyer on his user page and serves on arbcom, but who has not disclosed that he was disbarred, may be abusing Wikipedia's well-established practice of assuming good faith on the part of all users. This is very different from, for example, a convict in a prison editing WP from behind a blind user name and implying no assertions to Wikipedians as to his professional experience or legal standing in society. Wyss 17:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You've only linked back to his RfA. What I requested was evidence external to his RfA text which establishes either a misrepresentation of fact by Wilkes, or insincerity. Wyss 18:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I was not aware that wikipedia was disallowing convicted felons from editting as anonymously as the rest of us do. How is it any of our business, so long as an editors behavior here at wikipedia is within policy and not disruptive, what someone's real life situation may be? siafu 17:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not disallow convicted felons from editing anonymously and I never said it did, nor implied it should. It may be our business, however, if a user makes a representation about real-life professional qualifications which relate to a role they have here, such as a member of arbcom advertising himself as a retired lawyer on his talk page, when he was in fact disbarred. Wyss 18:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This statement: "This is very different from, for example, a convict in a prison editing WP from behind a blind user name and implying no assertions to Wikipedians as to his professional experience or legal standing in society." implies that convicted felons on wikipedia are somehow to be compelled to reveal the fact that they are convicted felons, which is not true. Regarding Mr. Bauder, however, the same principle can be applied in that his status as either "retired", "suspended", or "disbarred" is not exactly important as his record here on wikipedia is more than capable of speaking for itself.  The Arbcom is not a court of law, and one does not need legal credentials to serve as an arbitrator, so not having them is not an issue. siafu 18:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, you completely misunderstood my statement. For clarity, I will rephrase: I, Wyss, think a convicted felon should be allowed to edit Wikipedia and shouldn't have to disclose any personal information whatsoever I sincerely think some readers here are so upset about a Wikipedian's real-life circumstances being discussed that they're skimming the content here, misreading the text and missing the point of concern: A Wikipedian's real-life circumstances are irrelevant and meaningless unless that Wikipedian makes representations about those circumstances which might influence the level of trust other Wikipedians place in her. Moreover, if those representations are later found by some editors to be incomplete or misleading, it may sometimes be reasonable to discuss the matter on WP project pages. Wyss 18:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not unreasonable to be "upset" that someone has gone to the effort of investigating a fellow user's personal life to the extent that they would present a case to the arbcom quibbling over a single term ("retired") for the purpose of discrediting said user. As I said above, one's record here at wikipedia speaks for itself; if I were to write "I am a rock star" on my userpage, despite the fact that I am not, in fact, a rock star it's relevance is not at all enhanced by the falsehood unless I am using this "credibility" as a reference in editting wikipedia, which is the only way in which this is relevant (aside from pretending to be another person entirely for the purpose of sockpuppetry).  Moreover, in this case, the most important facts of the matter are true: Fred Bauder was once a lawyer, and now is no longer.  He is not representing individuals in court through wikipedia, and the fact that he is "disbarred" (if that's the exact case, per discussion below and above) does not necessarily influence the use of the credibility in editting wikipedia since he clearly was able to pass the bar exam and be an attorney in the first place.  In short, I do very much understand the point of concern, and also disagree with your position regarding it. siafu 18:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * We disagree then, on whether or not it's relevant. That's ok, but I hope readers won't interpret our disagreement as insincerity or frivolity from either of us. Wyss 19:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I'm not sure "disbarred" is the correct term. According to the document provided, Fred was suspended (he says he chose not to seek reinstatement). The judgement itself chooses between suspension and disbarment and chose suspension. That he chose not to seek reinstatement does not change that it was a suspension, and there's no language saying he can't, at any time, apply for reinstatement. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As Wilkes carefully pointed out in the text of his RfA (which unfortunately exceeded the 500 word limit and has thus been rejected out of hand by some observers, which I do understand), the subject of the RfA was subsequently disbarred for failing to appear at any hearing about his 30 day suspension and the charges relating to it. Please keep in mind that I'm mentioning this only because the question was asked. Wyss 18:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You don't have your facts right. As the result of a complaint by a client that I had solicited his wife for prostitution a disciplinary charge was made which resulted in public censure and payment of costs. When I did not pay the costs a second disciplinary charge was made which resulted in a 30 day suspension. As I did not apply for lifting of the suspension (and could not until I pay the costs) my take on it is that I remain suspended. I suppose I remain a lawyer with the adjective "suspended", but what happened is that I began selling books and after a while went on social security, meanwhile devoting myself to my hobbies. My thought is that this resulted in a substantial benefit to Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 14:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

What is wrong with Wilkes' actions is that this had all been gone over before several months ago. He has some minor complaints, but the essence of the underlying matter is that he did not like the way the arbitration case came out and refused to respect it and keep reverting Onefortyone and insisting he ought to be banned. So he blows up and start slinging mud. I understand the tactic and am upset about it, but I intend to focus on the real issue. He feels the arbitration case was decided wrong. Since that is the case the remedy is to appeal the case or reopen it. Fred Bauder 14:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Since I've subsequently been brought up in an RfAr which I believe is directly related to this RfAr against Fred Bauder by Ted Wilkes (who last I heard was under a one week block for failing to heed a warning not to move text around in the RfAr project space), I hereby recuse myself from any further discussion on this matter. Wyss 20:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Formal proposal
For future cases, I would like to make it formal policy that any section on RFAr that is longer than the suggested 500 words may be cut short by removing every second word. In a notorious current case, this will give us the following summary, which is about equally useful as the original:
 * Fred said his statements:
 * I one the arbitrators by and participated most the that been" At it was by and by Bauder he the lion's of proposals the at" Fred is on parts the and website, asserted: "am regular on and of of establishment."


 * Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 11:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I would advise against that, and propose that the 500 word limit to be extended (perhaps to 700 or even 1000). In my recently closed Arb case, my statement was about 2000 words (of course there were reasons for that). In complex areas, 500 worsd is clearly not enough. Rex(talk)[[Image:Flag of Albania.svg|25px]] 11:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree with both comments. The remedy proposed by User:Radiant! would disrupt the RfAr to make a point.  He has already made the point that nearly all recent RfArs have been absurdly long.  On the other hand, I disagree with User:REX that longer RfArs are sometimes needed.  It should always be possible to summarize a case in 500 words.  The summary can always provide links, such as to the user conduct RfC or the record of the failed RfM.  (If there is nothing to link to, there probably was inadequate effort to resolve the case.)  Many of the currently open RfArs have the "rant" quality to them.  I agree with the statement that the censored version of the summary is almost as useful as the original.  Robert McClenon 12:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

While I agree there is a problem, Radiant's sarcasm is unhelpful. Wyss 12:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The arbitrators are caught in a quandary, long rambling statements often do not get to the point, or at least the point must be teased out by a lot of reading, checking out links, etc. Yet, if we effectively limited statements to 500 words perhaps there would not be enough information and diffs to know what is happening. When I tried to remove one of the long rambling complaints to a separate page there was a lot of bad feeling. Not to pick on REX, but all we could tell from his statement was that there was a lot of bad feeling. (I guess that phrase comes easily to me). What we want is a brief statement which explains what the problem is. It helps if there are diffs of a few good examples. I think we are willing to put up with some wordyness and repetition, but if you want us to do a good job you need to do one too. Fred Bauder 14:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Not to pick on Rex... I'll have you know that my statement was the only one with an ounce of truth in it. Rex(talk)[[Image:Flag of Albania.svg|25px]] 15:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * How about this. request that editors limit their statements to 500 words. if they exceed that limit and someoen on arbcom believes the request is too long and too unwieldly, then rather than vote to reject/accept, put it "on hold" or something to "send it back" to the petitioner and tell them they need to make it shorter. This then allows people to exceed the limit if the issue is really that complex. It also gives requesters a chance to shorten their request and make it more on point, rather than have arbcom reject what could be a legitimate problem simply because the requester is not a good orator. Arbcom could easily send back a request without having to pour through every diff, and if there really is a legitimate problem, the case is not rejected out of hand. FuelWagon 15:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems time consuming and completely unnecessary. Anyway, someone's always bound to complain when their request for further words is rejected and start making accusations of double standards and favoritism (thank the Lord I don't know anyone who does that). Further bureaucracy is the last thing we need. It's quite clear that people have been finding the 500 word limit not enough, and it should be extended. Rex(talk)[[Image:Flag of Albania.svg|25px]] 16:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is less time consuming. If a request is too long, arbiters can simply push it back to the person making the request without actually reading through it all and checking all the diffs. Theoretically, if an arbiter actually rejects a request, they should have gone through all the diffs and rejected it on lack of merit not simply on procedural issues. This gives arbiters a way of saying "we dont have the time to see if there is a legitimate dispute under all this stuff. whittle it down and try again." FuelWagon 17:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem with this is that they were probably doing as good as they could the first time. Better to go look at some diffs or at the articles and do the best you can and not make a fuss. Fred Bauder 17:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with FuelWagon. I disagree with Rex as to whether the 500-word limit is not enough.  I agree that people have thought it was not enough, but in my opinion, in every such case, the problem was that one of the parties was unable to provide a summary.  It is often not possible to describe a dispute in 500 words.  It should always be possible to summarize it in 500 words.  The arbitrators have been extremely patient in going through long rambling requests for arbitration, followed by long rambling statements accompanying or taking the place of evidence, but the price that the arbitrators and the Wikipedia community have paid is that the ArbCom has been forced to do the summarizing when the parties should do that, which means that they spend more time on fewer cases.  A complaining party who cannot summarize a dispute in 500 words has not really presented a case, only vented anger at length.  It is true that a complaining party may need to summarize the case in 400 words and provide a link to a longer chronology, but that does not excuse the failure to provide summaries.  Similarly, an accused party who cannot summarize their defense in 500 words has not really presented a case, and may even be making the complainant's case for them.  The ArbCom always succeeds in summarizing cases concisely.  Editors who bring cases to the ArbCom should be able to summarize concisely, or should risk being ignored.  Editors who are brought up before the ArbCom should either summarize concisely, or find an advocate who can summarize concisely.  I see no reason why the 500-word limit should be changed.  Robert McClenon 17:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I am in favor of giving the arbitration committee more latitude to reject out of format requests. The reason is that the arbcom is bogged down enough as it is. It should not be their job to build our cases for us. They don't have any law clerks to assist them in analyzing the cases we present. People who want to petitition the arbcom to do something should do the work to present the case that what they want should be granted. If they cannot do that work, they should take more time if they are the complainant, ask for more time if they are the defendant, or ask for help, probably through the WP:AMA.

I think one thing we are missing is that the full case doesn't have to be built during the request for arbitration. That can come during the evidence phase.

I'm also a little upset that evidence continues to be presented in forms other than diffs. There is no way on Wikipedia to determine what really happened in a situation without diffs. You can't truly prove that somebody wrote something in any other way. You can't follow what really happened, see comments that have been removed or modified, in any other way. I'm betting the arbcom has to wade through edit histories in very time consuming and possibly unpleasant ways to determine if someone truly has a case, when the burden to establish that there is a case should be on the presenter, not on the arbcom.

I'd also like to see cases tied to specific Wikipedia policies, with quotes and links. So many of these come down to vagueries. Diffs and quotes of relevant policy would certainly help keep things cohesive. I'm also a little tired of seeing so much focus on "this editor was not civil" when the editor has done much more serious things like edit warring. In my opinion, violations of the more serious policies ought to take precedence. Incivility often happens after a user has engaged in edit warring or NPOV violations, often through newness and ignorance, and often after other editors have badgered them into it by being more than a little incivil themselves. If the arbcom is reduced to simply deciding who is right and wrong when two parties have been incivil toward each other, they are more like parents mediating between squabbling children than judges.

Okay, I guess I've gotten a little far afield, here. :) Jdavidb (talk &bull; contribs) 17:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The only thing I'm saying is that arbcom currently can reject or accept, and a third option that says "procedurally incorrect" could be added to do a quick push-back to the filer, without commenting on whether there is a real dispute or not. Right now, if a long-rambling request is made, arbcom must either wade through it and find there is no dispute (a waste of time), or wade through it and find there is a dispute (which may still be a waste of time if the filer could have made the same case with fewer words), or arbcom could decide it's too long and reject the request on what is really a procedural problem. This last option is the worst case if there really is a dispute but the filer rambles. Rather than "reject" a long request that may have a legitimate dispute underneath it, leaving a legitimate dispute unrsolved, a "procedural incorrect" is a way to say "look, there may be a real dispute here, but its too bloody long for us to figure out, try making it shorter." and that can be done rather quickly. FuelWagon 18:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Too much bureaucracy. if that could happen; it would take months for the disputes to be solved. It would take them longer to solve them not quicker, the work would just pile up. The only solution is a) clear guidelines (including mandatory diffs rather than just words) and b) extension of the word limit. Rex(talk) 18:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Most of what Jdavidb says here is accurate. I know I would love it if petitioners make more of an effort to actually make their cases.  A great example of this was DreamGuy, which we closed with no finding because the petitioners made no significant effort to prosecute a case.


 * I don't read the original complaints all that closely. For the accept or reject question, I mainly look at the prima facie case made in the complaints to decide whether there's anything to accept.  If there isn't, it gets rejected (basically, the equivalent of a 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a cause upon which relief can be predicated; fortunately, we don't make the defendant raise the motion to dismiss here).  If there is, on the pleadings, a valid complaint that is within the power of ArbCom to remedy, and there are no procedural problems with the request (mainly, there has been some real attempt to resolve the dispute without involving ArbCom), it will probably be accepted.  Especially long or inartfully drafted complaints will be skimmed rather than read in full because I don't have all day.  Examination of the evidence waits until the case is accepted and docketed; examining evidence is a timeconsuming process that I don't want to do on a case I'm going to reject anyway.


 * Once the case is accepted, I expect the parties to submit evidence and also to explain how the evidence proves their contentions (in other words, a long list of unexplained diff links on the Evidence page will mostly serve to annoy). Parties are also expected to make reasonable recommendations on the Workshop page.  The ArbCom reserves the right to investigate independently (although this is controversial within the ArbCom) and is certainly not required to accept the representations of the parties (and we do check evidentiary claims for accuracy).  Misrepresentations are a bad thing and will cause trouble for the person making them.


 * It would be just wonderful if the AMA would step forward and actually assist people in this process. However, my experience with the AMA is their advocates mainly focus on wikilawyering and raising Perry-Masonish objections to process, instead of focusing on crafting a presentation of the case that is favorable to their client.  Perhaps this is just the former law student in me, but I expect member advocates to do more than strut around acting like Victor Sifuentes from L.A. Law, waving "you can't touch me" motions at the court.  To that end, I'm disappointed in the AMA.  Perhaps word of this discussion will reach them and they will be spurred to be more useful.  We can only hope.  Kelly Martin (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

500 words is too long anyway. It should be cut to 250, and either: cases longer than 250 are simply removed (possibly to the users page, with a note saying "shorten this") OR statements are simply truncated at 500 (250) words. Expecting the arbcomm to wade through the excess is unreasonable, and sets a bad precedent for the cases themselves. William M. Connolley 18:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC).


 * Clear guidelines are necessary - the current ones are hopeless. When I wrote my first statement, I didn't even know what a diff was. If you check the cases, you would notice that about 35% are exceeding the word limit. If someone want's to wikilawyer over something, that should be it. People making the requests simply haven't enough room to make their whole statements. That is why people should be given the option to write more than 500 words. As for the AMA, they don't really do anything; there is a massive list of unsatisfied requests on their requests page. I think that that group are mostly for show. Like "work experience" before becoming an administrator or a mediator. Rex(talk)[[Image:Flag of Albania.svg|25px]] 18:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have never seen an arbcom case that couldn't be initially sumarized in 500 words or less. As for the AMA, they've also been rather unhelpful in practice - every case I've dealt with in which there was an AMA advocate, the advocate has been relatively ineffectual. Phil Sandifer 18:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If only they'd limit themselves to being ineffectual.... Kelly Martin (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Virtually every court in the US has a page limit on briefs and petitions. The page limits typically don't include appendices of evidence (a function served here by links to diffs, etc.). Just as a point of reference - the US Supreme Court's current limit for a petition for cert (i.e., a petition for discretionary review of a matter, to which a request for arbitration here is similar) is 30 pages, compared with the 50-page limit for the later merits brief after the petition is granted. I'd say that 500 words is ample to make the case as to whether a request for arbitration should be granted. -EDM 18:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

There might be a beneficial side effect to giving the ArbCom the ability to 'reject without prejudice' for procedural reasons. Not only does it compel the involved parties to consider their complaint carefully and distill it down to its central issues and concerns, such a process might also encourage them to withdraw a case altogether. That is, having a case bounced back to the petitioner for further consideration and thought might encourage disputants that jumped to quickly to arbitration to engage in other dispute resolution. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

proposed change
I didn't want to do it myself since all arbcom pages are the sole domain of the arbcom unless otherwise noted but I suggest on Requests for arbitration/Template/Evidence, changing it to read that all difflinks should be noted as a date and time i.e. 15:28, September 21, 2005 instead of the way it's currently done which is. This would make evidence links much easier to read. Jtkiefer T 22:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Since nobody has objected I went ahead and changed the template to suggest using the preferred format here. Jtkiefer T  22:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC) Undone since offset set in preferences changes displayed time when viewing diffs.  Jtkiefer T  22:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy
This new case from Snowspinner appears, as far as I can determine, to be an attempt to get the ArbCom to arbitrate content. Or at the very least, I find it hard to see how this could be treated as a behavior issue. Snowspinner is essentially asking the ArbCom to agree with him about the state of these articles and endorse his plan for doing heavy editing to them without regard for consensus. Everyking 05:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is time for a reminder that Everyking is prohibited from making comments on non-editorial actions taken by other administrators Raul654 06:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * What? My understanding was that applied to administrative actions. Filing an arbitration case isn't an administrative action. Figures you guys are going to try to stretch it as much as you can. Everyking 07:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The comment I cited is written in plain english and requires no special divination to interpret. In point of fact, you are prohibited from commenting on everything except "editorial actions" - e.g., edits to articles. Raul654 07:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

All right, your majesty. Forgive me. I'll rewrite it:

The new proposed case "Regarding the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy" may be impossible for the ArbCom to deal with unless it is willing to arbitrate content. At the very least, I find it hard to see how this could be treated as a behavior issue by the ArbCom. Everyking 07:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's close to the line. However, assuming the problem statement is accurate, I think the no-article-ownwership policy could apply in this case (e.g, people attempting to dominate a particular article or set of articles to the exclusion of others). Raul654 08:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I figure they'd argue they aren't trying to own it, just keep out bad edits. Not other contributors per se. Perhaps it is simply a matter of consensus not having been reached on talk. Everyking 08:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Have you ever actually tried to edit the articles in question? Essentially, a small group of editors insists that every modification meet their approval or it gets reverted. In this particular case, Snowspinner has made efforts to improve the articles (as have many other editors), but it's extremely difficult to make substantial improvements when any change is opposed. I'm sure they'd argue differently, but this group of editors wanting to control the content is ownership. In any case, I'd ask that before you comment any further, you famaliarize yourself a bit more. Carbonite | Talk 12:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I once had a charge of article ownership used against me, when I had no intention whatsoever of trying to keep out other contributors; I only wanted to keep a lot of information from being removed until consensus was reached. This feels kind of like a similar situation, so my instinct is to have some sympathies with the accused. Everyking 13:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The "owners" of the articles refuse even to allow NPOV and original research tags to bep ut on after meticulous documentation has gone on as to the problems with the articles. They refuse to allow any material to be removed without their signing off on it. There are at least three of them, compared to a total of around, at any given moment, one person who has made it to the article to oppose a change. The result is that changing the articles is a protracted process, rendered impossible at any given moment because there's only one voice of sanity at a time, and sanity is voted out by a moment-to-moment consensus of the POV pushers, because "consensus" is increasingly a meaningless term on Wikipedia that we've replaced with "a majority vote." The articles, at any given moment, have a 3/4 vote to ignore NPOV and associated policies. Except you can't vote to ignore NPOV on a specific article. And that fact isn't a content dispute. Phil Sandifer 16:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This arbitration request seems to be a prima facie abuse of process. The first talk page comment by Snowspinner, who brought the case, was an announcement of an npov tag essentially because it was too long: "It is ridiculously POV to suggest that there are 60,000 accurate words worth saying about this topic."  When someone pointed out that he was welcome to try to improve the article, Snowspinner replied: "No. I'm not welcome, and you know it. If I try to give any of these articles the enema they so desperately need, I will be reverted, continually."  In other words, Snowspinner made no attempt whatsoever to improve the article or seek compromise before running to arbcom.  I don't know what steps other editors have taken previously, but I do note there is no RFC cited.  Snowspinner brought the case, without any evidence of trying to work it out, indeed with an explicit statement that he wasn't even going to try.
 * Prima facie abuse of process, and frankly outside the mandate of the arbitration committee &mdash; they are charged with resolving diputes after other reasonable steps have been taken. They are not intended to be the article police; the community is.  Arbitration is a court of last appeal for matters that cannot be resolved in the normal process by the community.  Anything else would be a dangerous over-reach and a power grab. Derex 16:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Commenting on other people's statements
I would like to point out that I was told not to comment on other people's statements by someone on the arbitration committee and my comments were removed. Yet, someone else (that is also part of Johnski et al.)has seen fit to do the same thing, yet there comments were not removed. I am requesting those comments be removed to comply with the same thing I was told. Thanks... Davidpdx 07:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It is a lot of work because the comment needs to be preserved but also moved. Fred Bauder 16:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Appeal?
Jimbo does not seem to be answering my appeal on his talk page. Nor has he answered my e-mail to him. In the event that he fails to respond after some reasonable length of time, will the ArbCom take my appeal itself and reconsider my case? Everyking 14:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Why would we hear an appeal of your case 10 days after we closed it? Has something important changed? If not, then no - I don't think an appeal is likely to be heard at this time. Raul654 15:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Having read Everyking's comments on Jimbo's page, it seems Everyking is concerned that ArbCom has closed the case before he has had the opportunity to post evidence he has that is relevant to it. I can't see why it is unreasonable to give editors full opportunity to post the evidence they have that is relevant. Of course, what ArbCom decides after reading that evidence is up to them - but if they do not even allow someone to present that evidence, is that not against the principle of natural justice? jguk 18:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Everyking had a period of several months to present evidence, including specific deadlines where he was asked to present a single diff or line of argument that he would follow. He missed every one of these deadlines. Phil Sandifer 18:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Did he buy into the deadlines, or was he presented with them? Anyway, I don't really want to get into the intricacies of Everyking - as you can see, I'm more concerned with rushing to conclusions before everyone's had a fair chance to be heard, jguk 18:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The point is that everyone is supposed to have the right to an appeal. If Jimbo doesn't respond to me, I ought to have some other means of appealing. And given the questionable nature of the ruling, considering my own contrition regarding incivility, and my ceasing to be uncivil for a fair length of time now, it only seems right that they should reconsider the case anyway. Everyking 19:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I would be inclined to treat Jimbo's silence as a functional denial of the appeal. Phil Sandifer 20:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Everyone has the right to ask for an appeal. But just like every appeals court (in the US, anyway), this does not mean they have a right to be granted an appeal. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I would note that Jimbo is currently performing some sort of maintenance on his talk page, and that further discussion of this point might not be fruitful until after that is complete. To be fair, Jimbo has only had Everyking's request for comment on his talk page for eight days, and the formal request for appeal for less than forty-eight hours.  If he starts getting close to a month without a response, it might then be appropriate to urge more haste.
 * With respect to additional avenues for appeal, editors who are unsatisfied with both the ArbCom's ruling and Jimbo's handling can in principle attempt to appeal directly to the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation. I doubt that the board will grant cert except under the most dire circumstances; they have a lot to do.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Actually, from what I remember, the discussions we've had of this would put the Board beneath Jimbo in the "appeals hierarchy", and a level which is normally (has always been) skipped, and essentially doesn't exist. In the end, this is Jimbo's site. If you don't like that, tough.
 * James F. (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I dunno; my understanding is that Jimbo is the official face of the site, but everything is now owned and operated–on paper, at least–by the Wikimedia Foundation. The power of the Board of Trustees to impose or modify arbitration sanctions then would seem to flow from III.4.4 of the Foundation bylaws. In part,
 * "...the Board of Trustees shall be empowered to order suspension of membership or the suspension of particular or specific user privileges at its sole discretion..."
 * Practically speaking, I'd say that you're right and the question is moot. If Jimbo decided to confirm/overturn an ArbCom decision I don't see the Board being likely to overrule him; if Anthere and Angela decided they really wanted to hear an appeal despite Jimbo's silence, I suspect that Jimbo wouldn't throw a tantrum. IANAL, YMMV, etc. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo does not reply to every comment on his talk page - he gets far too many of them (I can sympathize - my talk page is one of the most active ones too). And, as Jpgordon pointed out, EK does not have a right to an appeal; he has the right to request one, a request which Jimbo has functionally denied. The fact that EK willfully avoided presenting a cintilla of evidence during his case is not grounds for him to ask for a rehearing. Raul654 02:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems to me a request for appeal is more important than most of what he gets on his talk. And if he can't handle the load, like I said over there, he needs to delegate. If Jimbo wants to deny my request he will have to at least say something, engage me in some semblance of a discussion. This "functional denial" business is nonsense. Everyking 04:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * And it seems to me that your Arbitration case was more important than most of the 2,300 individual edits you performed while the case was active and over which you did (almost) nothing about, despite several warnings. Whether Jimbo "needs" to delegate is entirely up to him and his priorities, not you and your personal priorities. --Calton | Talk 06:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Even a single typo fix is more important than this case. Some people forget the whole point of Wikipedia. In any case, what I am saying rests mainly not on evidence (if I presented evidence, I suppose it would just be to cite polite uncontroversial posts on the AN pages, of which there were a good number), but on the points that A) I acknowledged my incivility and promised to improve about it, and B) the behavior the ArbCom was judging had effectively ended several months before the ruling, making it impossible to view it as anything but simple punishment. Moreover, the ruling was also problematic in that it was totally one-sided, making no note of all the misbehavior from others (mainly Snowspinner) that provoked me into those arguments. Everyking 06:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't follow Everyking's logic. On the one hand, he says that he didn't get around to responding because he had Wiki-tasks that were more urgent than attending to his case. On the other hand, he says that his request to Wales about his case is so urgent that Wales' failure to reply promptly indicates his inability to do his job. Either the case is important or it isn't. If it wasn't important enough for Everyking to respond to, why should Wales? Anyway, is the additional evidence ready now? Perhaps if Everyking presented it along with his appeal request it would make the appeal seem more substantial. -Willmcw 06:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I responded plenty. What I didn't do was present actual evidence. I simply argued and tried to make the arbitrators see reason (and failed), offering compromises and assurances. Frankly I did not believe the arbitrators would give any evidence I presented any serious consideration, and I was skeptical that they would even really look at it. So it wasn't high on the agenda. Urgency isn't really the question. Hard work for little or no reward just isn't the kind of thing you generally are in a hurry to do. I explained repeatedly why a rush was not necessary: I would simply refrain from posting on AN until after I presented my evidence. But the ArbCom shoved the case through in a hurry; therefore I ought to get my appeal heard in a hurry. Everyking 07:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Hurry", I suppose, is in the eye of the beholder. EK initially requested a month. As we were closeing the case six weeks later (about the median period for an arbcom case at the time), he had presented no evidence and was asking us to wait another 3 months so he'd have time to present. We didn't fall for his dilatory tactics, and now he is trying to bootstrap that into a reason for appeal. Sorry, no dice. Raul654 08:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "A hurry"? You asked for a month (or six weeks?) to present your case and you got a month after it was re-started. The vote to close finished eleven days after the last new comment on the /Workshop page (you never participated), three weeks after the last talk page entry (the last day you participated), and three months after the last new /Evidence (you never participated). In late October the ArbCom even said they wanted to slow down and talk about it some more, and then did so. Cases can't stay open forever. I have been submitting a gazillion-word case to the ArbCom, and I totally agree with you that time spent in ArbCom cases is not fun and takes away from more productive efforts. Your reluctance to invest time in your case is understandable, but it has a consequence. Your appeal, formalized only two days ago, doesn't describe the remedy as unfair. Most Wikipedians go through their entire editing careers without posting on the administrators' noticeboard. The time that you had been spending there is now free for more productive efforts, like typo-fixing, which we all appreciate, or anything else you'd like to do.  Cheers, -Willmcw 08:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that the ArbCom appreciates productive efforts at all. Their record does not indicate this. They are quite loyal to Snowspinner, who contributes little, but to more active editors they can be harsh beyond all reason. My first two arbitration cases involved punishing me for productive efforts, in fact, and I was banned from editing a whole set of articles. They can say my efforts weren't productive if they want, but the articles are still right there, a good resource, and I've noted a fair number of examples in which they were cited (or borrowed from) outside of Wikipedia. To me, that's productive. That's what I'm here for. And that's a case where being a productive Wikipedian runs right up against the wishes of the ArbCom. It should never be that way, but that's how it is.


 * Gerard is always arguing we should scrap AfD because having no AfD would be better than the current AfD. Well, I don't agree with that at all, but I do think it would be better to have no ArbCom than the current ArbCom. It does little good and lots of harm. We need an ArbCom, definitely, but not this ArbCom. It has no democratic spirit, no sense of fairness. They don't listen to people; they don't try to get down to the roots of an issue and resolve it theoretically but not necessarily punitively. As an candidate for the ArbCom election, which has now apparently been aborted by Jimbo to ensure that the same practices and style continue, I'll put forward my idea of how my newest case should've been treated:


 * Everyking has been uncivil at various times on the AN pages, and has sometimes directed too much focus onto personalities rather than issues and specific problems. Everyking is on civility parole on those pages, and may be banned from them for a week for each specific offense if the readers of the AN page vote (on the talk page) by a majority, with a quorum of five, that any of his comments were uncivil. Parole will expire in three months if there are no such instances of incivility, but will be extended for three months if there are (and potentially extended further if incivility continues).
 * Everyking is welcome to express his opinions on administrative matters, as are all editors, and particularly admins; the ArbCom makes no judgment on any aspect of his posts to the pages beyond the application of Civility.
 * Snowspinner is reprimanded for excessive controversial use of admin powers, and encouraged to have greater respect (in practice) for general feeling and for standard interpretations of policy.


 * Everyking 06:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Did you ever communicate your idea for the case to the ArbCom? There was a /Workshop page which allowed you that opportunity. -Willmcw 07:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't remember if I ever made any specific proposals like that on-wiki, but I definitely did in an IRC chat with Raul (which he said he sent to the rest of the ArbCom). And what I proposed was a good deal harder on me than what I proposed above, so if they didn't go for that I can't imagine they'd have gone for something more lenient. Everyking 07:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to say, I'm glad that the arbcom declined to pass or consider that had no evidence presented for it. Phil Sandifer 15:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean. Everyking 05:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Based on Requests for arbitration it may never be too late to reopen a case. (SEWilco 06:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC))

Regarding webcomics deletion - Outside views
It seemed a bit unusual for there to be outside views here, and the top of the page pretty clearly states "This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment." It doesn't follow with "And no one else may" so here they are, moved from the main page. - brenneman (t) (c) 12:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Um... dude. Don't refactor your own cases. Phil Sandifer 15:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. This is a request for arbitration in which you are involved, and while the refactoring may have been in good faith it isn't really appropriate given the circumstances. Beyond this, you didn't sign your editorial comment with which you prefaced the moved discussion. I've added your sig in for clarity's sake. --Rosicrucian 15:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, excellent, Brenneman. "They didn't say I couldn't" is about the flimsiest reasoning available. DrHot 18:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

In order -
 * Snowspinner - Um, dude, why not? It's not very effective to simply tell me that, and expect my to comply just because you say so, or because you are "astonished".  Provide me with some rational, then we can discuss it.  Was something made less clear?  Did I fail to provide an edit summary?  Do you think that the arbitrators don't know about the existence of the talk page?  It says at the top of the main page very clearly, "This is not a page for discussion."
 * Rosicrucian - Thank you for that. I'd suggest that it's better to use Aaron Brenneman as opposed to putting the actual signiture in, but I appreciate you correcting my oversight, as well as removing the talk that had been left in two places by another editor.
 * DrHot - Thank you for your contribution. I'll try to take it in good humour.

I'm presuming that the reason it is a bad idea to keep the talk on the talk page is so overwhelmingly obvious to the three of you that you felt it didn't bear exposition, but it's not to me. brenneman (t) (c) 23:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Removal of the talk could be used by a perticipent in an RfA action in an attempt to bias or distort the proccess. Hence only someone not involved should do it   &mdash;preceding unsigned comment by Dformosa (talk &bull; contribs)
 * Hi Dformosa, welcome to Wikipedia. Is there no irony detectable in that this ArbCom purports to be about my failure to WP:AGF but that my clearly marked attempts to follow the guidelines on the main page are reverted because it appears that I might be "distorting the process?" - brenneman (t) (c)  00:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There is another RfAr that was just posted whose basis is an alleged improper change to an RfAr. The practice of making changes to the wrong part of an RfC or RfAr is sometimes known as "coloring outside the lines".  Robert McClenon 01:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think my objections to you moving the discussion are twofold.
 * First and foremost it is best not to assume that something which is not expressly forbidden is implicitly allowed.
 * Second, it is inappropriate for you or any of the other participants in this RfA to refactor the RfA for the reasons stated above by Dformosa. As I said I will not question the good faith in which the move was made, but I'd much rather someone not involved in the RfA do it. I'd feel the same way if Phil Sandifer did something similar.
 * In fact, I might not have minded if you'd simply posted something like "comments moved to Talk Page" with a link over here, but what you did was somewhat unceremonious and sudden, to the point of being confusing. While it is the arbitrators' perogative to refactor the RfA and move/remove discussion However they deem appropriate without comment, it is generally important if such a large body of text is moved to link to where it was moved. Especially given that certain clarifications in the RfA by Phil Sandifer were in response to the "Outside Views" discussion, the RfA was a rather odd read after your edit. --Rosicrucian 04:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Rex071404 & Instantnood Motions to Close
I wonder if these cases will be closed before 2006 - it appears that the arbitrators are so caught up in other cases that they seem to have overlooked these cases and are allowing them to age, in a sense.

Erik Beckjord
I am new here but I find this site to be like glue... nobody answers direct questions, and the links are not adequate. I have asked in many places how one get to make edits that are not reversed by the next stranger to look at the page. Nobody answers me. Daniel CD has helped just a little.

I see a page that is about me, ERIK BECKJORD, and when I edit the errors, they do not stick. One of my internet enemies here comes by and reverts. How longing does this go on?

I also cannot find who made the page. Who is it?

I also cannot find who made the Bigfoot page, who is it?

I am a curator of three CZ Museums and have 30 years of Bigfoot experience, and all my edits of those pages are reverted. I see nobody here who has any experience in the field (woods) of either cz or Bigfoot. Yet, total nobodies edit what I say.

WHO CAN I TALK TO AT LENGTH about all this? I do not need links. I need a warm body.

"Treat newcomers with kindness" will you?

Jon-Erik Beckjord,BA,MBA

BeckjordBeckjord 09:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know how much I can help, but do you know about page histories? That's how you can find out who started the articles, and who is reverting you. I'm assuming you know about talk pages, since you posted this here. Well, every article has a talk page, so you can discuss whatever content concerns you have there. If your edits are neutral and verifiable, they probably should not be reverted&mdash;of course, people do differ on their interpretations of these things. Everyking 10:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

A request about the Ben Gatti case
Didn't know where else to put this, so I'll put it here. I request that the case be retitled to just Ben Gatti and that zen master be excluded. I'm arguing for this because this case is about Ben Gatti, NOT about Price-Anderson. Our side has absolutely no intention of bringing up the issues that are involved in Price-Anderson. None. You guys don't take content disputes and this is not a content dispute. By including Price-Anderson, Ben is trying to muddy the issue and make it less about him and more about P-A. This case is about him NOT price-anderson so I request that it be titled just Benjamin Gatti. the precedent here is to name cases after the user involved, not the articles involved. As for zen master, he's been involved in P-A for less than a week. And as far as I know, his involvement as a party to this case is only to argue on Ben's side for Price-Anderson Act. Well if this case is about Ben and not P-A, then I don't see how zen is involved unless he's going to defend Ben's actions. If he is, I can see why he can stay. Otherwise, I don't think he's a party to this dispute. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well now, Ben has retitled it to include all parties. I still don't think that's correct. I see no charges against Simesa, katefan, I are zen. It's all Ben. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The only article in which the parties are all actively involved is Price-Anderson. This is a content dispute in sheep's clothing (all the better to arbitrate you with my dear). My entire life has been cherry-picked and parsed by partial quotes and pseudo-context into a personal great judgement day when in reality the overwhelming majority of one's edits are productive, constructive, and better-sourced than the alternatives. (And the selections are delightful prose I might add). If we are to indulge in an unbounded mud-sling, than the recent pattern of hounding and prejudice by Mike directed at Zen-master provides a fitting contrast in behavior, as does the gold standard against which this complaint is mere noise. . Benjamin Gatti 02:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ben, I didn't mention a single Price-Anderson issue in my statement. None. It's about you, not about Price-Anderson. As long as the charges do not mention a single issue from Price-Anderson, I'm not sure how the case can be about Price-Anderson in any shape or form. Kate cited other articles you violated policy and guidelines on as did I. It's about you. Not Price-Anderson or zen. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
As this matter touches on Nuclear energy, the Arbcomm must realize that the Price-Anderson Act removes all jurisdiction on such matters to the Federal courts, accordingly, the Arbcomm has no authority to regulate, interfere, or hear disputes arising from such matters. Because the action took place in North Carolina, which is a signatory to the US Constitution by the hand of one William Blount in 1787 (reaffirmed by the Peace Treaty of 1861), it is subject to the laws of the United States of America, including the provisions of the Price-Anderson Act as contained in US 42.23.A § 2210. Indemnification and limitation of liability (n)(2) as reads:

This venue is therefore deprived of its usual jurisdiction and required to remove the complaint forthwith. Benjamin Gatti 03:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * *wipes tears from eyes* Oh man, thank you for the best freakin' laugh I've had all morning. I couldn't stop for about five minutes, and I'm still chuckling. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow. That is just about the finest piece of wikilawyering I've ever seen.  Too bad this is not a "public liability action", nor is it "arising out of or resulting from a nuclear incident".  Motion denied, counselor.  Kelly Martin (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * ...... &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 05:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You suppose this should go on BJAODN? --Carnildo 07:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. --Calton | Talk 07:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You're out of order! And you're out of order! This whole court is out of order!!!! (sorry just had to get that in.) Bad Joke for sure, don't know if it should be deleted. Maybe honorary mention in WikiHell. Hamster Sandwich 07:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My congratulations to Benjamin Gatti on a piece of excellent satire. &mdash; Dan | talk 07:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * OBJECTION! It's irony. --84.64.132.44 08:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Um Dan? It isn't satire. He's serious. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent! This example of Wikilawyering will provide an excellent example of what wikilawyering means and how it comes about due to confusion between actual legal proceeding and our arbitration processes. Fred Bauder 13:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not that great an example, since in order for Benjamin Gatti to believe it, he would need to have not actually read the statute he posted, since on its very face it doesn't mean what he claims it does. Nandesuka 13:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 1861? I was not aware that North Carolina was at peace with the United States in 1861. Robert McClenon 14:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What's more troubling is that I couldn't find the formal treaty ending the Civil War. Wikipedia makes no mention of a treaty in American civil war. Apparently there was a "Peace Treaty" in 1865 (On second look you're right - I blurred the page in my haste. - 1865 appears to be the date - but has this treaty no name? Benjamin Gatti 14:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * With reference to the question of why no treaty exists, see Texas v. White, which held the secession was never legally valid. Xoloz 22:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, the "more perfect union" theory of why secession is impossible. That was one of the very first cases I read (long before I got to law school).  The sophistry of 19th century judges amuses the hell out of me sometimes. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is troublesome. The Washington Post has no mention of a nuclear accident in North Carolina.  Does this mean that the nuclear accident took out communication between Washington and North Carolina, or was that done by Confederate ghosts?  Robert McClenon 14:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * An "incident" is different than an accident. "Incidents" are not altogether uncommon; thankfully most have no serious impact outside the plant. Benjamin Gatti 14:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Show good cause, then. Document the "incident", then explain how this matter arises from it, then explain how public liability also arises.  I suspect your attempt will lead only to laughter. Xoloz 18:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You don't think it's just possible that I've somewhat overstated the reach of the Price Anderson Act do you? Benjamin Gatti 20:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think this is a case of being "somewhat overstated". You grossly misconstrued the Act, and deserve gentle needling so that your "motions" will remain within the realm of the reasonable and the constructive in the future. Xoloz 22:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course. Benjamin Gatti 02:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * At least one of the arbitrators is outside the United States. I did not see any reference to notice under the Hague Convention.  Shouldn't that have been part of the motion to dismiss?  Robert McClenon 21:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The arbitrators aren't parties per se; in the United States, federal jurisdiction can be claimed due to the disparity of citizenship (ie the parties live in different states), the action touches interstate trade (which is most things these days), touches a Constitutional subject matter, or arises under the laws of the United States. International jurisdiction requires a matter touching International law (usually human rights abuse - or WTO) and/or a dispute between citizens from one or more signatories to the International system. Since these events transpired in North Carolina, a political subdivision on the United States of America, and the US is not a signatory to international law, I'd suggest that such a motion wouldn't carry weight in any venue having jurisdiction on these events. Benjamin Gatti 02:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, come on now, even you must know that this whole line of argument is complete nonsense. Nobody here is stupid enough to fall for it, and talking about unrelated legalistic gibberish isn't going to help your case in the slightest, all it does is prove that you are unwilling to be rational and instead want to try to bluff people with gobblydegook. DreamGuy 13:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Who's definition of rational? I'm not going to dance in your popularity contest, if that's what you're hoping for. I'm here to learn, to teach, to inspire and be inspired - not to dictate normative. If the articles I touch are not better for my participation, than sanctions are in order (name one). Benjamin Gatti 15:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Besides, he hasn't read the decision of the Supreme Court in Tarkanian v. NCAA. Robert McClenon 13:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The narrowly held Tarkanian v. NCAA is neither rational nor persuasive, and in my opinion the losses of the plaintiff are dwarfed by the self-inflicted loss of respect for the Supreme Court (which it should be noted is a fleeting commodity. Historians remind us of a time when the Supreme court upheld the rights of Indians to which the President remarked - "The Court has made its decision, now let's see them enforce it.") The argument that NCAA doesn't fly under state power because it has amalgamated power from many states is evasive and I doubt this crowd would give it much more than a good round of back slapping LMHO jeers. Look at the split - J. Stevens (Joined by the right guard) - with dissent from the west wing - and O'Conner. I doubt a day goes by in which Stevens doesn't wonder how he got talked into that decision. What you have here is a case of state-authority-outsourcing, and the question whether or not the Constitution gets outsourced along with the power. It's a black day for civil rights when the Constitution is evaded by Power-laundering. Benjamin Gatti 15:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

If I had standing, I'd move that it be considered whether the defendent is competent to represent himself ;) -- Pakaran 00:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, I move that we adjourn for lunch. I'm famished! --155.45.81.25 18:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "Power-laundering"? That sounds like a catchphrase from a laundry detergent ad. -Willmcw 18:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ongoing problems in Freemasonry and related articles
It appears that Lightbringer is still reverting or c/ping his versions of Freemasonry and Anti-Freemasonry, and he also started articles called Freemasonry Criticisms and Freemasonry Criticisms(which were speedied) containing the same material. This clearly in violation of the ArbCom ruling regarding him, so my question is, now what? Once again, we can't write new material or improve existing material because of all the reverting and sockpuppet tracking we are doing. As amatter of fact, I am inclined to believe that Lightbringer was also User:Belgarath_TS and was testing the waters, so to speak, before embarking on his initial vandalismas Lightbringer. Also see Lightbringer sockpuppets MSJapan 18:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

No idea where else to put this
Kelly or any other arbcom member, I made a statement on the Price-Anderson Act article that I need to double check. If the case against Benjamin Gatti is taken and its titled as just Benjamin Gatti, it would *not* end the mediation in the Price-Anderson Act article, correct? It's just a question because Ral was talking about making a statement once it's taken. I don't want him to get into trouble if the mediation is still "live". --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you should continue the mediation with whoever is willing to participate and if a settlement is reached please communicate it to us. Fred Bauder 16:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, we're talking 2 different things here, Fred. The case against Ben is bigger in scope than just Price-Anderson. We're also going to use diffs from Looting, Criminalization of politics and nuclear power. The case is about Ben, not specifically about Price-Anderson, i.e. we're not going to debate the issues of Price-Anderson, i.e. who is "right" or "wrong" or anything else. It's going to be about Ben violating policies and nothing more. Kelly had said in her vote to take the case that the case should be retitled Benjamin Gatti. The only reason why it got changed is that Ben changed it twice and I didn't want to get to 3 reverts on it. And honestly, I don't think we're going to come to an agreement on Price-Anderson (6 months and 2 mediations later, we've made 0 progress), but even if we did, we still want to pursue a case against Ben. It's just 2 separate things. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Fred, this case is so not about Price Anderson, that we should call it "Not about Price Anderson". ;-) (it's a content dispute in sheeps clothing - which I urge the Arbcom to accept). (we are so going to debate the issues - truth is the ultimate defense) Benjamin Gatti 17:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Benjamin has been disruptive across many articles. That he's been the most disruptive for the longest time period at Price Anderson doesn't make the case less about the way he conducts himself on Wikipedia, but I'm quite sure arbitrators can sort that out themselves. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 18:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The Nuclear regulatory commission calculated the size and probability of a nuclear incident - exactly what Price exists to insure. I discuss and cite it in the discussion, then summarize it in the introduction with in-line attribution and linked sources. Katefan0 whitewashes the information, and then comes here to criticise me for disruption. (But this isn't about Price Anderson - nor about censoring uncomfortable facts published by government agencies). Benjamin Gatti 18:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I whitewashed information? That's what I was doing, I guess, when I helped you add the vast majority of the criticism section, right? &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 04:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Kate, I appreciate your participation and you know I respect you as an editor; so two points - 1. By couching facts as "criticism" you tip off the reader that the data they are about to read belongs to the irrelevant fringe. It suggests that the mainstream information is above, and the conspiracists are below. Separation of data is its own bias - one doesn't gain balance (or credit for balance) by stuffing the criticism box in my book. 2. This data is apparently contained in a study performed by Sandia labs, and compares to the studies of levy breakage which predated New Orleans. the fact that tens of thousands ignored the report of potential catastrophy rendered the report irrelevant even though it was based on hard science. We are looking at quite real risks (1 in 10 years- 1 in 100 years) which unacceptable consequence, and it isn't even clear that safe clean alternatives aren't less expensive. Why do we have to subsidize nuclear more than windmills for example? If windmills are cheaper - they are certainly safer, so the continued utilization of nuclear energy is as irrational as building bungalows under the flood plain of a verifiable insufficient levy. Benjamin Gatti 04:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is not the place for this. A question about whether mediation should continue once arbcom on Ben is taken really shouldn't be used to debate the P-A article. Debate it at the article itself. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Mike, I didn't appeal a content RfC and a content Mediation to the Arbcomm - now that it's here you want to ignore content. How likely is that?


 * As soon as you are ready to defend your user conduct, let me know. Otherwise, I'm done responding to this. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't objected to your petition - cross your fingers. Benjamin Gatti 07:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, whether you object or not is completely immaterial. For some reason, I doubt that the arbcom is expecting you to go "yes I confess!" --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

What it sounds like to my ears
''Kelly and Arbcomm, we can use the mediation (About Price Anderson) to show that we've tried to resolve a conflict (not about Price) and then if the Arbcom goes forward - the one thing that it isn't about is the subject matter of the mediation that got us here in the first place right? 'cause this isn't about all those facts we whitewashed, this is about that editor who keeps disrupt'in by putting all that Supreme Court POV back in. See they're 2 separate things, except we dinnit do an RfC, or request mediation on anything 'cept Price Anderson, but that's ok right 'cause rulz are for newbies - I like made admin man, so like I ain't got no rulz - right?''

Anyone else hear that? Benjamin Gatti 05:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

EffK repeats request for Arbitration: Revisionist Clerical Denialism on Wikipedia
I do this following my notice above here concerning User Str1977 at my present Arbitration:Discussion. I request help, please, again. sam Spade counselled me that it was not a good time to go to Arbitration, so I did not persist in the above request. Now I consider- and I may be right- that this is an explosive subject worthy of proper notice. The Arbitration against me is quite pathetically ignorant, but heh! - they say it is all my theory papal involvement! The Users who deny my sourced good-faith abuse the community intelligence here with their combinatio against me. I request user:Robert McClenon, and User:Str1977 to be brought to Arbitration, someone. Please do this either together with my case or apart. The subject of Revisionist Clerical Denialism on Wikipedia is the correct subject for Arbitration, so please someone, post that, and I'll prove it exists. What community is this that washes its hands? You must do this, to please your consciences. EffK 14:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the Everyking ruling
This discussion was removed by Raul, without ever being truly addressed; hopefully one of the arbitrators will address it here:

I've been thinking. You know, I think the fundamental reason I got this ruling, beyond Snowspinner, is that I have no access to the actual decision-making of the ArbCom. The ArbCom makes all its decisions privately, and I know nothing about how they reached their ruling. I can't fight very well when I don't know what I should be fighting. And besides, they have a kind of groupthink and wouldn't be much inclined to pay attention to me even if I did start hitting the right target. I mean, I apologized for incivility and quit doing it a while ago, so it couldn't be that. The ArbCom placed heavy emphasis on "ignorance", but I'm no more "ignorant" than anybody else, and ignorance isn't a crime anyway, so I don't see how it could be that, either. So why did I get this ruling? Beats the hell out of me. I've thought and thought about it and I can't figure it out. I can't blame it all on Snowspinner; that's silly. Sure, he initiated it, and there's no doubt the arbitrators take him more seriously than just about anybody else (certainly more than me), but they have their own minds, too. I really think the root of it is in the ArbCom's private decision-making and groupthink. So what I want, basically, is for the ArbCom to do one of two things&mdash;send me its private discussions about my case, which should've been public in the first place, so I can see what their reasoning is, and actually know why I've been punished&mdash;and thus have a clue how to get the restrictions lifted in the future&mdash;or give me a whole new case altogether, this time with totally public discussion. Everyking 04:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I will give you the reasoning in a nutshell - the months on end you spent constantly sniping at other administrators, particularly Snowspinner, particularly on the administrator's noticeboard, was unacceptable. Our solution has disposed of this problem rather neatly, your complaints not withstanding. Raul654 04:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK...well, I hadn't really been thinking about it like that, but still, to that I say that I had been doing pretty good at keeping my comments within the bounds of civility for quite a while, I had voluntarily reduced (substantially) the total amount of commenting I was doing on that page (including civil commentary), and had offered to take a complete break from editing it at all for two months. I even offered to accept a probationary period of two further months after the break was over&mdash;all that despite my strong feeling that no action was needed, and my assurance that I was being more mellow, and would continue to be more mellow. So you've still got to explain why all that wasn't enough. Everyking 08:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the ArbCom, secretive decision-making aside, should at least be accountable enough to respond to this. I am very curious to see how the ruling could be logically defended against all that evidence. Everyking 05:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Because what improvement you have made&mdash;and yes, there has been some&mdash; was too little too late, Everyking, and not only your past behavior but your comments on other pages since the case closed have not made me believe that the decision was in error. It's not as though this is the first time and a simple apology and promise to do better is enough: you've been given those chances. You're a valuable article-space editor, and having you break from editing altogether would be to no one's benefit, but your comments outside mainspace are largely unproductive and needlessly accusatory in tone even here. It helps no one, least of all you; the remedy is not punishment for you but relief for those whose activities you are disrupting. I honestly don't think a request for reconsideration by the arbcom will get anywhere in the immediate future; it's simply too soon and there has not been evidence that the decision was undeserved. My best advice to you is to think carefully before speaking about how you're coming off to others and whether or not your comments are productive, and to concentrate on article space; I'm sorry you feel mistreated but I don't think it's necessary to revisit this case at this time. As for the private discussion, things that were said in confidence should remain so, as we are under no obligation to reveal them; others may choose to make comments public as they wish, but as for myself I haven't much more to say. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I should point out that I did offer a two month break from editing the AN pages, followed by a two month probation on the same pages, which would have been lifted only if behavior during that time was acceptable to the arbitrators. I feel this is more than adequate to address any serious concerns anyone might have about my AN commentary. Everyking 08:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "I feel this is more than adequate to address any serious concerns anyone might have about my AN commentary." - At the risk of pointing out the obvious - we (the arbitration committee) didn't. And this does not at all address the obvious concerns about you simply taking your carping to some other page(s). Raul654 17:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Loophole
RFA being closed too early is too big for everyone else, but too small for the arbitration committee (and by extention stewards or jimbo). Even though I immediately complained the moment I saw things had gone wrong, no action was possible. There is no recourse. Apparently procedures have become so rigid that it's also not possible to close the loophole with a well thought out application of Ignore all rules either.

Not Good.

Kim Bruning 03:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * To me, this is really no big deal. Friday (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it's not really an arbcom matter. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

An Observation That Is Unfortunately Very True
The statement by party 1 on the Request for Arbitration on the IIPM dispute states: "I dont reall know what to say. Other complaints on this site seem extremely emotionals and pointed, to say the least."

I agree. Most of the current RfArs fall very sadly short of the reasonable standards that the ArbCom has for posting reasonable summaries of disputes. Robert McClenon 16:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic
User:Netoholic seems to be violating his ban on editing in the Template: and Wikipedia: namespaces. In fact, it's the same behavior he was banned for in the first place.

Examples:, , , ,

(Note that his contributions before July 18th were ok, since they were during the mentorship period.)

His arbitration case doesn't explicitly say what should be done for enforcement when the mentorship fails and he violates the ban, both of which have now happened.

Has the ban been lifted? If so, should the RfA page have been updated? - 07:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

How Long Is Evidence Taken?
Is there a general rule as to how long cases are kept open for evidence before they go into voting?

In the EffK case, EffK has just posted that he is being forced to abandon a corrupted Wikipedia. He has said essentially the same thing once before, to Jimbo Wales, who advised him to leave Wikipedia because he was about to be banned, but then he came back. I suggest that the case is ready for the evidentiary phase to be closed and to go into voting. Robert McClenon 02:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Wikipedia
I refer you to my response of a few moments ago at 15 December [],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005

George Orwell once called someone,  A hole in the air , you know what I mean? You are a total disgrace McClenon,you should/must be thrown out. As Gmaxwell told you.Ive finished for my part, evidence is un-important, to people like you. The WP isn't big enough for me, and you and your boss.. EffK 02:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)