Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Everyking's suggestions for improvements to the ArbCom

Instead of taking shots at the ArbCom, why not make suggestions for improvement? I've read the principles in your user space, but you need to take the next step and actually propose useful policy. (You have to admit, a lot of those ideas are kind of vague.) As a sysop/admin on Wikipedia, you should be willing to step in and involve yourself in the management of the encyclopedia; if you don't like the way things work, you ought to be bold enough to propose changes. Sniping—continuously—just creates ill will all around, and certainly doesn't help to convert anyone to your viewpoint.

I offer you my constructive assistance to bring forth positive policy proposals on any of the issues that you have listed. I will do my best to make useful suggestions, and if nothing else I am at least a competent copyeditor with some familiarity with how things work around here. This is a wiki; things can change if necessary. Make a good case, a sensible case, a logical case. Set aside your bile and contempt, and build a better Wikipedia. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the the offer, Ten, but I think I'll decline your offer of Grunt's place on the ArbCom. But I second your suggestion of Everyking replacing Raul456. Paul Beardsell 07:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Say what? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 18:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was (opaquely?) making the point (using humour, perhaps not my strong suit) that perhaps something a little more revolutionary might be in order. Paul Beardsell 19:35, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that Everyking has -- except in the most grudging and, evidentally, tactical way -- never admitted that HE has to change his behavior. All of his system gaming, pleading, snark, rewriting of history and reality, and yes, the at-the-core-self-serving "principles" he suddenly espouses are aimed at letting him get HIS way -- manifested most strongly in his peculiar obsession with Ashlee Simpson. Wikipedia shouldn't, in my opinion, be bent to accomodate the wishes of a single editor; at the very least, the default assumption should be that the editor must be willing to accomodate the purpose, philosophy, ethos, and methods of Wikipedia, not vice versa.

And to pre-empt the inevitable claim from Everyking, he has - objectively and demonstratably -- not been co-operative. His constant assertions otherwise are contradicted by the clear evidence of 2 ArbCom rulings, megabytes of archived Talk pages, and dozens of editors. His claims in the face of overwhelming evidence borders on outright solipsism, and I don't believe Wikipedia should accomodate that belief system. --Calton | Talk 04:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't you just have said "Drink!"? ;)

I'd like to see him have a bit of a clean-slate shot at things. I'm aware of his history, and it would be good to see him acknowledge that he made errors in judgement with respect to Ashlee Simpson...but I'll settle for constructive policy suggestions instead of sniping. I'm sick enough of watching the same shots back and forth here and on WP:AN that I'm willing to make a good-faith offer of my own time and effort to try to rehabilitate his relationship with Wikipedia. I'm not suggesting turning Wikipedia into an Everyking-managed dictatorship; rather, I hope to see him funnel some of his efforts into more useful pursuits—I dare say that some of his suggestions might even be helpful. Benefit of the doubt, eh? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 05:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem with giving the benefit of the doubt to Everyking is that used up all his credit at that bank and is currently overdrawn. He's promised to behave himself numerous times -- all while proclaiming his innocence -- and I can't recall a single case where the person he made the promise to felt that he's kept to his word or felt he tried to find some loophole/ambiguity to exploit to his own ends. I don't see the value at taking him at his word and assuming that this time he really isn't looking for some kind of angle. --Calton | Talk 02:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to e-mail me if you like. I have nothing to say to Calton except to say that I'm pleased to see that he kept the psychology to a minimum and focused a bit more on general principles for once. Everyking 05:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which is, of course, part of your problem: when faced with uncomfortable truths your invariable reaction is pretend you didn't hear them, redirect to irrelevancies, or attack those pointing out what you do. Three RfAs, 2 ArbCom decisions, dozens of editors in opposition or expressing concerns, and your only reactions have been to blame the messengers. It's not about me, personalities, or some awful conspiracy centered around you: it's simply about you. --Calton | Talk 02:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I have of course always tried to take the opinions of others into account. Needless to say there have been disagreements at points and I have made my views known, but for the most part I respect where others have been coming from about this. Everyking 02:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The arbitrators seem decidedly unenthusiastic about accepting my appeal, with the vote split four different ways currently. Are they really intending to leave me waiting for 10 more months before I get my editing rights back? If not, could they explain what it is they would like for me to do or say so that they will accept the appeal? Everyking 01:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom's original decision was to restrict you for 12 months, not 2 months: why are you asking them to rejustify their original decision? What has actually changed, other than your impatience? Your overweening sense of entitlement certainly seems to have remained intact. --Calton | Talk 02:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suppose I sort of do have a sense of entitlement. You can edit the articles, Calton, even though you've contributed nothing to any of this except ill-will; I on the other hand wrote them from scratch and yet I cannot edit them. So yes, I have a certain sense of entitlement about it. And you know perfectly well why I want them to release me from the restrictions; first and foremost the restrictions were not just to begin with, and furthermore the articles need updating. Everyking 02:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See, there's your problem. Ambi 03:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're not helping. How about taking a shot at my original question? Everyking 03:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I find the fact that you feel "entitled" to edit articles because you started them disturbing, and to smack of the tendency towards article ownership that got you into trouble in the first place. Snowspinner 15:03, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Coming from someone who is only rarely involved with article editing, I'm sure Everyking will weigh your opinion accordingly. Wikipedians have watchlists because it is somewhat healthy for editors to stay involved with articles they work on. I challenge anyone to more clearly define the line between active participation and ownership. -- Netoholic @ 15:23, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

The existence of a watchlist feature does not imply any degree of entitlement. Nice random slur against me with the bit on article editing though. Snowspinner 16:02, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

If that is true, then, make an example for us and clear out your watchlist. You won't do it because, as much as you give grief to Everyking, you have shown unhealthy ownership in the Wikipedia space (especially punishmentpolicy pages) and in your campaigns against various users. My comment would only be a slur if it was contested. I doubt you'll disagree that you do very little article work. -- Netoholic @ 16:43, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Instantnood

Why was this case closed? Ambi's oppose vote put it at three votes to close, not four, so the case should remain open. Furthermore, I've recently had someone ask on my talk page for me to look into another naming dispute that Instantnood has apparently gotten himself into. I would appreciate a day or two to look into that before my case is closed against arbcom policy. Snowspinner 13:44, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

It's already been closed, apparently by mistake, which I'm not very happy about. Ambi 14:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Surely a case that's closed by mistake can be, you know, freely reopened? By, say, any arbitrator? Snowspinner 15:01, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

gasoline and petrol

No one takes me seriously, even when I'm just kidding! Anyway, I moved petrol to gasoline, with clear instructions on how to un-do that (if need be). I used template:fuel name so we can switch it back to petrol whenever the mood strikes us. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 01:04, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Er, can we assume you're withdrawing your request, then? -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:33, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

If you honestly believe that the objective is to be able to switch back and forth between Petrol and Gasoline "whenever the mood strikes us," you must be divorced from reality.

The original conflict arose because users were switching back and forth between the two titles/descriptions! We were on the verge of settling the debate once and for all, when you wandered in and unilaterally declared our formal dispute resolution process invalid. You then introduced a template that violates more than one Wikipedia policy (including UK/US English rules and general template use). This was explained to you (and deletion of your template was proposed), but you swooped back in, deleted the ongoing debate/vote, and recreated your illicit template at a new location.

YOU ARE NOT HELPING, Mr. Mod, and it's obvious (at this point) that you never intended to. —Lifeisunfair 03:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposed mentorship for Everyking

For what it's worth, I think this is an excellent suggestion. Though I loathe the term 'win-win', it seems applicable to this situation. Everyking will have the opportunity to demonstrate healthy editing habits on Ashlee Simpson articles, and the community need not be concerned about the time, hassle, and bad blood of another ArbCom case should things go awry. As long as the three mentors are willing to (generously!) contribute their time and effort, I strongly support this sensible compromise.

Regarding Everyking's question about the applicability and scope of his mentors' authority, I would presume that they might exercise their powers over any articles that are covered by Everyking's current restrictions. (If I'm not mistaken, those are detailed in the Everyking 2 RfA; please correct me if that's been further updated or clarified.) --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Understandably, given my past disagreements with these people, I'd like their authority to be somewhat clearly defined. I don't want this deal to hurt me even more than the old ruling did. Everyking 02:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't you just withdraw from the agreement in that case? Snowspinner 04:15, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I guess I could. But I'd prefer that it benefit me and not hurt me, so I just want to be careful at the outset to know that it will. Everyking 09:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Policy on NPOV dispute tag

How is it decided when to remove an NPOV dispute tag from an article? May just anybody declare that "the article's neutrality is no longer disputed"? Is it a violation of 3RR to put the NPOV tag back more than 3 times in 24 hours? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:03, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I remove it when there's no more discussion going on, but if someone immediately adds it back I generally won't fight about it. On the other hand, if someone is adding them willy-nilly (especially if they aren't citing reasons with specificity), I'm a little more lassaiz-faire about removing them →Raul654 21:06, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

csloat removed it three times at gitmo. [1] [2] [3] -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:27, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Policy on personal attacks

I tried to get user:zen-master to stop abusing Patrick and that other guy at race and intelligence. Now he has turned on me as well. Am I correct in my understanding that once some has been warned but persists in violationg the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, any admin may block him?

Is there an exception for personal attacks on the admin who is trying to stop him from attacking other people? This is ridiculous!

And if I block him now, will *I* be the one who gets scolded / blocked /demoted by the arbcom for excessive force in upholding the rules? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:00, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Asking someone to explain their apparently illogical statements, and comming up with plausible theories if they refuse, is not a personal attack. Why do you keep framing this issue as a personal attack when even a simple analysis by a neutral third will determine that it is more complicated? You still have no comment on analyzing how language is misused on Race and intelligence with the apparent purpose of confusing cause and effect? zen master T 22:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. Asking someone to explain their apparently illogical statements is okay. In fact, it's usually valuable.
2. Coming up with plausible theories if they refuse is another thing. It's okay if your theary is that their statements are illogical. It's a violation of policy if you conclude from their refusal that they are racist, Nazi, etc. I do hope you see the difference. You seem like an intelligent person and I'd rather keep you in the project than have to make you leave.
3. I'm not framing anything. When you call people Nazi or racist, you are making a personal attack.
4. You still have no comment on analyzing how language is misused on Race and intelligence with the apparent purpose of confusing cause and effect? Not my business. I only got involved to enforce rule which bars personal attacks. If you will comply with that, you are welcome here. Try to stay on topic and please avoid personal remarks. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:43, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

At present, the blocking policy does not support blocking for personal attacks. Of course, that doesn't mean it's not a Very Good Idea. Snowspinner 22:59, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion does not count. I was addressing the arbcom. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:46, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

  1. Daniel Mayer, aka Maveric149 -- maveric149 at yahoo.com
  2. Fred Bauder -- fredbaud at ctelco.net
  3. Sean Barrett, aka The Epopt -- sean at epoptic.org
  4. Rebecca, aka Ambi - misfitgirl at gmail.com
  5. Sannse - sannse at tiscali.co.uk
  6. David Gerard - dgerard at gmail.com
  7. Mark, aka Raul654 -- mapellegrini at comcast.net

If I describe users' statements on a talk page as being nazi-esque that is not a personal attack. I will try to keep a much more crystal clear distinction between describing a person vs describing their words in the future. zen master T 23:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is Zen Master. It is clear you feel strongly about the matter of race and intelligence but it is not acceptable to describe those who disagree with you as making "naziesque statements". The best way to argue your case is to stick to the point in question and not use colourful or flowery language at all. "I disagree very strongly with blah blab blah because blah blah blah" is much preferable to "that's the sort of thing a Nazi would say". If you could agree to do this, then the whole matter can be sorted out right now without the need for arbitration.

Stating the issue as "I consider my nazi-esque description to be a historically accurate comparison of the repetition of statements used to maintain language propaganda or language confusion" is exactly the point in question here. As I see it the point is not (yet) to resolve the problems with the article itself, instead, the first step is to shed light on the misuse of language generally (techniques used to maintain the status quo of a non neutrally presented article). zen master T 05:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To Ed Snowspinner's opinion does count as it's the community that decides policy not the AC. But anyways, he's right. You can't block for repeated personal attacks without coming through us except in extreme circumstances (which this isn't) Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 05:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Theresa →Raul654 08:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks is policy. I've enforced it in the past, and the community has nearly always agreed. The arbcom is not a governing body; it's merely part of the dispute resolution process. This is not a dispute, it's a policy violation. cut and dried. I've re-started the talk page for R&I, and I expect everyone posting there to adhere to policy. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:11, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

How do we enforce policy around here?

I started another rfa on csloat, but I suddnely realized this was an error on my part. I don't want "dispute resolution". We are not on equal standing. We are not two mothers going before Solomon about whose baby it is.

Either I am right as an admin to enforce the rules on neutrality and civility or I guess I should just forget about it.

Is there a proviso that, once an admin gets involved in editing an article himself, he foregoes the right to enforce the rules? (conflict of interest)

How many hoops must an admin jump through, before stopping one of the hundreds of "volunteers" who show up here and apply themselves very energetically to editing articles - but violate the core rules on NPOV and civility?

(I'm not talking about little style things like the size and placement of a taxobox, or AD vs. CE.) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:39, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have a similar problem going on. A new(ish) user CltFn (talk · contribs) and a sockpuppet of his Diglewop (talk · contribs) are creating a bunch of book pages about rightwing or anti-Islamic books, including only publishers' blurbs, lists of chapter titles, and pictures of book covers, so the pages are POV data dumps and free advertising for the publishers. Efforts to communicate with the user failed, as s/he ignored enquiries. I became involved as an admin, not as an editor, to restore NPOV by blanking the pages, redirecting them to the authors' pages, and protecting the redirects. I then started talking to User:CltFn about how s/he could restore NPOV to those pages. However, s/he complained that I was abusing my admin powers by protecting redirects. I took this seriously and unprotected. Now s/he has declared she intends to restore all the pages, with the POV contents, and if I object, I should edit them, at which point I'm sure s/he'll simply revert. However, as soon as I edit, I won't be able to take any admin action in relation to her. The pages seriously violate the NPOV policy, as well as What Wikipedia is not, and so I'm confused about the boundary between what I can do here as an admin, and what I'm supposed to do instead as an editor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:51, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

You are over reacting SlimVirgin. As I stated I intend on following wikipedia policy on the matter. Is that not enough for you? I do not plan , as you seem to be convinced, to violate NPOV. What I suggested is that you can discuss your concerns on the discussion pages if you see an edit that is POV. --CltFn 00:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in discussing the specific issue with you here, as I came here to talk about general admin/editing conflicts. As you're here, I assume you're following me around. I'll say this once more, however: all your edits so far have been POV and I have serious doubts about either your ability or willingness to follow our policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:10, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

In all fairness , your accusations are without merit , have I violated a single Wikipedia policy?? No. Have I inserted edits that are influenced by my POV ,perhaps , haven't you?? You keep pointing the finger at me, but it is you who is going around slandering me as a right wing and anti-islam. Is that not a personal attack?? It is you who is trying to enforce non existent policy regarding position of bibliographies, book pages and chapter lists. All I am saying is follow the wikipedia policy and process , that is use the discussion pages. Yes I may be a newby but in all honesty you are not setting a very good example for an admin --CltFn 00:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My usual opinion on these matters is that if you enter first as an administrator, you may remain as one even if you've touched the page, at least in terms of that specific conflict. Snowspinner 00:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Snowspinner, that's helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:21, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is a bit stronger. You can switch at any time from mere editor to "admin who enforces rules". BUT if you feel there is a Wikipedia:conflict of interest, ask another admin for advice and "stay admin" until it's clarified. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 01:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

The Committee has taken and no doubt will continue to take on cases where the dispute is rather one sided, but that's for them to decide who did wrong where; bring your case, and if you've done no wrong nowt wrong thereof will come to you, and all that.

James F. (talk) 11:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Easy to say, but I'm guessing you've never taken a case to the arbcom. It's a lot of work, and to have to do that for every troll and inveterate POV pusher who knows how to game the system, and carefully avoids 3RR and vandalism (the only things we can instantly block for) is a waste of everyone's time, including the arbcom's. I know there are good reasons for restricting admins' right to block, but some compromise position needs to be found whereby admins are given just a bit more flexibility to hand out short blocks for unambigous trolling, violation of policy, personal attacks and so on. I know, however, that this isn't a view that's shared by everyone, and I do understand the reasons for the opposition to it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:05, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Quickpolls, anyone? I think there should be power for admins to block for policy violations, so long as there is consensus shown of WP:AN. smoddy 12:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks interesting, Sam. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:00, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it wouldn't really be appropriate for me to take someone else before the Committee whilst I'm so strongly associated with it. I agree that it's a pain, but...

James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 14:54 (UTC)

Page locked

This is temporary, due to page replacement by a few anonymous visitors. Please continue to comment here on the talk page, and I will move relevant comments to the project page while we deal with this. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:42, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Comments on about project page

Refactored

1. Process is a sham; I'll tell others. [4]
2. Cliquish, bad faith refusal to communicate, abuse of power [5]
3. "Enviroknot answered David Gerard who said he didn't care and blocked Enviroknot from Wikien-l as well as blocking me for criticizing Gerard. ... I didn't use my real account.

See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Enviroknot

Rescind mentorship of Netoholic

At the time when I reccomended mentorship for Netoholic, several major problems with him had been resolved. I stand by my words at that time.

However during mentorship, it turns out that there were several other flaws which force me to change my opinion of Netoholic.

I shall not mention them here. Unfortunately, Netoholic also won't talk with his mentors. That wouldn't be a problem, if it wasn't that he's been trying to use us to game the system further.

I can't support this kind of behaviour, and blocking the guy permanently isn't really a solution either, so I'm officially turning in my mentor badge.

Kim Bruning 28 June 2005 23:00 (UTC)

I believe that this experiment with mentorship has failed and hope that much has been learned, and that such a mechanism will be used in the future with far greater care, if at all. I do not believe that the power that this arrangement gives the mentors over the mentored is a Good Thing. It runs counter to the egalitarian spirit of Wikipedia. Personality change is rare and comes slowly when it takes place. I encourage arbiters and other interested 'pedians to make a brief review of Netoholic's contributions during the mentorship and decide for themselves whether they, net, further the goals of the project. I would hope that the mentors would share a few words about the time invested and the effort required to keep cool. I believe these problems are intrinsic to the mentorship arrangement rather than being particular to the case of Netoholic. Arbitration is the last stop in the dispute resolution process, and there are many opportunities for "high-touch" intervention such as this during mediation particularly, but also during other steps. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 29 June 2005 18:33 (UTC)

I don't like the association of mentoring with any sort of mandated, committee-enforced rulings. I am a Mentor with the New York City Department of Education.

Mentoring is (a) completely unselfish on the part of the mentor and (b) completely voluntary on the part of the mentee. Otherwise, it doesn't work; and other arrangements should not be called "mentoring".

You're talking about a kind of parole officer, it seems. Well, I don't think we need to set up a government with courts, sentences, parole, etc. We're just making an encyclopedia, for Pete's sake. -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 16:42 (UTC)

When I entered into this mentorship, Uncle Ed's view is exactly what I thought this would be, unselfish and voluntary. With respects, I don't believe Kim saw it that way, though Raul654 and Grunt both seem to. They been fair and, over time, have come to really show a desire to talk to me, though I realize I need to be better about initiating contact. When I've been interacting with Kim, it's much more like I have to defend myself against his potential wrath. It make me have to approach him timidly, or not at all.

I think it's unfair, as Uninvited has, to declare this a failure. There is a good reason why the first review of the mentorship was set six months in the future. Change and "rehabilitation" cannot be forced so quickly. And honestly, with the exception of a couple users who really like to push my buttons, things are getting better.

As for the future of this, I still wish to continue the mentorship. I'd be happy to continue working with Raul654 and Grunt alone, or with a replacment to Kim. I'd even be willing to welcome Kim back if he'd acknowledge the concerns about "heavy-handedness" that we've raised. -- Netoholic @ July 2, 2005 17:07 (UTC)

The past couple of months, I've basically been mentoring Netoholic almost on my own, in addition to looking after parts of dispute resolution on 2 different wikis (or 3, depending on how you count 'em). Thanks, but no human can keep that level of intensity up forever ;-)

Anyway, I choose not to reply in depth here, since doing so would get Netoholic into the kind of trouble I've been trying to keep him out of all this time. I'd just like to note that it was a heck of a lot of work, and I hope the other 2 mentors will pick it up now. Sorry I can't be of more help! Kim Bruning 2 July 2005 18:35 (UTC)