Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by User6854 (talk | contribs) at 02:41, 27 January 2006 (→‎Nobs01 and Others). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

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

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Anachronist   16 June 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

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

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

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

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



How to list cases

Under the below Current requests section:

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

Note: Please do not remove or alter the hidden template

Current requests

Special note on User:Timecop

I'm informing both the ArbCom and User:Jimbo Wales that I've permanently blocked User:Timecop. Of the many abuses, he has also created a userbox about the WTC and Jews, holds a war on blogs page on the Wiki, and according to Alkivar, threatened him off wiki for something he did on Wikipedia (apparently he found Alkivar's phone number and made threatening phone calls). As such I'm permanently blocking, I leave it up to the board or Jimbo to rescind my decision. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, short of a ruling from on the Trinity, it's up to the other admins, although I don't suppose you'll find much opposition there. But admins alone can't bind all other admins. -Splashtalk 17:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this would have been more properly placed on WP:AN/I. That being said, I've looked into the user briefly, and I have nothing to say but "good riddance". -- SCZenz 17:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see it had been discussed extensively already--I apologize for not looking into it. However, although I strongly support the block, I don't think you can really declare that other admins can't discuss/overrule an admin decision. -- SCZenz 20:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I ever said that. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Jeffrey O. Gustafson

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Jeffrey O. Gustafson: [1]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Talrias

I am bringing this request for arbitration because I am very unhappy with Gustafson's response to the RFC linked above in the "other steps" section. He has not replied in any way other than to insist that he is called "Mr. Gustafson" - . There is no evidence to suggest that he has taken the comments made and issues raised in the RFC and I fear he will repeat his actions again. Everyone on the RFC, apart from Gustafson, agreed that what he did was a pretty straightforward case of "biting a newbie" and this is behaviour which should definitely not be condoned in an administrator. At the very least, I would like to see him acknowledge the points raised in the RFC and apologise for his behaviour. However I believe that due to the way he behaved towards the new contributor, whether he is an admin should be re-evaluated. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr. Gustafson

First and foremost, in relation to the Arbcom, Dr. J. wrote: "... he has clearly stated: 'For reasons all my own, I do not recognize the authority of the Arbitration Committee.' I have come to believe that this editor believes he is above policy, and even worse, is outside the authority of this Committee (and, one presumes, Jimbo, from whom the Committee receives its authority)."

I do not believe I am above any authority on this Project in which so much time I have invested, and which I truly love and promote to whomever will listen. My statement, which is right on my user page for everyone to see, is a reflection of my view that the RfAr process is broken, almost beyond repair. As I have clearly stated on my talk page, "this is not a statement on my views about the people on Arbcom, who are all fine editors. Nor will I ever do anything to obstruct arbcom." I have never done anything, nor will ever do anything, to hinder or slander the arbcom or their actions.

As for Mr. Jenkinson's RfC, as I have made very clear, I am aware of it, acknowledge it and the comments by others. I just feel that commenting on it will not help or hurt a thing. In the past, when I have erred, I have apologized and made inroads at reversing any errors. I do not believe my tretment "of" the editor in question (whose newbieness is doubtful, having been here more or less for 20 months) was out of line by any extreme degree, and still am of the opinion that spamming was involved, and a warning (though, in retrospect, less severe) was warranted.

--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Essjay

I cosigned the RfC against JOG; I felt his comments to Zedkatuf were completely out of line, and that his deletion of Project Galileo was completely inappropriate and out of line. (For the record, Project Galileo was unanimously kept when I listed it on AfD (for proceedural reasons) after restoring it. The AfD is here.) The issue was raised on his talk page by Talrias, and JOG had nothing but incivil and inappropriate commentary to offer; other administrators, including myself and now-arbitrator Sam Korn, left similar messages, only to be ignored. When the RfC was filed, the only response JOG made was to completley ignore the concerns raised, insist that he be addressed as "Mr. Gustafson," and criticize and insult anyone involved. I had hoped that he would take the concerns raised there to heart and make an attempt to avoid similar conduct elsewhere, but since that time, I have frequently noticed similar or worse conduct. It is his inappropriate response to other's valid concerns, and the history of similar actions that presses me into supporting this Request for Arbitration.

I don't expect any response (or perhaps a similar response to the one he gave during the RfC) as he has clearly stated: "For reasons all my own, I do not recognize the authority of the Arbitration Committee." I have come to believe that this editor believes he is above policy, and even worse, is outside the authority of this Committee (and, one presumes, Jimbo, from whom the Committee receives its authority).

As of 20:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC), I notice commentary on his talk page concerning:

All that in little over a week. I am almost afraid to look at the page history and see what else I may find, let alone to look through his contributions to see how many newbies have been bitten, how many articles have been deleted out of process, and what other incivilities and personal attacks have been made. I will not go as far as Talrias in suggesting what remedy the Committee should consider, but I certainly think the Committee needs to investigate JOG further and demand that he follow Wikipedia policy. Were it a single incident, I would be inclined to dismiss the matter as the occasinoal admin misstep and say "Everybody back to work," but the refusal to even engage in dialogue about his actions crosses the line into a matter that requires action. I share Talrias' fear that these actions will be repeated, frequently and numerously, if the Committee does not act. Adminship is a position of community trust, a stewardship of the community's best interests, and I cannot in good conscience say that I believe JOG has been a good and faithful steward. Essjay Talk • Contact 20:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, since JOG insists on using titles, it is Dr. J, not Mr. Essjay Talk • Contact 21:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note, for the benefit of the Arbitrators, that I have received a message on my talk page requesting that I refer to JOG as "Mr. Gustafson" out of "respect." I belive this proves quite plainly what I have said before: JOG has no regard for others, only for himself. He couldn't be bothered to show respect to those of us who took the time to raise concerns over his actions by writing a response, but he can take the time to come to my talk page and leave a lengthy message demanding that he be addressed "respectfully." I withdraw my earlier statement; I fully support Talrias' request that JOG's administrator access be reviewed and, if his current actions are an indication of his overall conduct as an administrator, that it be revoked without delay. Essjay Talk • Contact 03:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, as there has been a gross misrepresntation of my intent, the dif in question, and my response. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a day late and a dollar short on my part, this. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brief Statement by Xoloz

While I agree that Mr. Gustafson's initial failure to respond to his RfC was regrettable, he has since been convinced to add a sincere response, in part by the Outside View I left at the RfC (which also see.) Given this, I feel the RfC is now reawakened, and is the appropriate place for commentary on Mr. Gustafson's actions at this juncture. I urge rejection of this RfAr as premature, considering this recent change in circumstance. Xoloz 18:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/1/3/1)

  • Recuse. Thank you, Essjay, for reminding me that I had commented. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. Mackensen (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. James F. (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards rejecting without prejudice unless there's more evidence. This mostly comes down to one incident, and while Gustafson is being immature and stubborn, I'm just not sure one major misstep can show that drastic measures are needed. Dmcdevit·t 00:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject, unless more evidence is produced. As Dmcdevit, open to reconsider should this continue or more evidence presented. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 01:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. - SimonP 15:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for Clarification

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

CheckUser rights

I've heard some users comment on a lack of people with CheckUser rights, and I notice a backlog of about a week on the CheckUser board. As such, I was wondering if the ArbCom intends to extend CheckUser rights to some of the new Arbiters. Radiant_>|< 02:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have been discussing giving it to one person (a non-arbitrator) for the last day or so. We'll probably soon end up giving it to some of the new arbitrators too. Raul654 02:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the fact that a certain previous arbitrator has been doing most of the checkuser requests for awhile now is it to be assumed also that the arbcom is happy with allowing those who already have it to keep it despite not having a current position on the arbcom? JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions of edits

The decision of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine was that he, I, and Robert West (who is still having technical difficulties with WP) should collaborate on a consensus version.

Since my return to Wikipedia, Ultramarine is continuing his habit of referring to edits he has made as the "good", "superior", "correct abd complete" version. I find this uncollegial, and ask if it is consistent with the spirit of the arbitration decision. Several diffs of such claims be found in the evidence in the case, and the usage has continued on Talk:Democratic peace theory, and I believe elsewhere. Septentrionalis 21:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin accountability

I would like to point out this signpost article to the ArbCom, which is about public opinion on holding admins accountable for their actions. Radiant_>|< 20:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobs01 and Others

It appears that none of the remedies in this case have actually been implemented so far. Does anyone know what happened? --TML1988 23:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Nobs01's case, he hasn't posted since 12/23, which is when the decision became final. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But what about the other remedies? For example, Cognition has made many posts after the decision came down, and Lyndon LaRuche 2 has not been touched since last February. --TML1988 15:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the case was not closed properly. Fred Bauder 15:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then can someone "clean up the mess"? --TML1988 02:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zen-master

I think it is time to ask for a banning of Zen-master. For how long, I do not know. But. Probation (which was prescribed for him at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master) has failed miserably with him. He was just blocked for violation of the 3RR on Wikipedia:Title Neutrality. It's his 3rd 3RR ban in the last 6 weeks. In addition, he has been banned from several articles for periods of time, including conspiracy theory and Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights. He also joined an edit war at Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, which if anything else shows continued poor judgement and lack of understanding of his probation, which is supposed to keep him out of any edit wars. I put a notice on WP:AN/I for others to chime in here as I believe I am missing an article or two he was blocked from in the last 2 weeks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seconded. Zen is belligerent, assumes bad faith, does not listen to other people, revert wars, and calls his opponents vandals. He is unable or unwilling to understand such concepts as consensus, or the fact that policy is not created by voting upon it, and has created or promoted several snarky policy proposals in an attempt to give false credence to his opinions. For instance, Wikipedia:Information suppression, which is a faux addition to WP:NPOV with the underlying intent of not allowing scientific sources to "put down" psuedoscientific articles.
  • I would recommend putting him under the zero-revert rule, and banning him entirely from the Wikipedia namespace. But frankly he hasn't done much that is useful the last weeks. Radiant_>|< 10:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of Zen-master's violations stem from his crusade (over the past 7-8 months) to eliminate the term "conspiracy theory". There's been endless discussions on at least a dozen pages and a straw poll showed strong support for keeping the term. Zen is basically attempting to force through his opinion through Death by a thousand cuts, hoping that other editors will eventually wear down and give up. I'd support a permanent ban from any "conspiracy theory" related article as well as a several month ban from the Wikipedia namespace (perhaps allowing for AfD and RfA). Carbonite | Talk 15:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the main issue with Zen and to me it's what demonstrates the failure of probation. The idea of probation is supposed to change people's ways. Well, if you look at zen's edits since his probation started, I think he's gotten worse, not better. He still doesn't even quite understand why he was put on probation in the first place. Probation is just wasted on him. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say it's time for a long term block of a month or more. Can we get a vote by the arbcom? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Zen-master is causes disruption on practically every page he edits. He even managed to try to start drama on WP:FAITH. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood page moves

In the 'nood ArbCom decisions "1) Instantnood (talk · contribs) is restricted to proposing only one page move, poll of editors, or policy change relating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) per week."

What should be done when he doesn't actually propose a move, but just uses subterfuge to get what he wants?

In the ArbCom case there was plenty of evidence in the start of the case that he was abusing the rename process by repeatedly asking for "Foo of Taiwan" to be renamed "Foo of the Republic of China". Now that ArbCom closed the case with that restriction above, he just avoids the rename process altogether. Yesterday there was an existing category Taiwanese newspapers that corresponded with the naming convention in Category:Newspapers by country (ie, "Foobarnese newspapers" as opposed to "Newspapers of Foobar"). To get what he wants without actually proposing a rename he created a parallel category (Newspapers of the Republic of China), put it in Newspapers by country and other parent categories, then deprecated Taiwanese newspapers by removing it from the parent categories.

Meanwhile, while the new category sits on CfD, with an overwhelming early consensus to delete, he's insisting that either his, or BOTH of the categories should exist in the parent categories [2] [3].

So, he hasn't actually proposed to rename the the category, he just wants to create two parallel categories and move them around in the category structure. (Creating parallel forks isn't new behavior from him, but it fell through the cracks in the case.)

Also meanwhile, he's not "proposing a move" merely "seeking clarification" on another ROC/Taiwan move, Media in Taiwan.

And I'd also like the ArbCom to consider removing the words "relating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)" from this restriction on his behavior. I'm mostly not involved, but he's currently edit warring with other editors on half a dozen articles related to the naming of food of all things and whether they should be named with Cantonese, Mandarin, or English. [4] [5], etc. These aren't related to the Chinese naming conventions, but mere mortal editors shouldn't have to try and keep up with his proposals and unilateral moves.

- SchmuckyTheCat 22:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What should be done when he doesn't actually propose a move, but just uses subterfuge to get what he wants? Then it counts as a move. As to the edit warring over food names, guess there are some general problems we didn't handle. Fred Bauder 03:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an enforcement mechanism for this, or just an admonishment? (The same question could be said about the edit summary statement - "is reminded to make useful edit summaries.") SchmuckyTheCat 21:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Instantnood_placed_on_probation will have to serve. However, this requires an administrator with the energy and interest to look into it and actually do something. Fred Bauder 14:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a rename. Republic of China and Taiwan means something different. I am not proposing to move newspapers published in Taiwan to the parent category for the Republic of China, which Taiwan is, contemporarily, a major part of. The relevant Wikipedia policies, including the NPOV policy, have been listed here [6]. As a matter of fact, user:SchmuckyTheCat tried several times to delink the category he has nominated to CfD from all other categories ([7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]), although the CfD is in process.

The disputes around the articles on food is not only around their names, and they're not related to the previous arbitration case. — Instantnood 21:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's your contention, not the communities, that RoC and Taiwan mean something different. The category existed, you delinked it when you created a new replacement category. A duck by any other name still quacks. SchmuckyTheCat 03:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not agreeing with the NPOV policies, please proceed to propose changes to them. Don't disrupt Wikipedia by reverting edits made based on those policies, and, to the worst, nominating something to deletion by producing false accusations there. — Instantnood 09:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the disputes over food names is not related to the previous arbitration case, then could you explain the administrative action of page bans in Barbecued pork with rice, Char siu, and so on? And yes it is not a rename. If it was you would have flouted the arbcom rules outright and STC wont have needed to post this here at all to highlight your gaming of the rules.--Huaiwei 15:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this entire exchange here with the numerous openly hostile comments Schmucky has made toward Instant or anyone who in anyway supports a viewpoint like Instant's or even advocates a modicum of decorum shows the action taken by the ArbCom just didn't go far enough here. The edit warring continues across several articles, Schmucky has flat out said he intends on being hostile and continue what sounds like a crusade when he describes it against Instant [14]. The ink is hardly dry from the decision and the warring continues. --Wgfinley 04:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to comment, that my recent dealings with Wgfinley has been far from jovial, given his propensity in openly accusing the "opponents of instantnood" of all wrong doings, while continuing to believe instantnood is a victim of circumstance. I do not find STC's comments openly hostile in any way, and the source quoted above does not show his intention to be hostile or to launch a crusade against Instantnood, since he did insist that he at least still goes by the rules, something instantnood has spectacularly failed to do consistantly before or after the arbcom ruling. I would therefore read Wgfinley's comments with a pinch of salt.--Huaiwei 15:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how is it supposed to stop it? You could endorse one side or the other but in most POV disputes, surely the two sides will not actually go, well, the arbcom says the other POV has merit so I'll just stop fighting for my POV. If anything, it shows the pointlessness of the arbcom, or any other empowered group of editors, getting involved in content disputes. Not that pointlessness will stop them, obviously. -- Grace Note

Netoholic

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

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

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

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

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

While I agree strongly that Netoholic should not be, at this point, under as draconian a set of restrictions as he currently is - particularly the template restrictions, where I think he's a needed force for pointing out that consensus does not get to override the developers saying "Please don't do this," I would caution on the other hand that edits such as [15] do make me worry that some of the incivility problems have not corrected themselves. On the other hand, that Netoholic's behavior has in general improved while under parole seems clear, and it may be that the remaining issues can only be fixed through experience. So I, at least, offer my tepid support of this. Which, considering my history with this conflict, probably actually still counts for a lot. :) Phil Sandifer 18:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Netoholic and Snowspinner are actually working together. Holy goodness me! Net still needs to grasp the finer points of dealing with f*ckw diplomacy, but has come to both of us for help in these matters, with good productive effect. A strong caution about dealing gently with policy should remain - but he seems to be getting this point, which is excellent. We each have our strengths and weaknesses, after all ... - David Gerard 20:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

It's not policy, because there are occasions where it is fruitful to use them. That doesn't mean it's not damn good advice and should still be followed. There must be a good reason to use a meta-template, and anyone who says otherwise is a fool. The MoS still should be obeyed, personal attacks must not be made, nor may original research be put into the main namespace. The ArbCom may not create policy. AUM completely fits in the template category without losing its effect. That said, I fully support any motion to remove Netoholic's restrictions on editing categories. I would, on the other hand, also support a motion to put him on probation with regard to the template namespace only. [[Sam Korn]] 19:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to Template:stars this user appears to have driven though a set of changes via bot that is out of keeping with the removal of the template which has not yet happened as far as I can see, still a confused situation. Anywaty his BOT remoaved references to the template:stars and replace with just e.g. (3/5) rather that the e.g. File:3 out of 5.png that was there before tamplate:stars was in use. Is this the right way to make mass changes. Kevinalewis 11:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bots are the right way to make mass changes, but they should be used only once consensus has been reached. In this case, the TFD for Template:Stars was closed prematurely by Snowspinner. —Locke Cole 11:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was? If it was, that's wholly my error - I must have read the date wrong. Phil Sandifer 02:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See Template talk:Stars#Bot for my view.—jiy (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the official line on this? Is Netoholic still banned from editing in the template namespace? Because from this and this, it sure looks like he is ignoring the directives put in effect when the mentorship disbanded. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Netoholic is technically prohibited from editing in the Wikipedia and template namespaces. However, several arbitrators (myself and David Gerard in particular) have expressed approval of what Netoholic has been doing vis-a-vis killing metatemplates and possibly creating some sort of exception for that. Raul654 21:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the meta-template problems outlined at WP:AUM have apparently become more severe over time the way Netoholic is going about addressing them is unneccessarily confrontational. With one template after another he has made un-announced changes, people have said 'ack, you broke feature XYZ' and reverted it, and he has reverted back and said basically that AUM takes precedence over their concerns. No reason for it. These changes can be tested in advance with old and new version of the template side by side before being implemented Wiki-wide... rather than making complete rewrites directly to the template with no regard to potential havoc throughout the article space. Advance notification on related wikiprojects might also be a good idea. --CBD ☎ ✉ 22:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a gross mischaracterization. I have not caused "havoc" nor put in place any change which I could foresee as causing any problem. I am at your service if you ever discover an issue with any of my template renovations. Just contact me and describe the problem. Except for putting any meta-template back in operation, I will work with you. -- Netoholic @ 17:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying that this, this, the stuff about Infobox pope above, and suchlike didn't need to be. The work you are doing is important, but it could be accomplished more smoothly with a bit more discussion and testing before implementation. --CBD ☎ ✉ 18:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would a motion then be in order? If this position (allowing Netoholic to edit the previously prohibited namespaces) is prevalent amongst the ArbCom members, then it would be nice to put it into writing or some other format. Administrators such as myself are supposed to be strictly enforcing the ArbCom rulings on these matters. If Netoholic is allowed to act by the ArbCom contrary to the motions set down, it would be nice to let us know. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 23:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Netoholic is the subject of a separate RfA at the top of this page for more issues with his behaviour. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The "policy" that Netoholic appointed himself enforcer of (and the only reason anyone has turned a blind eye to his behavior) was written by himself, and only became policy because of his claims of a mandate of the developers regarding server load. No such mandate ever existed, according to lead developer Brion Vibber.

Can we please get a definitive answer on this? If not for this quasi-revocation of the ban, blocks against him would be warranted over and over, but we admins feel powerless to enforce them, especially considering that other admins would immediately unblock him, no matter what the infringement. We don't know what to do.

This issue is also being discussed on the Administrators' noticeboard and the Village pump. — Omegatron 20:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make such motions)

Motion to extend Instantnood and Huaiwei probation (5/0/0/0) (5/0/0/0)

As per dicussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Instantnood_and_Huaiwei, both parties have continued revert-warring and disrupting normal editing on articles outside the original probation.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Instantnood_placed_on_probation is modified to: Instantnood (talk · contribs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article or talk page which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. Instantnood must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 15:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mackensen (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Comment:
  • While I fully respect the decision of the members of the arbitration committee, in my own opinion I don't see the need to do so. Majority, if not all, of the disputes between Huaiwei and I have been around issues that are somehow Chinese-related. What is needed is to clarify what constitute "Chinese-related" in the previous ArbCom decision, instead of an amendment. Thank you. — Instantnood 18:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Huaiwei_placed_on_probation is modified to: Huaiwei (talk · contribs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article or talk page which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. Huaiwei must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 15:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mackensen (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:

I think this should be merged into Instantnood 3, with a temporary injunction of some sort. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 17:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

***PASSED*** Motions to extend ban on Ciz editing (9/0/0/0)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz#Prevention_from_editing_Zoophilia is modified to:

Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) is prevented indefinitely from editing Zoophilia and its closely-related articles, or any editing related to the subjects of zoophilia, bestiality, animal sexuality, or human-animal relationships in any article, including their talk pages. Whether an article or page concerns these subjects shall be determined by the enforcing administrator.
Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Dmcdevit·t 07:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ciz#Attempts_to_edit_Zoophilia is modified to:

If Ciz (using whatever account or IP address) edits Zoophilia or its closely related articles, or makes any edit which relates to zoophilia, bestiality, animal sexuality, or human-animal relationships in any article, or their talk pages, such changes made may be reverted by any editor and any administrator may, at his/her discretion, briefly block Ciz (up to a week in the case of repeat violations). After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.
Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Dmcdevit·t 07:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

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

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=36886151"