Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 4

Arbitration process losing weight

After talking with several other arbitrators, it has become apparent that the arbitration process has been the victim of hyper-instrucion creep. The number of arbitration pages has balloned (many of which are redundant), this page itself has become unnecessarily large with many unnecessary procedures, etc. I've gone ahead and pruned it down. I think this should make the process faster and smoother. →Raul654 21:03, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me. Ambi 06:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request for Clarification

My request for clarification is gone, but I never got a clear answer. Why's that? I think if someone requests clarification, they're entitled to it. Everyking 05:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you were given it, Everyking. You can't edit the articles at all, although I seriously doubt you're likely to be blocked for reverting clear and obvious vandalism. If you have any updates, though, that are being ignored after being put on the talk page, I'm quite happy to look them over and most probably add them. Ambi 06:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's assuming everyone would be easygoing and rational. Unfortunately, if that was the case we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with. I have little doubt that Snowspinner would block me in a heartbeat. Going after me is a hobby of his. There might be some other admins who would block for reverting vandalism, too, just out of personal antipathy. So I'd really like clear permission. Everyking 06:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Playing the guitar is a hobby of mine. Going after you is a frustrating and depressing experience that I wish you'd stop requiring. Snowspinner 16:21, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

What does the above say? A) You admit you go after me. B) You consider yourself "required" to attack me. C) You consider yourself to have some sort of elevated authority which entitles you to prosecute others. Everyking 16:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, A) seems obvious - I did raise an arbcom case against you. B) is less obvious, but true - I feel I have an obligation to raise arbcom cases and other judicial proceedings against users who are causing disruption and problems. C) is silly, though - I have no special authority. Anyone can raise arbcom cases. I just actually do. Snowspinner 16:32, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I have trouble just figuring out how you think. I was causing no disruption or problems. I was writing articles. Try it sometime. Everyking 16:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems clearer that as long as you go nowhere near the articles, you won't get blocked. Why not take the approach of steering away from editing them? After all, there are plenty of others who can revert any vandalism that might occur, jguk 07:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not really a question of being blocked per se. It's more a matter of salvaging one small scrap of dignity. Everyking 07:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Though it seems like a small issue, I give my word that I'll personally unblock you if you're blocked for reverting vandalism. But please don't try to push the definition. Ambi 08:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SummerFR and BaronLarf

Statement by Tony Sidaway

We try to be welcoming to newcomers here. This is a good thing. Sometimes it gets a bit absurd, though, and here we are indulging a person who has encountered no conceivable evidence of malice, but seems to bear a lot of extreme ill-feeling towards someone who seems to have acted with considerable courtesy. I think SummerFR needs a wikibreak. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SummerFR's talk page indicates that she has left Wikipedia. Of course she may choose to come back, but for now the matter is no longer urgent. FreplySpang (talk) 20:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Archiving requests for clarification

Please could answered requests for clarifications to be archived onto the main page of the case it relates to for ease of future reference. (e.g. when discussion finally finishes on the RfClarification I made about the GRider case, could that be archived on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/GRider please). Thanks, Thryduulf 16:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The RfA cases were moved (renamed)

Why was it necessary to move the RfA pages from "Tkorrovi vs. Paul Beardsell" to "Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell"? Also, the corresponding talk pages were not moved, as Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tkorrovi_vs._Paul_Beardsell [1] which is linked from my evidence. I just cannot figure out why this was necessary, I understand that you may have some new naming policy, the new cases may be started that way, but it's not good to move the existing cases. No, I don't complain naming the cases that way, not at all, the only thing which I would ask is that when moved, all pages should be moved complete with their talk pages, just not to disrupt the content and discussion. BTW, maybe at the time I wrote this, one already moved the talk pages under the new name, sorry for writing this comment in that case. One may also consider moving pages, comments on talk pages etc a minor thing and consider me too complaining because I a few times complained about moving the comments on talk page, but the reason I care about that is not that it may be some prevarication etc, only that i think it's better to avoid such minor things which may make things more confusing in Wikipedia. I just think that makes sense, IMHO, no reproach intended to anybody, and I'm really sorry if this comment was anyhow disturbing.Tkorrovi 19:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The connections for the WMC and Cortonin talk pages were also broken in Neutrality's recent renaming of that case. Dragons flight 15:13, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

DF, this should be fixed now. — Cortonin | Talk 19:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you DF, I just didn't know whether the name must remain like that, or the old name may be restored. It's fixed now.Tkorrovi 21:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Essay writing punishments?

A recent ArbCom ruling: "User:John Gohde must read and acknowledge he has read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:No personal attacks and write 200 words each on the implications of having custodians on Wikipedia and on the implications of allowing personal attacks on Wikipedia before being allowed to edit Wikipedia again.

First, I'd like to say I'm a big fan of the ArbCom, and I think they do a super job — thanks! However, I have some criticism: I think the above ruling is a mistake. I'm sure this user deserves his year long ban and parole, but...forced essay-writing? Let's not treat editors like wayward school-children (even if they behave that way). In my opinion, this lowers the dignity of the project as a whole. As a volunteer project, Wikipedia never compels people to do things — we do, of course, restrict undesirable actions. This ruling seems to fly against that. I support creative approaches to dealing with problem users, but this...just feels very wrong. Again, great work, right decision against Gohde, but the essay-writing seems a farcical thing for grown-ups to be faffing around with. — Matt Crypto 01:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's amusing. Matt says that "essay-writing seems a farcical thing for grown-ups to be faffing around with". We are looking on the same website here, aren't we? Hmmm. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I hate to chime in with a "me too" comment, but I think MC has a point. While I applaud ArbCom's bold willingness to think outside of the box, it might be a good idea in future to float a trial balloon with the community before imposing an entirely new form of punishment. Although Wikipedia policy (probably deliberately) imposes few restrictions on the Arbitration Committee's ability to set punishments, I don't know if it's a good idea to get creative.... --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 02:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's an alternative way to look at it: A user might be banned indefinitely, but be eligible to apply for reinstatement after one year, with the application for reinstatement to include the essay. The idea would be that the essay would help determine whether the user understood the issues and would be in a position to avoid his or her previous misconduct. That way, it's not an arbitrary punishment; instead, it's related to the underlying problem, and helps the ArbCom decide on the application for reinstatement. Does that seem less farcical?. JamesMLane 06:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The essay was my idea (I just suggested it, I wasn't on the case) and probably not the best idea I've ever had. I think we can assume it's not really workable. Further suggestions for ways around just slapping long bans on people are welcomed. (Mentorship might work for some cases, but it was a lot of work finding mentors for Netoholic, for instance - people willing to put in that much work on one person who would actually be suitable for the job are really not easy to find.) - David Gerard 11:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you can just require that the miscreant state that they read the policy and agree to abide by it. Of course there would be an implied threat that violating it again in a serious way would get a longer ban. --Zero 11:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

That may be more workable - David Gerard 10:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

As an admin, I've already used this with one persistent revert warrior, as a condition for removing a long block imposed by someone else. It seemed to make him a little more cautious--a good result, because he is otherwise a pretty valuable editor. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I support novel punishments. The jails are overflowing. Mentorship is labor-intensive. Put malefactors to work in blaze orange vests picking up roadside trash. — Xiong熊talk* 08:38, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

While I am entirely in favor of the Arbitration Committee's willingness to innovate, I find this penalty wholly inappropriate, being suitable for nothing more than schoolchildren. -- Emsworth 15:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Rejected cases page?

If I remember correctly, there was formerly a page linked off the main requests that noted all those RfAs that had been turned down, the votes, dates, petitioners and reasons for that decision. What has happened to that page? I've not been able to find it, and I feel it crucial for accountability purposes that not just completed cases but rejected ones be available at least for public records. Wally 00:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

You're half-right. There was a page that noted the RfAs that had been turned down, but without votes, dates, petitioners and reasons. Raul654 redirected it to the main page with an edit summary calling it instruction creep. Ambi 13:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Wally, I think this needs to go back. Went to bed last night and Xiong's case was there, checked today and it disappeared and had to look through about 100 edits to find where it went. I think the rejected cases should be maintained for at least a little while. --Wgfinley 23:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Having that page was instruction creep so I support its removal (along with the stupidly redundant 'matters currently in arbitration’ section, which I flat out refused to update while it existed). But we could keep requests listed here for at least 24 hours after they gain enough reject votes. That way people can be informed that a request is rejected without undue instruction creep. --mav 16:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I feel that this page was very useful. For example, Everyking asked somewhere last night on WP:AN why "ArbCom decisions always turn out really badly for the accused? and opinioned that "nobody ever goes through the ArbCom and gets a decision like "We can't really see that this person did anything particularly wrong.". My response was to point out that where there is no evidence of any wrongdoing the case was rejected. The rejected cases page serves as evidence for this, and is a good place to direct people with similar opinions. Its also a valuable resource for those wanting to know what cases are likely to be accepted and rejected, potentially reducing frivilous requests. Thryduulf 11:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

At the moment none of the arb com are inclined to maintain such a page, because it's enough of a time-consuming PITA to open or close a case - hence our response of "yay, one less bit of instruction creep!"

But if someone else wants to maintain it (presumably at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rejected_requests as before), noting it's not maintained officially by the arb com but as a record for interest, that would be fine by me at least. One suggestion: list each rejected request as per the previous version, but include the diff where it's removed from WP:RFAr (e.g. [2] is the rejection of SummerFR vs. BaronLarf, which includes all the comments and an edit summary noting it went stale) - that will make it the researcher's tool people seem to want here. There will be a small amount of pain doing the research back through the history to build it up of course, and some of the queries will fail if people try to get the really old diffs ... - David Gerard 19:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree fully with David - it's yet-another-thing-for-us-to-do, something for which I see no practical use. But, if someone else wants to spend his/her time maintaing it, they are welcome to. →Raul654 19:52, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

OK. I've put the page back as it was. It's there at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rejected_requests. If any of those interested in such a page want to fix it, maintain it, put the diffs of failed requests on it, etc., it's there for you - David Gerard 00:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll give it a go, at least, for the first little while. --Deathphoenix 02:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work on the new version of the page! - David Gerard 16:23, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd like to eventually have rejection diffs all the way to the first rejection. I think it's even better work that you made that page in the first place. I know I would have had an even harder time looking through the history without the notes. --Deathphoenix 05:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Lir case review

One of the pieces of evidence cited was a sandbox page? This comment by DG seems a bit prejudicial and perhaps inflammatory: "I can't see a productive edit coming from him, ever." "Did he break the record for most sock puppets ever?" This comment by DG seems to be irrelevant unless the socks were inappropriately used. -SV|t 05:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

One of the causes of Lir's sanction was that he was using an account other than User:Lir to edit - namely his IP. There's pretty good reason to think that he did this deliberately. Since he was under a ruling prohibiting exactly this, yeah, the sock issue is relevent. Snowspinner 21:04, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Everyking 3

Well, who was surprised to see Snowspinner try to shut up his critics with a request for arbitration? And who was surprised to see Gerard accept the case within 40 minutes? And who will be surprised to see Ambi accept it too? And who is going to be surprised when truth isn't a defense in this case? Not me. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 16:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Nor me. Zocky 23:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to claim truth as a defense when evidence hasn't been provided. What swung it for me was (per diff noted in the request) Everyking's direct refusal to substantiate his allegations even when asked directly to do so, and to continue to make them refusing to substantiate them. As you seem to agree with his allegations, I'm sure you'll be able to provide substantial proof of their truthfulness in evidence should the case be accepted. Though that still won't change Everyking's blunt refusal - David Gerard 16:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd provide evidence for many of the criticisms voiced against Snowspinner if I thought it had the slightest chance of being heard. Since the arbcom won't censure Snowy even when its own findings clearly indicate he was wrong, wrong, wrong, I think that effort would be wasted. Maybe you think otherwise. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 21:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps because the deletion of the Anthony page was a reasonable interpretation of policy at the time and was made in good faith? And that a simple "No, that's not policy" was sufficient, since I haven't marked a page in the user namespace as a speedy since? Snowspinner 23:15, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Repeating that over and over again doesn't make it any more believable, especially in light of your "good-faith interpretation" of the policy in the exact opposite direction while the case was ongoing. And your admitted campaign against the user in question. But these came into the case too, didn't they, and were also ignored, weren't they? You know the answers as well as I do. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 06:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not recall any change in opinion mid-arbcom case - at least not until the finding that I was wrong had passed, at which point I accepted it. Immediately. Without hesitation, I changed my mind when the arbcom ruled against me. As for my "admitted" campaign, perhaps [3] is instructive - it's when, an hour later, I reverted myself after a productive discussion with Anthony online. Perhaps the discussion I had with Anthony in IRC where we tried to come up with an alternative to a namespace ban that would be mutually satisfying would be instructive. Frankly, if this is your evidence - an out of context diff that I reverted less than an hour later and the fact that I misinterpreted a policy and changed my mind as soon as the arbcom said I was wrong - it's no wonder you think the arbcom's going to laugh at it. Snowspinner 13:46, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Someday I ought to write an article on the links between misbehavior and memory loss. In the meantime maybe the stuff at the end of the evidence page will refresh your memory. And it's so magnanimous of you to engage in productive discussion after raising the arbcom case. Why you didn't try it before, I can only speculate. (Last of all, I didn't say they were going to laugh at it—I said they were going to ignore it. Do learn the difference.) —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 18:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

And which of the findings in that case comprised a general restriction on editing other people's user spaces? Snowspinner 18:58, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

There was a principle which said "Deleting content from the user namespace or adding deletion tags to content in the User namespace without the affected user's permission is discouraged.", but no associated finding of fact or remedy, despite the clear evidence that you had done exactly that. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 19:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I took that to be an issue of deletion tags, since that was what the dispute in question was over. And I'm not sure what sanction you want - I stopped deletion tagging articles in user spaces. So nothing more than a principle noting that it's discouraged was needed. Sure, you could have put a restriction barring me from using deletion-related powers, but what would the point have been? I stopped. My behavior changed. What more did you want? Snowspinner 19:57, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Anything at all. I wish I could say that I can't see why you were released without warning while the target of your harassment received stiff sanction, for the crime of having been the target of your harassment—but I can't. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

(Going left) But we're down to no evidence for this claim. Your evidence that I harassed him was a single diff from months before. I was pissed at him for something. I lashed out. 50 minutes later, I retracted the statement. Apologized to him too. And the apology was accepted. You have that I wasn't sanctioned to your satisfaction for deleting his user subpage, despite the fact that the sanction given for that has demonstrably been enough to reform me on that issue. And past that... you've given nothing but an accusation. If you have a case to make against me, make it - to an RfC, to the arbcom, to Jimbo, right here, but somewhere. Otherwise, frankly, you're not raising concerns or disagreeing. Disagreement inplies that there's an actual specific issue to agree or disagree over. You've yet to raise one. You're just attacking me. Snowspinner 22:51, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

The evidence that you harassed him is in the whole history of the affair. You brought it up on the admins' noticeboard; the only responses you got were "leave it alone, it's not doing any harm". Instead of doing that, you edit warred over the tag, and when no other sysop would delete it, you got one of your cronies—through e-mail or, more probably, IRC—to do the dirty deed. Sure, no evidence at all. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 03:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to imagine an outcome of this, but I'm having a hard time getting past "Everyking is prohibited from questioning actions by others on the administrator's noticeboard unless he provides reasons deemed acceptable by the following set of administrators", or perhaps "Everyking must write an essay of 200 words showing that he understands the purpose of the Arbitration Committee and the nature of its decisions". (Sorry, David, it's meant in good fun. :-)
Everyking has been quite disingenuous questioning decisions to cases he admittedly knew nothing about, but being disingenuous is not quite the same as being a "querulous troll". If EK disagrees with how the ArbCom rules in principle, then he disagrees with how the ArbCom rules in principle. We would all be much better off if he didn't go charge every windmill in sight and instead present a single, coherent argument he could get others to agree or disagree with (in other words, "don't question everything to illustrate a point"), but there is absolutely nothing I can see the ArbCom doing or saying that would solve this conflict constructively (and no, I do not think censoring EK qualifies). I'll be interested to see what the outcome of this is going to be. JRM · Talk 16:32, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

I'm not sure the requested remedy matches the problem cited, but the behaviour cited is still very problematic. The obvious question I see is: how much can someone trash-talk someone else, refusing to substantiate the trash-talking, before it can be regarded as a personal attack? That this would obviously be a hairy case doesn't make the behaviour less problematic IMO - David Gerard 16:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Clarify: I'm not trying to suggest the behaviour isn't problematic. Far from it. I'm also not saying the ArbCom shouldn't accept the case. What I am saying is this: keep very well in mind that we're not here to solve problematic behaviour per se, but to solve problems. I'm afraid that if you use the "is questioning Snowspinner over and over again a personal attack" angle, this case will go nowhere; the conclusion will be that EK needs some gentle beating with a cluestick, while we'll all tsk a bit at how people are always getting on Snowspinner's case for acting in the best interests of Wikipedia. Meanwhile, we can prepare for Everyking 4. JRM · Talk 16:53, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

I think, in this case, it helps that Everyking has blatantly crossed the line into personal attacks on several occasions. I also think that there's a case to be made that somebody who does not support the arbitration process, does not block, and yet continues to criticize administrator actions while explicitly refusing to read evidence is probably not acting in the manner that people expected when they originally supported him for adminship. In either case... I dunno. I'd prefer a cluestick, because, well, Everyking became an admin. He clearly has a capacity for clues. If that means an Everyking 4, well, I was hoping against an Everyking 3. And an Everyking 2. And I'm hoping against an Everyking 4. But if there is one, there is one. Snowspinner 17:30, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

You notice how Snowspinner's response to a dissenting view is to try to suffocate it? What does he want out of me? I will be happy to call a "cease-fire" with him and conduct private discussions instead. Everyking 18:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I've put a request on the case page for you to clarify why you were so hostile [4] to mediation before this case was brought, and are suddenly not hostile to it now that one has been brought - David Gerard 19:04, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

My position hasn't changed a bit. I'm as open to mediation as I've always been. I also want to note something else. Snowspinner accuses me of refusing to block people for vandalism. While that is true, that is a personal, moral decision that I have taken due to my own experiences with being blocked. I do not object to other sysops blocking people for vandalism, provided it can be considered reasonable to do so. Everyking 19:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think arbitration is necessary for this case right now because while previous attempts at dispute resolution have been attempted prior to Everyking & Everyking 2, those two cases were both wrt the Ashlee Simpson articles. Those cases both noted that EK's behaviour outside of Ashlee Simpson has been good. This case seems to be about EK's behaviour outside of Ashlee Simpson and therefore subject to other steps in dispute resolution prior to arbitration. Since it's not a content dispute, I doubt that mediation will do anything, but for now, an RfC might be more appropriate. --Deathphoenix 19:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Is David Gerard arguing Snowspinner's case or arbitrating it? He ought to make up his mind. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 06:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Really, he probably should recuse himself anyway. He has repeatedly made known his hostility towards me and seems to always openly side with Snowspinner about things. Everyking 07:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

If you can come up with a convincing set of diffs, please do so - David Gerard 10:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Here you are arguing his case for him and making your prejudice quite clear: "this behavior is particularly unseemly"—indicating that you've already made up your mind—"Please clarify how this squares with your hostility to the suggestion of mediation"—which Snowspinner declares to be the case, but Everyking denies; again this demonstrates a prejudice—and [5]—which is self-explanatory. Now I suppose you'll aver that these aren't "convincing", won't you. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 18:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC) Addendum: [6], coming six hours after [7] and making the same argument, isn't convincing either, is it. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I have to convince you? You're well aware of the stuff you've been involved in. Everyking 10:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

EK, as I understand recusals, an arbitrator will recuse themselves if they feel they are not or are not able to be neutral in the debate, OR one (or more) of the parties involved requests it AND the arbitrator in question agrees that it would be inapropriate for them not to recuse.

What has happened in this case is that you have asked DG to recuse, but he doesn't feel it is necessary. Instead of flat-out rejecting it, he is being very fair and giving you the chance to explain and give supporting evidence for why you feel it is necessary. I'm sure he does know what stuff he has been involved in, but he doesn't feel that his actions necessitate his recusal. He is giving you the opportunity to epxress your view and to try and convince him otherwise. If you don't take the opportunity then I don't see that you will have any grounds for complaining about DG's non-recusal. Thryduulf 11:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to go digging around for evidence that he is already well aware of. That's silly. Also, you are attributing a motive to David, that he "doesn't feel it is necessary". More likely he wants to be in on the case because of a personal dislike for me and to act as an ally of Snowspinner. Everyking 12:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not, actually, any more than I was when Netoholic repeatedly demanded I recuse for no reason that he could substantiate - David Gerard 14:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

That statement completely false, and you know it, David. I explained my reasoning User talk:David Gerard#Recusal reason?. I gave the reasons, made the request, but you chose to reject it. That is not the same as failing to substantiate my "demand". I feel you are not looking at these cases from a neutral eye, but the community has no recourse but to abide with your decision to recuse or not. -- Netoholic @ 11:58, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

That would be because all your stated reasons still resolved to "I disagreed with him therefore he must hate me therefore he should recuse." Accepting such a reason would be handing a Get Everyone To Recuse Free card to the more creatively antisocial members of our community, as I'm sure you're able to see with a moment's thought - David Gerard 17:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I assume when you make this statement, you mean that a "creatively antisocial" person could try to make all the Arbitrators recuse. That is the problem with your theory in my case. I only asked one person to recuse from the start, you. I must be bad at being "creatively antisocial", since if I were, I'd have made more protestations against other Arbitrators. I didn't, trusting that they would do what was right in their minds. Seeing that you, in particular, had not recused freely, made me suspicious that you wanted to be part of the Arb for revenge or to at least make sure one vote swayed towards the punitive. This is of course the case, since you took the most active prosecutorial role in the case, and also suggested the most harsh penalties. Luckily for me, those were tempored by more fair minds in the Committee. -- Netoholic @ 03:28, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

That is true, but you took the initiative to involve yourself in the exchanges between me and Snowspinner. Moreover you wrote decisively hostile comments on the RfAr page that strongly suggest you are biased against me. Everyking 17:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Accepting a case and explaining why isn't a recusal reason, oddly enough. Nor within a mile of one.

If you want a recusal, come up with a convincing set of diffs. Surely that won't be too difficult to bother with - David Gerard 00:16, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Apparently this is what set Snowspinner off, since it's the last thing I said to him before he decided it was time to play the ArbCom card:

Well, I don't agree with you, Phil. The difference is, my opinions are just opinions. You talk about your opinions as if they're policy.

So look at what I said there. I said, I have an opinion, and I don't try to impose my opinions; I try to persuade. I don't pretend my opinions are policy to get my way. Snowspinner, on the other hand, never makes allowances for dissenting views. Agree with him or he will take you to the ArbCom. It's really pretty scary.

Well, as for what I said, that's a recognition that different opinions can co-exist, right? I believe what I said set him off because he does think his opinions should be policy, or already are policy. I also want to note something else: I was politely talking about an issue unrelated to him, about the question of what sort of "hurdles" should have to be jumped in order for material on Nazi mysticism to be included in an article. I mused that there were two hurdles. Snowspinner then entered the discussion to tell me there were in fact three hurdles, putting forward a view he would know to be anathema to me. My guess is that he did that purely to provoke an argument in hopes that I would say something that could be his casus belli to start an ArbCom case. The fact that what I said was harmless didn't seem to derail that plan. Everyking 08:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Anyone curious as to why I suspect mediation would be a doomed endeavor should look above. Everyking makes clear that he already knows my motives. He knows that a comment about whether something should be included in an article is obviously an attack on him. He knows why I submitted this case. He knows that I will take everybody who disagrees with me to the arbcom. And he's pretty sure that I said something just so I could arbcom him.

Frankly, bullshit. He's said he would go into mediation to get me to change my ways, and maybe he might accept that he should stop making personal attacks? So in order to get someone to stop making personal attacks against me I need to give up something that is not in violation of any policy and that NOBODY HAS EVER PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE FOR! Even now, Everyking doesn't actually offer any evidence of his claims. So in order to get any relief from the fact that I cannot take any action as an administrator without being personally attacked by Everyking, I need to enter mediation so he can try to get me to stop doing something that neither he nor anybody else has ever provided evidence for.

I think not. Snowspinner 13:40, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Phil, if you seriously think I have made personal attacks against you, give me some examples and, if I can see your reasoning, I will agree not to say such things anymore. I do not wish to provoke you, but I also want to preserve my right to make valid points in a discussion, and to criticize what I see as abuse. Everyking 13:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

When your "valid" point is that I'm an abusive sysop, and yet you refuse to take any measures other than attacking me for it, it's a personal attack. Snowspinner 13:51, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Phil, you often do not mince words when speaking of violators of the ArbCom and such marginalized people who have gotten on your nerves. So I don't know why you can say things but can't accept having things said to you in turn. If you wish, I will refrain from calling you an abusive sysop in general, and will instead focus on individual actions which, while they may be abusive, are not necessarily indicative that the person behind them can be characterized as generally abusive. In turn, will you accept mediation with me and quit holding arbitration over my head? Everyking 13:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Because I actually use the dispute resolution procedures. You just berate people, and then have the gall to say you were always willing to go into mediation. Bullshit. "The purpose of mediation, I imagine, would be to get you to moderate yourself, while I at the same time would try to understand better where you're coming from, and would try to refrain from harsh criticism in the future." No. I will not enter a mediation proceeding so that you can get me to "moderate" myself when you've shown a total unwillingness to offer evidence that there's any complaint to be made against me, and when it's clear that your only objection is that I raised arbitration against you before. And if that fact is enough to excuse your personal attacks, well, the irony is that of the two of us, you'll be the only one to have driven somebody off of Wikipedia through harassment. Congrats. Snowspinner 15:06, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what to tell you. I'll be happy to discuss things with you informally, outside of actual mediation. Alternately, you could start a RfC against me and see if there's any community support for the claims you've made against me; I don't really see much truth in what you claim, but if you have some sort of substantial backing that would give it more weight. But I'm not going to sit here and cower in fear because you threaten me with arbitration. I feel I have a right to point out what I feel are abuses and criticize them. I don't, on the hand, feel I have any particular right to make personal attacks on anyone, so I'm perfectly happy to not do that, although I don't feel I have been making personal attacks in the first place. Everyking 15:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner writes: Note also [8] where Everyking responded with extreme hostility to the idea of mediating with me over his objections to me. Later he writes a long screed about how mediation is useless. It seems rather disingenous of him to even suggest mediation when he's convinced it doesn't work. Why did no arbitrator say anything about this obvious bad faith, I don't wonder? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 03:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm just angry that I'm being accused of hostility towards mediation when anybody who reads what I said can see that isn't true at all. The hostility was directed towards Snowspinner based on his history of rejecting mediation and seeming to believe that he is unconditionally right and therefore doesn't need to compromise with anybody; i.e. I did not believe he was being sincere about it. Everyking 03:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

And look, you were right.
I further don't wonder why it strikes David Gerard as "disingenuous to spit abuse at the idea of mediation before a case is raised then claim you were always for it when one is at last raised", but offering mediation when one secretly believes that it doesn't work does not strike him as equally disingenuous. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 03:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I eagerly await both participants giving their views of the recent attempt at mediation - David Gerard 00:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I agreed not to comment publicly on his admin actions, although I presume that some form of concession will be forthcoming from his side as well. I believe he said he would involve himself more in mediation in the future, which would suffice for me. Everyking 00:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

My sense was that mediation was ongoing - I know there are still things I'd like to discuss. So I'd rather not withdraw the case just yet in the hopes of further mediation. Snowspinner 00:29, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Everyking 3 deadlock?

I see that there are 7 votes for this case - 3 accept, 3 reject and 1 recusal. Checking on the Arbitration Committee page, I see there are currently 7 active Arbitrators. What happens now? Do we wait for one or more of the abritrators who are currenty inactive to return, or does this need to be passed to Jimbo to cast a deciding vote? Thryduulf 09:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

This is, umm, an undefined situation.

What do you think should happen?

James F. (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's not find out. :-) Kim Bruning 10:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Since Everyking and Snowspinner have agreed to pursue alternate dispute resolution for now, hopefully the point will be moot. Since all three of the reject votes express a preference for mediation, presumably the deadlock on this issue would go away if good-faith mediation and negotiation were to fail. As to the more general question of how to handle similar situations...doesn't the vote usually fail on a tie? An appeal to Jimbo to grant cert wouldn't be out of order, I suppose. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 10:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

In other situations, where there is a lack of consensus the status quo normally holds. If that is applied to this situation, I suppose the status quo is that there is no arbitration case currently open regarding this dispute. If an arbitration case was opened that would clearly be different to the status quo. Hoever, it is also equally true that there is currently no rejected arbitration case, so those in favour could argue that rejecting it would also be different to the status quo. The only path between the two I can see is that the status quo is that there is a request for arbitration that has not been accepted or rejected - however this gets us nowhere!

I beleive that the rules of the Arbitration Committee say that they will hear or not hear a case if the connensus of the community is clear that they should or shouldn't. If the comments on this page are anything to go by, there is no clear consenus either way, which doesn't really help. Also I think (but haven't checked) that the committee are bound to hear a case if Jimbo asks them to. If the reverse is true that they are bound not to hear a case if he asks them not to hear it, then this is in effect a deciding vote.

I'm not an arbitrator (or even an admin), so my views on this are not binding on anybody, but I certainly don't think it would hurt ask Jimbo if he has an opinion on the matter. I don't know what we'd do if he said, that he doesn't have an opinion and to sort it out between ourselves - a straw poll or RfC on whether the community feels the arbcom should hear the case? Sounds a bit beurocratic and OTT myself, but I can't think of anything else.

I probably ought to say that I'm not EK's biggest fan, and don't personally approve of his actions on WP:AN/I, but I don't hold a strong view either way on whether the arbcom should hear the case or not. If one is opened then I may submit evidence of some of the discussions I've had with him on the matter if someone else didn't, but I wouldn't be clamouring for any particular verdict. If I was arbitrator I would have to recuse. Thryduulf 11:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Uhhh...I thought Snowspinner withdrew the request? Everyking 11:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You're right, I hadn't spotted that. The above is therefore entirely theoretical now I suppose, but it might be worth considering for any future deadlock. Thryduulf 12:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Generally, if it hangs around for about two weeks, we move it to "rejected" as stale - David Gerard 13:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you folks go and write some articles instead of playing at Perry Mason? Dan100 10:28, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I for one like that idea. Everyking 11:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dan100, seeing as I write more articles than you do, perhaps you should go write some articles instead of being a jerk. Ambi 11:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please don't argue or insult each other here - this is supposed to be a place for resolving disputes, not heated name-calling or insults. That goes for both of you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:28, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

Grunt, I don't see how all of your comment "goes for both of you". I only see Ambi resorting to personal insult in this exchange. Paul Beardsell 12:20, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You know, just this morning I was thinking, "This Wikipedia project is great, but I think to really work it needs some totally pointless bickering." I'm glad to see that's taken care of! Snowspinner 19:22, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Insert pithy witticism that makes readers feel foolish, slightly ashamed and in a much friendlier mood than before here. JRM · Talk 21:20, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

I can't believe Ambi called me a jerk. Dan100 07:40, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

If you want to take it any further (e.g. askign why, or for an appology, or whatever) might I suggest that Ambi's talk page would perhaps be a more apropriate location? Thryduulf 08:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. (In fact this has been to-ing and fro-ing on our respective Talk pages for a while.) However I have now apologised to Ambi for my comments above, and expressed my disappointment with the above 'jerk' message. That'll do. Dan100 17:46, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Question

If two rulings on the same user contradict, should the more recent ruling be considered to override the first one, even if this is not explicitly noted in the decision? Everyking 02:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes. That's the point of newer rulings. Ambi 02:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

So, in this particular case, when Everyking's two-month ban on editing Ashlee Simpson runs out, what happens to his revert limitation? --Carnildo 02:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

1) For a period of one year, Everyking is prohibited from editing articles relating to Ashlee Simpson. Any article which contains a link to Ashlee Simpson or mentioning Ashlee Simpson, see what links to Ashlee Simpson (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Ashlee_Simpson), is an article "relating to Ashlee Simpson"; therefore falling within the articles covered by this limitation, if Everyking is editing with respect to that portion of an article which is concerned with Ashlee Simpson. Violations of this restriction shall result in blocks of up to 24 hours per violation. Everyking may apply to the Arbitration Committee for this sanction to be lifted in two months.

Everyking's one-year ban runs out in ten months or so, and his revert parole runs out then too. Ambi 05:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't mention a revert prohibition. If it was overturned on appeal, I would not need to make a second appeal later to overturn the first ruling, right? A single appeal, if successful, would give me a clean slate? Everyking 12:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

To avoid any conflicts in the future, I would recommend asking that any successful appeal ruling explicitly state all rulings it is overturning. Thryduulf 16:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Are users allowed to edit the proposed decision page?

Paul Beardsell edited the proposed decision page of the arbitration case Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell [9], the diffs [10] [11] [12]. He added a proposed principle. I think that already by the definition, the arbitration, especially the decision making and voting, must be done by the arbitrators only, and therefore no other user is allowed to edit the proposed decisions page. I don't want Paul Beardsell to be an additional arbitrator. I did not delete his addition, as I have no wish to start an edit war with Paul Beardsell, knowing that he will start it, as he already wanted to do over other pages in arbitration case. I also don't find myself entitled to edit the proposed decision page. I'm sorry for providing link to this comment on talk pages of all arbitrators. The proposed principle added by Paul Beardsell looks exactly like one added by the arbitrators, and arbitrators may start voting on this, and consider it as one added by one of the arbitrators. And also because Paul Beardsell did such things before (see the evidence), any too slow reaction to his such action would be interpreted by him as a possibility to do more such edits. I'm really sorry, but it is difficult to deal with Paul Beardsell.Tkorrovi 11:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

It is difficult to deal with me if you lack intellectual rigour. Of course I am not trying to make myself into an arbitrator. And of course I am not trying to fool anybody into thinking that an arbitrator has proposed another principle - the change log identifies me plainly and no one else has signed their proposals. That Tkorrovi tries to cast me in a bad light here is just typical of his dishonest approach. There is just no indication on the page as to the supposed restriction on who can propose a principle. Paul Beardsell 04:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

No, he's not supposed to. Non-arbitrators should add proposals to the proposed decision's talk page, where others will comment on them and so forth. I've moved Paul's proposed addition there and left a note on his talk page - David Gerard 12:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Where is the set of rules where it says I cannot edit the proposed decision page directly? Seems to me David Gerard or any of the other arbitrators could have voted against the principle if he did not like it, or for it if he thought otherwise. And will this "proposed principal", now that it has been moved to the Talk page receive the same lack of response and attention as my other issues raised there too? I.e. nothing! Paul Beardsell 03:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Surely, by ignoring the principle that Paul proposed, whether or not it was proposed in a conventional manner, the arbs are by default through their actions supporting the opposite principle, namely:

• Matters need not be brought to the ArbCom timeously

• 10) The issues brought to the ArbCom need not be' be substantial or on-going and can be issues that are no longer current or which are minor.

i.e. there are no controls in place here to prevent time-wasting. I think Paul is merely pointing out what a waste of time it would be to go through all Tkorrovi's accusations point by point, and that, in the manner that Tkorrovi must have spent many hours finding and cataloging all the references he uses, Paul could do likewise. One only has to read through any of the dialogues to see how absurd the whole thing is. The simplest solution is probably to award Tkorrovi one of those stars that says something like "Award for doing the most to ensure that discussions about correct English usage are kept alive" or an "Award for demonstrating the benefits of artificial consciousness in a wide range of circumstances" or "Award for longest running contributor on a single topic". (I wonder how many wikipedians print out their wikipedia stars and wear them as stickers.) I happen to think there are now enough other sensible contributors to the artificial consciousness article to preserve its momentum and remove any perception that it remains Tkorrovi's exclusive preserve. So Paul too should get a star, perhaps an "Award for persistence in challenging circumstances". Let the arbs think in terms of rewards here instead of punishments. This arbitration also raises the interesting pragmatic question, which I'm sure must have been covered elsewhere, of how the encyclopedia benefits from the contributions of the less competent and intellectually challenged, particularly, taking a lead from the stupidity article, when dealing with those who aren't intelligent enough to realise how stupid they are. At the risk of sounding intellectually elitist I see no harm in deterring contributions that do not add knowledge to the encyclopedia, but instead tend to obscure it. So I'd want to balance up the lucidity of Paul's vs Tkorrovi's contributions. Matt Stan 14:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

"This arbitration also raises the interesting pragmatic question, which I'm sure must have been covered elsewhere, of how the encyclopedia benefits from the contributions of the less competent and intellectually challenged, particularly, taking a lead from the stupidity article, when dealing with those who aren't intelligent enough to realise how stupid they are." Eat lemon.Tkorrovi 15:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

"Award for doing the most to ensure that discussions about correct English usage are kept alive" No, I need no award for that. I don't know whether I did the most, but I did what I can do. I saw that the English grammar in Wikibooks [13] was by far not complete, with most of the articles about parts of speech missing. So I created them, copying the relevant parts from the public domain English grammar "The Grammar of the English Grammars" by Goold Brown, 1851 (the only complete public domain English grammar there is). I just copied the text from that grammar, but it was a lot of work nevertheless, as it had to be formatted etc. Now it's necessary to find out, what in English changed since 1851, it is not that much, but unfortunately I cannot do that, in spite that I so much like English, it is not my mother tongue. I guess it should be easy for these who are native English speakers, and know English well. Sincerely, I try to do my best, I try to expect the best of any user, but I have no idea why exactly I was ridiculed now again for that issue. I don't know why do you exactly do that, and I'm not interested, as you have no right. The only explanation I did hear from you so far, was your "wind up a user", Wikipedia should not allow to treat anybody that way.Tkorrovi 14:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Increasingly it becomes apparent to me that the ArbCom do not read carefully all the material before it. So I point out that the above rant is not directed at me. It's Tkorrovi vs The World. Paul Beardsell 02:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Overlooked issues

I have raised a number of issues on the Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tkorrovi_and_Paul_Beardsell/Proposed_decision page but there has been no response at all to almost all of the questions raised. I have been instructed to not edit the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tkorrovi_and_Paul_Beardsell/Proposed_decision page directly, either to add a "proposed principle" or, now, paradoxically, to add a sentence making the prohibition on an ordinary mortal adding a proposed principle plain [14].

I think issues are being overlooked for two reasons. Firstly because the procedures are unclear and even the set of pages for an arbitration request is overly complex. I still am not sure I know of all the pages to do about the RFA in which I am involved. And secondly because the ArbCom should be turning down some of the tasks it takes on.

To address the second reason: The ArbCom should take on current and serious problems only. Is this not already well understood? What say you all? Paul Beardsell 22:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. In accepting the case, we accepted that the case was current and serious. Ambi 23:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I do not think I miss the point. Rather, thanks to you, I think I have just made one. The case was not current. It seems a mistake was made by the ArbCom here. Paul Beardsell 00:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

You're confusing "mistake" with "something I disagree with." Snowspinner 13:00, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. Of course, it is something that I do disagree with but I also think the ArbCom made a mistake. In fact, I disagree with it because I think a mistake was made. The two are not mutually exclusive. But it does seem that some think that the ArbCom is incapable of making a mistake, and at least one of those is on the ArbCom itself. Paul Beardsell 19:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC) So it seems I do know the difference between a "mistake" and "something I disagree with". Paul Beardsell 23:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

There is still no response from the ArbCom to the unanswered issues at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tkorrovi_and_Paul_Beardsell/Proposed_decision. Paul Beardsell 23:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Statute of Limitations

I refer the reader to the previous section. What is the statute of limitations here at Wikipedia? Here I suggest three weeks? What say all of you? Paul Beardsell 00:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The ArbCom is nominally the final step in Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedure (save for a direct appeal to Jimbo himself). They regularly turn down cases when they don't believe earlier dispute resolution steps have been tried. Presumably, they don't get involved in issues which have been amicably resolved before reaching them. Regardless of when a particular incident (or particular incidents) occured, for ArbCom to consider the issue the Committee must believe that the problem requires their intervention.

I have seen decisions where the ArbCom noted an improvement in an editor's behaviour over the course of dispute resolution. Obviously, they are capable of taking mitigating circumstances into consideration. There have also been cases where a disruptive editor has declared an intent to leave Wikipedia, and in some of those cases ArbCom has chosen not to pursue further consideration on that basis. Imposing a statute of limitations would hamstring them if the troublesome editor returned (this has happened.)

A statute of limitations strikes me as policy creep. The ArbCom should be trusted to consider the elapsed time since an infraction and any subsequent good behaviour by an editor, and judge accordingly. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 01:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so; I don't think we should trust the ArbCom to be fair. They are not always fair in practice, so why should we trust them to be fair? If policy creep would get them to straighten up a bit, I say let's have more policy creep. Everyking 01:21, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom is trusted to be fair: that's the freaking point of the whole thing. And if Everyking claims it hasn't, would he like to put up some actual evidence of this unfairness? --Calton | Talk 03:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Fairness is something that is never attained, absolutely. It is approached. It is strived for. Complacency is guaranteed to allow unfairness to go unchecked. In any other system of justice there are acknowledged failures. A failure means unfairness. When criticism of the ArbCom is discouraged then we know we have a potential problem. As to why a statute of limitations is often considered fair follow this link. Paul Beardsell 08:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, how would a statute of limitations—particularly the absurdly short one proposed—help? It would invite wikilawyering and endless arguments over the admissibility of evidence. You've seen how the 3RR is games by POV warriors; I suspect that a statute of limitations would just encourage once-a-month obnoxiousness. Could you clarify how the proposed limit would increase the fairness of the ArbCom? Incoveniencing them isn't synonymous with making their procedures more "fair".... --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 01:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps three weeks is a little too short. What about six weeks? Or two months? At some point the period becomes "absurdly" long. It certainly seems to me that, on Wikipedia, the statute of limitations would be "absurdly" long at 3 months. If a matter which has not been current for 3 months is complained of then I think the ArbCom should refuse to hear the case. Certainly, it is a waste of time to hear a complaint which is that old. And it is vexatious, almost by definition, to bring such an old complaint to arbitration: The disliked behaviour, in WWW timespans, has stopped! Paul Beardsell 02:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Imagine going to court to stop a neighbour allowing his dog to defecate on your lawn and the judge determines that it had not happened in the three months before the complaint was made. Go away! Says the judge. Paul Beardsell 02:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough--but I haven't seen evidence to suggest that the ArbCom has been choosing to consider conflicts that have been dormant for two or three months' time...correct me if I am mistaken, of course.

On the other hand, if two (or more) users have an ongoing conflict, or if a single editor has engaged in destructive behaviour for an extended period of time, I think it's reasonable for the ArbCom to be able to consider that. If there is a pattern of continuing behaviour, then it is relevant even if most of the incidents took place more than three weeks ago. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 02:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Because I think these debates often get further than they should because of the number of people who look at them and roll their eyebrows instead of replying, let me note that this is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. Snowspinner 12:59, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Could we make that into a template we can subst: as needed? - David Gerard 20:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing like a bit of hyperbole to keep a discussion alive. I never thought the idea would be entirely uncontroversial. On the other hand it seems, as admitted by Ambi, that an informal and flexible statute of limitations already is in place, whether Snowspinner likes it or not. Also, most every system of justice has some form of statute of limitations so there are a whole lot of people who have implemented one of the "worst ideas ... ever heard". Paul Beardsell 19:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It makes sense to keep a discussion alive, if it interest anybody. At least this discussion here doesn't interest me at all. The same way as most of the talk on artificial consciousness talk page didn't interest me at all. But I had to discuss, as Paul was there, that he cannot accuse me that I don't explain etc etc. Whether it was interesting for anybody else, I have no idea.Tkorrovi 15:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, Tk, my number one fan! It seems poor tactics to me that, at this late stage, you admit your contributions on Talk:Artificial consciousness were not sincere. Some Wikipedians have been known to call that type of behaviour trolling. What about the sincerity of your RfA against me? You claim to have suffered personal abuse at my hands on that very page. Was that claim only as sincere as your contributions on that page? Were you just squealing for effect, were you just trolling again, and misusing the arbitration process here? Leaving that aside, just for the moment, what do you think about the issue actually under discussion, here? Paul Beardsell 19:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it only later became clear that running out of other options to accuse someone, you resort on personal attacks, which start whenever I edit the article, or even talk to you; so that request for arbitration was the only option left for me.Tkorrovi 20:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I know you appear to think that. What do you think of the statute of limitations idea? Paul Beardsell 23:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

As usual, I concur with Snowspinner and David. →Raul654 21:20, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

But there is no attempt to persuade, no attempt to allow others to see the reasoning that would let them join in the cosy consensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy, i.e., consensus forming is to be preferred. Why, Raul654, Snowspinner et al, do you hold that opinion? Paul Beardsell 23:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, to put it very simply - this proposal is a needless bit of instruction creep that will only increase the amount of wiki-lawyering going on, without any concievable benefit whatsoever. →Raul654 01:05, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I was expecting Snowspinner to jump in with intellectual rigour as he did here to say something like "you confuse 'objectively conceivable' with 'personal belief'". Others seem well able to conceive of benefits. But setting hard limits for the SoL aside, do you agree with TenOfAllTrades and even Ambi that when an issue has experienced no relevant activity for many months that the ArbCom should not waste its time considering it and that already this is the practise of the ArbCom even if it not yet codified in the creeping instructions? (By the way the word "creep" is likely to be seen as pejorative: "Instruction progression" or "instruction improvement" would be less likely to be seen as a bad thing.) Paul Beardsell 01:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the age of the case is something that should be weighed by the arbcom. But I oppose anything that dictates what the arbcom can and can't rule and hear. Short of obvious jurisdictional problems (Arbcom ruling on Jimbo) or the basic rule that they can't ban for more than a year, I think the arbcom should be trusted to apply good judgment and common sense. Yes, that obviously includes considerations of whether a dispute is still current. But the arbcom should consider those things - not be ruled by them. Snowspinner 02:48, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I do not see why, using Snowspinner's argument that the ArbCom has "good judgement and common sense", that the ArbCom should be prohibited from imposing a ban over one year, nor why they should be prohibited from Jimbo-rulings. Snowspinner says they can be trusted to use their common sense and good judgement. If so then common sense and good judgement would prevent them from issuing a ban over a year so there is no need for the rule. And they would never rule against Jimbo because they have CS&GJ. Thus Snowspinner's circular argument dissolves. The question is, what basic rules are required? I suggest a statute of limitations on the same basis that the other basic rules are needed: The ArbCom does not have quite enough CS&GJ. Paul Beardsell 22:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

As usual, we disagree; I think the ArbCom should have a fair number of rules it should be governed by, which should be voted on by the community. The scope of interpretation they get (and which enforcing sysops also get) needs to be narrowed considerably. I for one do not simply trust the ArbCom to apply good judgment and common sense, and we both know that there are quite a number of users who feel that way. Everyking 03:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it's telling how many of those users are under sanction by the arbcom. Snowspinner 04:51, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's telling how many ArbCom cases one brings. Paul Beardsell 22:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't. When I first started at Wikipedia, I thought the ArbCom was a perfectly good thing (it had just been in business for about a month then, I believe). Over time I became more concerned about harsh rulings and occasionally complained. But it wasn't under I was myself a victim that I really started to scream about it. It tends to be those who lose the battles who are the most aware of the ArbCom's failings and abuses. Everyking 05:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Can you be more explicit? What limitations on ArbCom, precisely, do you propose? Formulate a policy, and solicit comment—this is a wiki, after all. You've repeatedly expressed a lack of confidence in the competence, common sense, motives, and impartiality of ArbCom. You want to narrow their scope and enforcement powers. Fine—stop throwing tomatoes; we already know that you don't like the way ArbCom operates. Make a constructive suggestion. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 03:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I have written a bit on my user page, the four points for reform, which I think would make a good starting point for consideration. Everyking 04:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I trust the arbcom to use good judgement when looking at someone's behavior, and not be hamstrung by some arbitrary statute of limitations. If there was an incident that happened months ago and is not relavant to a given situation, I don't expect the arbcom to make a big deal out of it. Or, to put it another way, I think the arbcom's judgement will produce better results than ill-thought-out, mechanical rules which were made just for the sake of making rules. →Raul654 01:50, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

But, in case any other readers don't know, you are on the ArbCom! You trust yourself, fair enough, but that ought not to be enough for us to trust you. Paul Beardsell 08:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

but that ought not to be enough for us to trust you. - The WHOLE IDEA OF THE ARBCOM is that it is a group of people we trust to exercise good judgement. If you don't trust us fine, don't vote for us. On the other hand, the rest of the community does seem to trust us, or presumably they wouldn't have elected us. →Raul654 22:21, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

No. The ArbCom was elected not for us to abdicate our own responsibility in deciding who to trust. You should have said: "The ArbCom is a group of people who we expect to exercise good judgement". You should be striving to earn our trust and then to keep it. It's a hard job and not one I would take but you took it. But, no, you didn't take that job! As your above posting and other postings by you and some other ArbCom members amply demonstrates, you think we should trust you because you are on the ArbCom! Such a fundamental misunderstanding, if you truly hold it, is profoundly disappointing. It should be enough for us to call for your resignation. Paul Beardsell 23:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Psb777, you still haven't answered my questions above. Briefly—what indication is there that the ArbCom is wasting time (and harming Wikipedia) by considering long-dormant issues? Implementing a policy that "solves" a not-clearly-extant problem and carries the potentially unpleasant side effects thoroughly enumerated above strikes me as both unnecessary and probably harmful. The term "instruction creep" is meant to be pejorative—Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and the pursuit of unnecessary policy is deliberately discouraged.

It would also be disingenuous for us to ignore the fact that you are involved in an Arbitration hearing right now. For the sake of clarifying any potential perceived conflict of interest, how might you see a statute of limitations being applied to or affecting the matter being heard? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 02:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

My raising of this issue is, on the face of it, entirely self-serving and I will return to that in my next posting but it is my turn to cook supper. But I am also a passionate Wikipedian keenly interested in the ongoing success of the project. I have said to on a number of occasions that the likes of Wikipedia shows that largely unregulated communities do work. There is an increasing authoritarianism in the USA and in the UK, once one could do anything that wasn't expressly forbidden, more and more we have the European model, you can't do anything unless it is expressly permitted. And this "creep" (!) towards authoritarianism is happening here too. I have two or three times in the last 18 months tried to persuade sysops/admins that they have no special priveleges over others when it comes to editing articles, but this seems to be an uphill battle. Now we have an authoritarian ArbCom which, I contend, is not open to proper debate on its procedures or to questioning of its decisions. As you would expect, those who want there to be such a body or to be part of it do not seem to be liberals at heart. (If you're one of those who think liberal is a swear word, so be it.) Paul Beardsell 05:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

My world! That was pompous, even for me. But see this for an alternative statement which explains my view a little more eloquently. Now, as to how a statute of limitations would effect the ArbCom case in which I am involved: Grunt leapt upon this case with unseemly haste, voting for its adoption before hearing a word from me, declaring "Accept - this is indeed a full scale edit war in progress." What did Grunt do here? Misread 2004 as 2005? And the rest of the ArbCom guys piled in. Formal defined period or informal ad hoc period for a statute of limitations, it seems to me that 10 months is too long ago. Throw the case out. Tkorrovi wastes your time: There was not a current situation to be arbitrated. Paul Beardsell 06:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Continuing course of conduct

According to my quick glance at the record in the particular case of Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell, each of them edited the Artificial consciousness article on March 28, 2005 (each with sharply worded edit summaries), and Tkorrovi filed the RfAr later that same day. The proponents of a statute of limitations should explain exactly what it would prohibit under such circumstances. As an analogy, under New York law, if a patient was in the care of a particular physician, and later charges medical malpractice, the statute of limitations doesn't even begin to run as long there's a continuing course of care, i.e., as long as the patient is still being treated by that physician. The patient could sue for alleged acts of malpractice that occurred early in the relationship, even if they were several years ago. Would a Wikipedia statute of limitations follow the same rule? If so, a statute of limitations would not have barred Tkorrovi's RfAr unless the statute were measured in hours. If, on the other hand, such a rule would not be followed, then the statute of limitations would have the effect of pushing people into arbitration, discouraging them from waiting to see if particular discussions on the talk page or in mediation might result in an acceptable resolution. JamesMLane 10:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The Tkorrovi/Beardsell interaction on 27/28 March 2005 could not by any stretch of anybody's imagination be termed "personal abuse". What Tkorrovi's problem with that interaction is only he can make clear. That this was the trigger for the oh-so-quick filing of the RfA makes me think that Tk was gleeful I had edited his non-encyclopaedic and non-grammatical edits of those two days. I note that others later soon afterwards re-did my edits of the 27/28 March 2005 so I contend that those edits were apt. Those edits were not grounds for a RfA. His edits were not good, I fixed the article, he reverted and tried again, others then re-did what I had tried to do and Tk let those efforts stand. With Tk it is an established pattern that it matters not what is written but who writes it. I made two edits, the first in months to the article, Tkorrovi squeals (with delight?) and Grunt accepts the RfA: "Accept - this is indeed a full scale edit war in progress." Jesus wept! In progress? Anyway, to address more directly JamesMLane's analogy: Yes. If a situation is on-going then the statute of limitation runs from the last occurrence. The 27/28 March interaction was not an occasion of "personal abuse" (not that I admit others were but this is vey plain for 27/28 March) so the clock does not start to run again from 27/28 March. It is for this reason that I asked the ArbCom (NO RESPONSE YET) to just make a preliminary ruling as to which of the many accusations by Tkorrovi are prima facie without substance or, as I contend, vexatious. Because then, I contend, the ArbCom will see that I am being asked to defend accusations of behaviour which, bad or not (I think not), were 10 months old when the RfA was raised. Paul Beardsell 21:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

My last substantial edit before March 28 was December 2, 2004, and this also almost led to edit war with Paul's friend (and former boss as he says himself) Matthew Stannard, who promptly came to defend 80.3.32.9, when he deleted the article's whole talk page (mentioned in arbitration evidence) and wanted to delete the whole article, and replace it with text written only by him, without discussing it with anybody either. But just differently from Paul Beardsell and Matthew Stannard, it was possible to solve even such serious disputes with other users, 80.3.32.9 agreed to add his changes normally, and everything was solved. The problem remained, that I was almost unable to edit the article, knowing that every time I try, an edit war and personal attacks follow from these two. After that, I only edited talk page, Cimon Avaro talk page, and mediation page, where Paul Beardsell used personal attacks against me again. Before March 28 I made only two small edits in the article (adding a link and changing a link). So in March 28, 2005, I made first substantial edit of the article in 4 months, and as I could guess, at once when I started to edit the article, Paul Beardsell reverted my changes, used personal attacks, and reverted my (different) changes again, without any rational explanation. Later the article was changed the way I wanted by others. So this finally assured me that Paul Beardsell wants to make it impossible for me to edit the article, using personal attacks and edit wars. I had not made any text changes in the article in 4 months, because I did not want a conflict with Paul Beardsell. And I avoided editing the article for periods of times earlier for that same reason. This is why on March 28, 2004, I decided to submit the request for arbitration. This was the last resort, I want to solve conflicts by agreement, and I succeeded in that with others like 80.3.32.9, in spite of great difficulties, but in spite of my efforts to avoid conflicts with Paul Beardsell, nothing helped for almost a year.Tkorrovi 23:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I started writing a detailed rebuttal to Tkorrovi's contribution above which misrepresents and twists what occurred. But that is for the arbitration case. Here I am trying to establish that the RfA was out-of-time. So I simply ask this question. In what way are my only Tkorrovi-related edits for months, viz the two edits of 27 March and 28 March, personal attacks? Certainly my edit comments could be more temperate, but Tkorrovi's edits could not be allowed to stand and others did not allow them to stand. Within hours Jayjg too had reverted Tkorrovi's additions to the article, without complaint by Tkorrovi depite Jayjg's less than complimentary edit comment. So, inconsistently, what I did was a personal attack but what Jayjg did was not. I contend no reasonable person would hold the events of 27/27 March were personal attacks on Tkorrovi. So, when was the last so-called "personal attack" by me of him? Paul Beardsell 01:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

You see, I don't know Jayjg, he never edited the article before, and I don't think that one must be punished for a single mistake. Yes the comment of his "minor" change was not very much better than yours, rather partly copied from yours, two people usually don't have so exactly the same opinion, unless they don't much think, and repeat what others do. You in your corresponding revert called "non-grammatical", "non-sequiter" (what that means? sequitur?) and "unfixable" a definition exactly copied from a peer-reviewed paper (with stated source). My that change was later partly restored by others.Tkorrovi 02:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg doesn't need defending by me but he does not go around copying what I do. It must be an extraordinary coincidence if both of us made the same "mistake" in reverting Tkorrovi's edit and both of us refer to it as non-grammatical. I suggest another explanation is more likely. In any event, Tkorrovi does not show I made a "personal attack" on him 27/28 March. Paul Beardsell 03:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

As I said, he likely did not think much, he added "incomprehensible", so he simply did not understand.Tkorrovi 03:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Tk, you can create an RfA against him in 10 months time if you like but, in the meantime, please do answer the question I ask. Paul Beardsell 03:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Read the evidence.Tkorrovi 03:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Tk, with the greatest possible respect, you don't seem to have read my statement: I am not admitting to having made unwarranted or punishable "personal attacks" against you. I cannot therefore identify evidence of a "personal attack" without damaging my case. Besides some of the evidence you present is complimentary of me. I might be suspected of not picking the right evidence. You have to answer: When was the last time I made a "[personal attack]" against you? Paul Beardsell 04:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

So, we have established 27/28 March was not a personal attack by me on Tkorrovi. When, then, was my last so-called "personal attack" on him? Paul Beardsell 03:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

In the evidence I called that one, you so much talked about here, a consensus issue, you reverted my changes without explaining a deletion, I made different changes which I thought may please you more, you reverted these too, and your only explanation was an absurd negative comment.Tkorrovi 14:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I thank the two disputants here for providing a perfect example of why we shouldn't have a formal statute of limitations. Paul Beardsell says: "If a situation is on-going then the statute of limitation runs from the last occurrence." In a case like this one, the RfAr could therefore generate a subsidiary dispute about whether the situation is ongoing, or when it ceased to be ongoing. Was the edit of thus-and-such a date part of the same dispute as the earlier ones? This would be one aspect of the wikilawyering that TenOfAllTrades and Raul654 warned of. JamesMLane 03:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

That the disputants carry on above a civilised discussion about the facts of the case is not evidence of any on-going situation that needs arbcom intervention; it is simply the type of discussion that frequently occurs between contributors on all manner of topics on talk pages where some fact or other is queried. What we have above is Paul asking for cited instances of "personal attacks", with dates, so that a view can be taken of how long ago the last personal attack occurred, and Tkorrovi apparently misunderstanding this request, or at least not providing the sought after information. It's that simple. Matt Stan 07:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

It is perhaps worth noting that official policy at wikipedia:personal_attack doesn't actually define what a personal attack is, and only provides a non-exhaustive list of examples. I have elsewhere made what I think is an important distinction between a personal attack and an impersonal attack. To say "your grammar is faulty" might (disregarding whether or not it is factual) be construed as an impersonal attack, whereas to say "you are illiterate" (again disregarding whether that is a fact) might be construed as a personal attack. Innuendo, the making of a statement that might make the reader draw some conclusion without actually stating that conclusion, surely does not come into the category of a personal attack. So the posting of a picture of a monkey (with some humans, and without accompanying that posting with a statement like "you are a monkey") cannot be deemed as a personal attack. If someone, feeling they might be under attack, acts in a paranoid way by assuming that the picture of the monkey was indended to be a picture of them, then that is their problem. Put more starkly, the official policy indicates that a death threat is a personal attack, but someone behaving in a way calculated to make you want to kill them and then claiming that you want to kill them when you haven't actually said so is more akin to trolling. Matt Stan 07:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes this monkey thing was more precisely described there [15]. Personal attack is not necessarily only one sentence or something which a person says in one place. Sometimes it is about what someone said together with his other statements, which makes it possible to interpret beyond doubt, what he meant by what he said.Tkorrovi 17:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Serious objection -- punishing a user for attacks made against him

In the finding of fact (Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell case) only 1 out of 10 personal attacks mentioned was by me and even this was about how I named Paul Beardsell's personal attack against me. And as a remedy, I was proposed to be indefinitely banned from editing the article. This is severely unjust, any punishment must be proportional to the misconduct. You give me an indefinite ban for a single comment, equal to indefinite ban to Paul Beardsell for numerous personal attacks against me during a year, which, as you see, I did not reply with personal attacks, except maybe only once (I'm human), in spite of everything which I might feel, I think this is civil behaviour. I'm going to be punished for attacks made against me.Tkorrovi 17:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

My proposal for the remedy (making as light changes in your wording as possible):

1) Due to a demonstrated inability to work with each other on artificial consciousness and personal attacks, Tkorrovi is prohibited from editing that article for three months, and Paul Beardsell is prohibited from editing that article indefinitely.

Objectively analyzing both my mistakes, and the behaviour of Paul Beardsell, I think it would be just. Any joint appeal to stop the ban, is a very bad solution, as I feel that Paul Beardsell is much less interested in editing the article, has much less respect towars the article (an attempts of wholesale blank of the article) than I do. Also that does not ease the punishment against me, as it depends on many circumstances not dependent on me, like, say, Paul Beardsell leaves the Wikipedia etc. I made more contributions in Wikibooks etc, but in Wikipedia I mostly edited Artificial consciousness article, so the punishment is also much more severe for me, than for Paul Beardsell, for me it is almost equal to banning me from Wikipedia forever.Tkorrovi 18:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

So, as I understand, in accordance with finded fact, I would be indefinitely banned for this single personal attack: "No, the only logical reason I find for being persecuted by you now already a month, is racism. I would be thankful if anybody can suggest another reason."

It seems other instances have now been found. What say you now? Paul Beardsell 19:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, I ask an apology from Paul Beardsell. I was extremely frustrated of his treatment of me, he calling me a monkey, doubt whether I'm human etc. I was really out of clue how to name it, I should call it a personal attack, really sorry, people can sometimes make mistakes, when they are frustrated. I understand it well, and as you see always in the future I called his attacks personal attacks. What now banning me indefinitely would improve? And I was frustrated due to his personal attacks, so, if that remedy remains in force. attacking someone personally is an efficient and legitimate method of getting rid of a user in Wikipedia. Must it be so? I'm also not so bad person, if you ever knew me, in spite oll difficult circumstances I now have conflicts only with Paul Beardsell and his friend Matthew Stannard. Unfortunately not so many people edited Artificial consciousness, and personal attacks against me could give a bad impression of me for many, so I had not much possibility to become known for many others. Very sad, especially considering that I may say good bye to you all very soon.Tkorrovi 18:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

This is variously sometimes stretching a point to incredulity or just plain old misrepresentation. Paul Beardsell 19:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I submitted this request for arbitration against Paul Beardsell as a last remedy, but the last remedy seems to be much more simple here -- to go away.Tkorrovi 18:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

About the other instances see the end of this section [16] on the arbitration talk page, here is not a proper place to talk about all particulars of the arbitration case. I explained why these instances don't qualify to be personal attacks, more interestingly, one link to something what doesn't look like a personal attack, was added two times in finding of fact (different url-s though, but the same text).Tkorrovi 21:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Relax, there aren't any findings of fact yet. One of the arbitrators has just put up some proposals and they'll all get a chance to vote on them. They'll each weigh the evidence before deciding, and they try to look at all the circumstances. Only the proposed findings of fact that get a majority support will count as findings of fact, and will be used in weighing up the remedy, and will be included in the ruling. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it seems not that way, voting is already going on, these are my last days in Wikipedia.Tkorrovi 22:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Really, no need to get worked up. Grunt and David Gerard are in agreement that you've both made "frequent and innumerable personal attacks on each other," but Ambi has voted "oppose" with the comment "Need to see more evidence with Tkorrovi before I'd support this." Unless there is evidence to support this, I don't think you have anything to worry about. Even if this is agreed, only a personal attack parole is being proposed. This would mean that either of you could be blocked by an administrator for up to 24 hours any time you make what he judges to be a personal attack. As long as you don't go around attacking people, you'll be okay. Since you shouldn't be attacking people in th first place, it's hardly what I'd call an onerous remedy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Except that there are instances of supposed "personal attack" alleged by Tkorrovi which are no such thing and which the ArbCom accepts as such, unreasonably. Paul Beardsell 19:40, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Ha ha, I don't attack people, I defend myself when attacked. But anyway, thank you for trying to give me hope. I created artificial consciousness article, don't know whether anyone else did that, but of course, that article can do without me. If there is no me, no you, everything goes on, if there will not be half of the users in Wikipedia, Wikipedia goes on. The problem is, that we should defend freedom. If personal attacks are the way to get rid of a user, then there would be no freedom soon, some group of not so honest people would quite quickly take over. You think that all honest people would come together and defend themselves? No, this is often not what happens. Yes it would be an encyclopedia still, but it would lack all the qualities it has now.Tkorrovi 12:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I think this kind of a parole encourages one to take the high road. That way, the person who makes a personal attack gets blocked, while the one who turned the other cheek and made no reply gets to keep on trucking. --Deathphoenix 14:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

No, you cannot make a saint of me. Here are presently not so many saints anyway.Tkorrovi 14:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Neither saint nor martyr. If Tkorrovi goes, I go too! (Only kidding). As I have to do again and again I point out that Tkorrovi's interpretation of events is not correct. Others should read past this bluster and do what it seems the ArbCom itself has not done, and peruse the artificial consciousness article edit history, but especially read the chat on it's talk page and the archives of the talk page to properly understand what has occurred. Paul Beardsell 21:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes I think the arbitrators should take their time to read all the arbitration case thoroughly.Tkorrovi 00:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

In the past, it has not been uncommon for us to be presented with 100, 200, even 300 kilobytes of ranting as "evidence" (and I use the term loosely). If you think we're going over that nonsense with a fine toothed comb, you are sadly mistaken. We expect parties to arbitration to present to present evidence that is both concise and coherent. →Raul654 01:51, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

All I ask is that you examine Tkorrovi's "evidence" to see if it supports his allegations. To do that you must actually follow the links he provides and read a little around those links. You do need to look at the edit history to judge if an edit war is "in progress", for example. Grunt should have done so. And the edit history shows me being patient but persistent with Tkorrovi and him being, by his own measure, insulting of me. So just a brief glimpse behind the veil of Tkorrovi's so-called evidence shows a diffferent picture. Paul Beardsell

It is for arbitrators to decide, I made my evidence as short as I could, mostly wrote all Paul's personal attacks on the talk page, which I could find. All the nonsense there is on the talk page is indeed not worth reading, the problem is that working together, and a constructive dialog, needs at least two constructive people, interested in the dialog, not getting rid of other. But from time to time some co-operation was possible even in these conditions.Tkorrovi 03:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The Talk:Artificial consciousness page is worth reading. It (and its archives) show exactly what was going on. In particular it makes a lie of Tkorrovi's repeated false descriptions of his and others' behaviour. Do not let Tkorrovi dissuade you from reading the evidence. He attempts to do so for the obvious self-serving reason. Paul Beardsell 23:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you want to say that somewhere, on the article's talk page, there is a place where all my not yet found personal attacks against you are present?Tkorrovi 21:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Not only personal attacks, but a whole set of behaviours by you which are anti-wikipedic. Paul Beardsell 22:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you always observe the Wikipedia policies?Tkorrovi 23:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you admitting and attempting to justify your bad behaviour on that basis? Paul Beardsell 03:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Why cannot you answer to my question?Tkorrovi 03:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Thing is, we've all been where you have been. We've all encountered pretty much the same kinds of situations you have encountered. For some reason things didn't work out between you and Paul. Well now the arbitrators are picking up the pieces. Did you grant him the benefit of the doubt? Did you, in other words, assume good faith? Did you attempt, seriously, to make piece with him? These are important questions. They will be asked and an answer will be found. If you have kept to Wikipedia policy then there is no problem. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes there were numerous efforts by me to give Paul a benefit of doubt, and to go on peacefully. Unfortunately it would be too long to add it here. It is about details of a particular case, and not directly about general principles, so doesn't necessarily interest people on this talk page. So I replied on arbitration case talk page [17]. Tkorrovi 16:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

If you ask me, "assume good faith" has been sucked dry of all its meaning and is now nothing more than a club to beat people with. Which I think is kind of ironic and sad. Everyking 17:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" has only one meaning, which is always true, not depentent on the circumstances. And it is that when I start to talk to someone I didn't know before, I have no prejudices about that person, no matter who he is or what he does. It is only when I discuss with him when I find out whether his intentions are good or bad etc. But if one does something against you, then many efforts are necessary from both sides to restore good faith.Tkorrovi 17:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Tkorrovi is right about "good faith": It is a term which should be well understood. Yet he repeatedly reverted edits made by me but let stand the same edits made anonymously or, seemingly, by another user. So, it seems, understanding the what the term means is not enough. (I note that comments such as my previous sentence are identified as "personal attack" by Tkorrovi.) But this misrepresentation of what occurred has been typical of Tkorrovi in his evidence presented to the ArbCom. (Ditto, that I point out his bad faith in the RfA is once again taken as a "personal attack". I suppose I must learn to use the weasel words used by others here.) Paul Beardsell 19:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Show your evidence where I repeatedly reverted edits made by you, but please do that in the arbitration case, not here. You again and again refer to that one edit war, I explained that in my reply to Tony Sidaway above, there some of your changes were only moving parts of text to different places, with no obvious reason. You used sock puppets during that edit war, and pretended that many people support a particular change, and now you accuse me in accepting a change which seemingly many people supported. I did not revert your additions after that, I did let you add whatever you liked, even if I found it obviously wrong, all in the name of consensus.Tkorrovi 20:03, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that if a lie is repeated often enough it becomes the truth. Over and over again Tkorrovi makes these vexatious allegations without providing evidence to support them. Sometimes he does provide "evidence" but it does not support his allegations. But here he does not even do this: As anyone who followed what happened, or who has read my (draft) evidence will understand: I did use ONE sock puppet, not sock puppets (misleading allegation by Tkorrovi). I used it not to show support by many for my view (false allegation by Tkorrovi) but because Tkorrovi routinely was reverting edits by me. I logged out. He would not allow anonymous edits, reverting those. I created the user Ataturk and "his" edits were allowed to stand. Tkorrovi continuously misrepresents what happened. Me pointing this out should never be understood to be a "personal attack". Paul Beardsell 21:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

You used two sock puppets, Ataturk and your ip address, as I didn't know your ip address then.Tkorrovi 21:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, let the record simply show Tkorrovi once again denies what is plain to anyone interested in the truth. Here, interested reader, look at the nature of the edits and of the edit comments by Tkorrovi, by me and by others to see the nature of what really has been going on. See in particular 9 Mar 2004, 14 Mar 2004, 4 April 2004, 4 May 2004, 8 May 2004, 1 Dec 2004, 2 Dec 2004 where there are numerous reverts by Tkorrovi of good edits (earlier of me and others, later just of others as I had left long ago) and a display by him of all the things he has accused me of in the RfA. In my (draft) evidence I identify Ugen64 telling Tkorrovi to allow others to edit "Tkorrovi's article". Paul Beardsell 21:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Ugen64 said his opinion on the evidence page, all I possibly did wrong was only worth of 24h block.Tkorrovi 21:48, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Again and again and again Tkorrovi has misrepresented what occurred and he does so again. This, apparently, one can do in evidence to the Arbitrary Committee with complete impunity. Advice to litigants before the ArbCom: Just say anything you like, it won't be checked. Paul Beardsell 21:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

"Good faith" and Tkorrovi: What Chinasaur said. Paul Beardsell 21:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, please discuss these things in arbitration case. Here [18] is a long discussion with Chinasaur, what he said about me was not correct, and there is a reason to consider that he now admits it. Everything between me and Chinasaur is solved now, I, and I'm the most sure also he, wants to forget it now. You asked his help against me rather unnecessarily.Tkorrovi 22:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I did not ask for his help. I simply messaged most all those who had been involved at AC to comment on your RfA. And I did so in "good faith". Paul Beardsell 23:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

During this one edit war we so much talk here about, you asked help from Ugen64 against me. I have not seen where you did that, maybe on irc or something. I don't know what you said about me or what you asked, but the fact is that immediately after Ugen64 came to help you, this comment by Chinasaur mentioned above appeared on Ugen64 talk page, so in a way or another it was his response to your complaint against me.Tkorrovi 00:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

But of course, it is entirely possible to create principles, to be used as a "club to beat people", though I want to believe that it doesn't happen. For example, a hypothetical situation, one may produce false accusations against someone, and do it a lot. Instead of reading such long evidence, it may be more convenient to think that a accuses b in many things, and b accuses a in many things (maybe in presenting wrong accusations), therefore they are both guilty that they did not become friends. Even worse for b if he does not respond, probably didn't happen, but if measures are taken, then he is in even worse position. Others may also not well understand if b asks them whether he is a camel or not.Tkorrovi 23:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

This I find difficult to follow. Are you saying you now want to forget it all and withdraw your request for arbitration? Paul Beardsell 23:46, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Is there someone else who may understand it that way? No, I don't want to withdraw my request for arbitration. It was a reply to Everyking, about a hypothetical situation, when a principle may become a "club to beat people" as he said. It is not exactly about the case I submitted, just discussing things in general.Tkorrovi 23:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

"I have not taken other steps because they would be pointless."

In the new RFAr against Jguk, Slrubenstein has said "I have not taken other steps because they would be pointless." Surely it shouldn't therefore be allowed to proceed? violet/riga (t) 22:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Not quite - a lack of mediation/RFC may be a reason the ArbCom chooses not to accept a case, but said lack doesn't oblige us not to accept a case - David Gerard 21:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

accept/reject/recuse/other explanation

I'm sure there used to be a note somewhere on the page that explained that the x/x/x/x tally of arbitrtator's opinions refers to the number who have voted accept/reject/recuse/other. I would add this back in, as I think its rather useful, but I am not sure where it would be best (and can't remember where on the page it used to be). It should be before the current requests section, imho; however putting it in the template would mean it would get copied everywhere (adding to clutter, and making it pointless to have a separate tally and explanation rather than "0 accept/0 reject/0 recuse/0 other" - which imho is harder to read). Putting it immediately before the TOC would be a useful place, but look and feel rather out of place.

• Should we add this explnation back in?
• If so, where on the page should we put it? Thryduulf 15:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't notice that was taken out. Back in. Note that no arb com member is required to update that, and the numbers therefore may or may not be correct. --mav 22:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

A message for the ArbCom

Mperel has asked me to convey this message to you: Mperel is preparing evidence for the Jguk case, but had to leave town for a funeral and will be off-line for a week. MPerel asks for your patience, and will provide the evidence after the funeral. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:52, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

It's already been rejected (and not because of lack of evidence), so I don't think there's any need to worry. Ambi 15:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

There are/were two RfArs against Jguk. The one on his change of BCE/CE is hearing evidence. The other one on style-usage was rejected because it was too content oriented. I think Slrubenstein might be refering to the first. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 15:26, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

Lulu is correct — thanks for clarifying for me. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Zivinbudas

Re: David Gerard's comments on this case, please see my idea for a possible (future) way to deal with this situation at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Short term blocking of anon users from a given ip range. Thryduulf 08:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

David pointed to MediaWiki bug 550 which apparently is an open feature request. Maybe refine this request and add your ideas there as well, as it would be better noticed (and discussed) there ? Lysy 09:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)