Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 5

9469:

discussion on the talk page after witnessing the link being removed without a reason being given. The link was originally provided by user Lovelight from what I had seen. So while I did not pull in a third party or goto RfC, I was the one who attempting to discuss the issue and frame the debate for it to be discussed. Some of my reverts are reverting people who did not even leave edit summaries, like Tom Harrison, who did not give a reason ever in his edit summary for why it should be removed. If I am to be punished for "edit warring", then tis only fair that Tom Harrison, RX Strangelove and all other users participating receive the same punishment for also participating, and perhaps a greater for not even attempting to discuss the issue, where I at least did that. I would also like to note that RX filed his complaint in retaliation for me asking on AN/I for someone to get Tom to participate, the complaint was made the same day, an hour after my AN/I post which did not even mention them, showing its in bad faith. I would also like to point out that I did work with one user who was open to discussion, that being PTR, who myself and them felt that narrowing the link to the specific day of the 9/11 attacks would be a fair middleground, and it was done and Lovelight was asked to agree and they did. --

9448:). I looked into the situation, and found an edit war over the insertion of an external link. I counted 18 insertions of the link by 5 editors (11 by NuclearUmpf) and 17 removals by 7 editors over 7 days, with no attempts made to follow any dispute resolution process (third opinion, RFC or mediation). There was extensive discussion on the talk page but it was fruitless, as it revolved around whether the link met the external link policy, rather than what seems to me the more important issue of even if it does, should it be included as a matter of editorial judgement. I offered an opinion on the link, and declined to enforce NuclearUmpf's probation, as he was only one of twelve people involved in an edit war, including at least one admin, none of whom sought help through the dispute resolution process (I left open the possibility of future action if Nuclear continues to fight the issue after DR). 6177:

his will over all others and childishly followed those who have prevented his ownership. Since the user's interest is confined to pop idols, he's going to go into all of them and exert the same basic habits and personality. So, if EM is one of our best pop idol editors who does not engage in hostile editing and doesn't get injunctions laid on him, sooner or later HW/EE/V will show up (not to mention the vindictive element left over from EM's evidence in the rfar) and begin doing the same things he has done consistently. At that point, EM is not an involved editor: EM is an editor who has been involved. I.e. he did not initiate a conflict with EE/HW/V, but had V/EE/HW attach himself to EM's ongoing edits. The block is consistent with trying to prevent continual disruption of editing on these subjects. The RFAR demonstrated that the problem user had been remarkably consistent and unchanged in a

1156:

heavy on SPUI". Or anyone else. I just want to get to a resolution. Third, to the points raised elsewhere about new spirits of consensus, and does that contravene what I said about more new proposals being not helpful... well if everyone previously blocking working to a solution shifts, and with some compromise, everyone comes to a consensual acceptance of whatever state of affairs works for most everyone... great! That would be awesome, trust me when I say I would love to see that more than anyone. But if this lull goes back to disruptive behaviour, then I will seek to apply remedies. Hence my seeking clarification, even if the lull apparently continues, I don't want to (or whoever shouldn't have to) come back here later because I (or whoever) don't have what is needed. OK that was three things. :) ++

4929:) which is no longer an issue, nor is there a community ban against me as that proposal was defeated. This is therefore a request for probation for a case where there has never been a "trial" and is therefore inappropriate. If and when there is some sort of disruptive editing it would be in order to pursue an RFA through normal channels but this sort of a priori action is out of order. However, this request has been prompted not by "disruptive editing" but by content dispute and is an attempt by the person who prompted it to gain advantage in a content dispute through administrative means. I suggest that ArbComm members who wish to support this talk to Jimbo *first*. At the very least no action should be taken without a full and fresh RFA being undertaken. 1227:

amount of dissent is within that community standard. This is not the strict definition of consensus, but Knowledge-brand consensus. Under that system, it is possible to identify this 59% vote as "consensus" provided that the community (especially administrators) is willing to enforce it. Especially in light of the fact that arbitrary decisions are better than indecision, I believe that we ought to do so; if we enforce it, it's as god as done. While there is no reason to stifle productive discussion and comprommise, I'm fairly certain that the community, as well, is at the point of enforcing the result of the poll as the less disruptive of the available options, in an effort to end the agony of this debate.

3708:

only disrupts articles about birds, he can still edit Star Trek articles. There is very little precedent (as yet) for a community imposed article ban, so this would be difficult to apply to new editors. Second, it lifts somewhat the need to take an editor through all the prior steps of dispute resolution. A new editor who is disruptive needs to be treated per WP:BITE and helped, guided, hand-held, or whatever, until it becomes absolutely neccessary to impose sanctions. A prior editor on probation is on notice that, having gone through the dispute process in the past one way or another, is not entitled to the same gentle and forgiving treatment. (No opinion on the issue lifting probation in

2805:

beyond reasonable doubt she had harassed myself and other users, allowing her to have things her way and letting her claim ownership over even more pages, and then not doing a thing as she mysteriously parachuted her way into an article I had just edited. If that's what's now being endorsed as Knowledge policy, I'll know in future, and will call on admins (and be prepared for others to call on me) to assume someone is telling the truth even in the presence of clear and present evidence to the contrary. No, actually I'll not do that; even if the ArbCom were to approve of it, I find it incredibly foolish, and I'll not go along with it.

7262:

edits (the 4th being his revert), I see the first two were creating his user page and the picture for it, and the third was a vote opposing your promotion. After that, doing what you did to his user page could be interpreted as a reprisal — please notice, I'm not saying it was, I'm just pointing out the risk inherent in making that kind of edit in that situation. Under the circumstances, are you sure you want to follow up that interaction by bringing accusations here, given the risk of reinforcing that interpretation? I'm certainly not on ArbCom, it's just another question from a newbie.

6263:

suggestion to unblock Velten for the time being - if he decides to "grow up" as a result of this then that's that (though, unfortunately, I doubt this will happen); if he doesn't...well, he can be blocked again. (I think Geogre explained the situation accurately when he said it was a case of Velten following me across articles rather than a legitimate disagreement over content, but I'll refrain from placing blocks if I become as involved as I was before, although I didn't think I was involved too much.) I have a suspicion he's gone back to editing from his cloud of IPs anyway.

8826:. It is wrong to accuse me of "promoting LaRouche" when I have added almost no material to these articles -- I have only opposed edits that I thought were biased, or looked up sources and added them when sources were requested. As far as those other people are concerned (Herschelkrustofsky, etc.) I became aware of them for the first time when I discovered the talk page of Eurasian Land-Bridge. Apparently there was a lot of conflict between them and SlimVirgin and Will Beback. I have no interest in reviving that conflict, and it is unfair to somehow involve me in it. 3079:

on the 186.0/24 range, I'll block it too. I'm using the anon only blocking feature so the only users to be affected should be people in her local area who want to edit as anon IPs. (I should have enabled account creation, too, since the only thing we want to block is her anonymous editing.) There aren't any current autoblocks, and there shouldn't be any using the anon only feature, but if you see any you should release them. At this point the only long term solution is an arbitration that would confirm your decision to revert on sight.

2293:. Anyways, most of the edit warring that happens at the anarchism articles is due to users who are now indefinitely blocked, or sockpuppets of those users before they are blocked themselves for being socks. A lot of outsiders don't realize this, so users like Aaron will occassionally be blocked. It's understandable, and it usually gets resolved without a problem. I personally think probation is inappropriate in his case, especially considering he was never even notified. The way I see it, the case for Aaron 8909:. McCarthy was closely associated with the LaRouche movement beginning in the early '90s, when he chaired hearings into Justice Department misconduct organized by a LaRouche group, the Committee to Investigate Human Rights Violations. In '96 he signed the ads for LaRouche's exoneration that appeared in the Washington Post and Roll Call. He continued to work with LaRouche until he died last year. The dispute at the LaRouche article is over whether the arbcom decision prohibits the use of a quote from 39: 6141:

ban. Also, while I understand EM's comment about arbitration remedies being permissive, not limiting, I do note that the remedy is quite specific about allowing Velten to be blocked for a week; after 5 offenses, the maximum block time increases to a year. I personally would perfer to follow that schedule; if Velten is as disruptive as EM says then it won't be long before she reaches the 6th block, which could easily be 3 weeks or a month with no disagreement.

9003:(partisan to right,) both of which cover much the same range of issues as EIR does. Would these publications then also be considered original research? I am also asking for further clarification on whether Eugene McCarthy should not be considered part of the LaRouche movement, since this issue remains unresolved at the Lyndon LaRouche talk page. His involvement in the movement was quite extensive, and it would seem dishonest to write him out of the history. -- 1247:

conventions poll, and that the judges of said poll have already ruled that there is a consensus. Personally, I don't think that matters, because it's always good to have more people agree, so there's no harm in having more discussion. At worst, it's just more incivil discussion and you won't be able to tell it apart from the rest anyway, but it doesn't seem to be heading that way, and is currently being rather productive. What does the ArbCom think? --

9932:

level of suffrage required of the deciders); yes, the Commmittee is the only body currently "allowed" per policy; no, the Committee can (and does) make extraordinary remedies in exceptional circumstances (that is, apply remedies without the fag of having a case), and, more normally, can "tack on" additional remedies as and when it suits us to former cases on subsequent (and, normally, consequent) matters concerning the individuals in the previous case.

5926:) are the same editor. That is a rather bold statement since all the editors who participated in the RFAr are under no obligation to assume who is who; they have not met Adam or me and if that indeed was concluded there, it would be out of nothing more than ensuring that only one account be used to edit Knowledge, even if they felt that there really were more than one person. What alarm bells should be ringing? You need to get your facts straight. 4672:

responses and actions that he is eager and willing to comply with the arbitration and in my role as a clerk I commend his queries to the Committee, While this is clearly a dispute that could have become very rancorous, it seems to me that Andries is doing his best to avoid that path and seek clarification. I also commend SSS108 for his civility in the course of expressing a difference of opinion in a forthright and honest manner.

4649:. Andries has not expressed any willingness to step aside even once. Andries is reintroducing controversial edits without obtaining consensus. Andries should step aside and let other editors work on the article and he would not have to be repeatedly challenged. I am not the only editor disagreeing with Andries. All the other editors disagree with him about his recent edits. Even the person who responded to his RFC 2801:

there wasn't an ArbCom ruling at the time that would allow me to "have my way" whenever I disagreed with her (which is what she's claiming on my talk page), but because I thought sooner or later she'd come round and reconsider her behaviour and attitudes towards other Knowledge users. This wasn't the reason I didn't provide evidence at the RFAr; I was just too burned by the whole affair to think about it anymore.

8135:] but have not received a response. What is the procedure for notifying arbcom that I have motions outstanding? (I had assumed the workshop page would have been kept on an arbcom member's watch list, but I am now wondering if that is the case). My motions are requesting clarification or their words, and detail on the procedure they have requested I follow in my future action. 7803:. As far as I can tell, there are no Knowledge policies/guidelines about removing Disputed tags. My question is this: is there such a policy and, if not, should there be one? I am not an expert Wikipedian; my (possibly naive) view is that it would be preferable to have some policy/guideline prohibiting removal of disputed tags while an article is being actively disputed. 2517:. There was no apology or "oops, forgot to log in" or anything of that nature, in fact the IP had already been used for another edit four minutes earlier. I assume not very much good-faith forgetfulness in this case. (I know, I know, but with respect, the arbcom hasn't already spent as much good faith on the editor as I have.) She apparently "foresaw" 9917:

Single-party state. The only things that have been done wrong there are personal attacks by Huaiwei, and an editwar also started by Huaiwei. Start an arbitration case if you want, but stop threatening to start them and stop trying to blame the dispute on somebody who is hardly even a part of the dispure. Or in short: Please lay off the intriguing. --

6549:

again in relation to Cognition, but I'd have to search for them.) ArbCom apart, the content policies indicate that LaRouche publications may only be used in articles about the LaRouche movement to make points about that movement, and may not be used as third-party sources, whether in articles about LaRouche or anywhere else. The relevant policies are

1924:

as much) that I had decided that I myself would cease attempting to enforce the remedy. I object to no other administrator who enforces it and I will take no action to challenge enforcement (I also said as much). As far as I'm concerned this remedy is a fully enforceable arbitration ruling, equal to any other arbitration ruling in its legitimacy. --

6874:. When it comes to Biographies Of Living People, the standards are higher and stricter when the material in question is critical and potentially libelous. Since this article contains critical, negative and potentially libelous information against Sathya Sai Baba, it does not (in my opinion) meet the standards for reliable sources as outlined in 2208:). As soon as they start engaging in discussion, I don't care whether or not they are sock puppets, and am happy to have them on board as long as they play nicely. If a sock puppet is obliged to edit in the best interests of the article, then there's no harm done. Unfortunately, their talk page discussions tend to descend into some nasty stuff. 8776:, including the same aggressive promotion of LaRouche that got HK into trouble. NathanDW says he's independent of the LaRouche movement but his single-minded edit history belies his claim. Both of these editors appear to be sock or meat puppets of HK, and both should be banned indefinitely based on the previous ArbCom decisions, including 6090:; I also said in that same edit that if I was going to evade my ban, I wouldn't be stupid enough to make it obvious that it was me by writing a fairly similar edit summary. And today, though I already know this will be overlooked as make believe, I found out it was indeed someone who strongly dislikes me who made those "Velten-like" edits. 7602:. I do not believe this decision was just, and I have chosen not to participate as an editor at Knowledge rather than continue editing while subject to an unjust probation. In the nearly four months since that decision, I believe, subsequent events have demonstrated rather starkly that arbitrator Fred Bauder's initial assessment of the 7228:, my complaint is for a different reason. The remarkable thing is that an uninvolved and also relatively inactive party (User:Igiveup) filing the complaint practically behalf of Moby and Him being another convicted stalker. His complaint just one hour and 30 minutes after my edit - that seems highly unlikely to be a coincidence. 4536:

without any end in sight. Regarding Pjacobi's request to step aside, I would like to point out that I am by far the greatest content creator on all articles related to Sathya Sai Baba during the past years. In the weeks that I was away from the article no new content or hardly new content was added to any of these articles.

9684:'s criticism of Sathya Sai Baba is not notable then this should be solved with an AFD (the previous one failed). It should not be solved by omitting the one fact which Priddy makes notable i.e. his websites critical of Sathya Sai Baba. Let us follow generally accepted policies and practices for the article 9119:

Our ultimate goal is an NPOV article on Masden and her controversies. This could be achieved by deleting the existing content and starting work on a new version, or it could be done by refining the existing pages. The ArbCom made no firm assertion of what path is the better one. However, deleting the

8968:

Pardon my persistence, but I am here requesting clarification, and as I understand it, this is the place to do so. Surely the policy made by the ArbCom can be explained. There must be some kind of clear criteria the the layman can understand. I am trying to find out whether this publication, EIR, has

8723:

and twice reinserted a LaRouche-related text. The Eurasian Land-Bridge is a name that some people use for parts of the Asian Highway, so the title is redirected there. However, it's also a name used for a more complex idea that LaRouche claims is his. Herschelkrustofsky/Weed Harper wrote the original

8069:

It's not that I'm in any hurry for the clarification, but this unseemly comment while we wait is more than I can stomach. I truly regret ever mentioning the matter, and urgently request the clerk—a clerk—any clerk—to remove my query and the entire thread. Don't put it on the talkpage, just get rid of

7945:

I think it's unreasonable to keep Giano from expressing his opinion because it is clear to just about anyone that he has the requisite experience with some account or another. I'd support waiving this restriction in this case. I suspect the place to ask for a waiver is on Meta though... A suggestion,

7652:

In response to the points below: a) JohnnyBGood just left the project, leaving at least a few months of good behavior behind him (from July until now). b) My block was controversial, but if my probation is not lifted for a while because of it I will understand; however it should not reflect poorly on

7387:

Whose "harassment", according to the link you provide, consists of filing a complaint — about your twice blanking out Moby's user page, and on the second occasion using your brand-new Commons admin power to protect the blanking against Moby's restore. So anyone who refers to that as abuse of power is

7015:

JBKramer, ArbCom is setting the standards. Are these the standards that ArbCom is saying are allowable? The above example shows the flaw in the reasoning of allowing stand-alone sources (which can be used and abused to push an agenda). I am surprised that no one is concerned about this. If Salon.com

6958:

I think the Salon article is a reliable source for the fact that there are numerous allegations. I would not use material regarding any particular allegation. That relies only on the victim's testimony. Any particular reported instance may easily be false. Salon is not a tabloid in the sense that its

6642:

There is an additional issue that was under consideration in the first LaRouche case - the fact that LaRouche organizations publish an extremely large amount, responding to all criticisms. Excessive citation of this material when describing controversies surrounding LaRouche leaves the mistaken sense

6577:

is correct here. The ban on LaRouche publications being used for any other subject than LaRouche and related subjects includes attempts to get around it by talking about other people on the LaRouche articles. LaRouche publications are useful sources about LaRouche's views about LaRouche himself and

6410:

I'm more than a little dubious, and I'm posting this here rather than your talk page so I can be slapped down by the arbitrators if I'm out of line. But there is nothing especially unusal about my comments; as Mindspillage has said on more than one occasion, we have no way of knowing how many banned

6200:

I'll drink to that. I just wonder that we're taking his martyrdom seriously at this particular point. He's not really complaining that newbie editor X blocked him, but that one of the people who has managed to work consensually and moderately on pop music has. EM might have been inappropriate, but

6176:

There is a really obvious problem with the logic being exerted here. This user (a school boy in Canada who uses new account names when blocked, evades blocks routinely, and does this by using his school library's computers, whatever name you want to settle on for him) has consistently gone to assert

6140:

Just to clarify, I am concerned that a three wekk ban exceeds the proscribed remedy, and I am also concerned that Extraodinary Machine may be too "involved" at this point to be making the blocks himself. However, I do not know enough about the situation to be comfortable unilaterally overturning the

5337:

which range from reasons such as "removed a template that I think should have stayed there" to assuming that I've edited from an IP address when it can't be proven. Again, I'm sure this will be ignored and removed altogether, but his abuse has got to stop. I'd provide diffs, but most are currently on

4830:

Your unending advocacy of a blocked user despite numerous inconvenient realities is the very definition of lawyering (that's exactly what lawyers do). And your claiming I've 'attacked' your attempts is ludicrous. WP is for discussion and I'm allowed to discuss just as much as you are. Calling another

3305:

says: "Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by

3009:

Velten, the 64.231.0.0 range includes 65,000 addresses, probably a library (why not) but also a big chunk of the Toronto area. We do have the capability of blocking anonymous editors but not registered users, but that is at our end, not the library, and it is not always used. The bottom line is that

2936:

The RFAR and other bookmarks at the top of my page are there for convenience, as Thatcheer says. I need them there. But I can easily change the visible part of the one affecting you to something less conspicuous. I'm sorry it never occurred to me it might be disagreeable for you the way it was. Done.

2739:

Those diffs were explained offline. The consensus of those edits were either coincidence, intentional, or I had information to update. Incase nobody has noticed, EM and I edit the vast majority of music-related articles and because of this, that's obviously not stalking. If it was, then all the edits

2226:

doesn't matter, so long as there are other people who think that it shouldn't say that, and who can back up their claims with verifiable, reliable sources. At the same time, socks of banned users should be reverted, if only because they are a nuisance. I also do not edit tendentiously. Very few of my

2199:

I try to avoid edit wars as best as possible. When I revert, I try my damnedest to revert without edit warring. Or, I only revert sock puppets of banned users, suspected or proven. I should note that I rarely revert people who are simply suspected of being sock puppets, unless they have come from out

1038:

There have been a minority of participants who have continued to argue that there is not a normal consensus here and who have ignored the above consensus to accept majority. Their actions have, in my view, been disruptive. DOES arbcom agree that arguing against this principle constitute disruption of

9994:

in relation to uncritical inclusions as factual of material on the Kennedy assassination. The Spartacus site contains unrelated historical material on many subjects. Having heard from John Simkin, and having myself linked to Spartacus pages on numerous occasions, I would like to clarify that (as far

9468:

I would like to point out that I twice asked Tom Harrison to discuss the issue on the talk page, and was twice ignored. On the third time I went to ask I found his talk page protected and made an AN/I post requesting someone ask Tom to participate in the discussion. I am also the one who started the

9284:

I'm happy to see the 4th vote to accept this RfA. Without some conclusion on the matter Robert Folsom is likely to just keep on reverting any edits that his boss doesn't like. (Un)Fortunately, it is now time for my Christmas holiday, and I will be travelling and doing all those Christmas things for

8042:

account because I did not want to be branded with Carnildo's lies on my block log for ever. It is just a pity that those that re-promoted him, did not feel the need to undo the harm he caused first. I don't want the account with that block log - because whatever anyone says "mud sticks" and if ever

8011:

Have a shrubbery, Commandante. Meanwhile, I'm hoping for clarification from the Committee, as per the heading I posted under. If there was no objection to the password thing, nothing has happened about it, either. Voting now and later having the status of the vote somehow or other "sorted out" seems

7052:

I think that any source that mixes up editorial content with regular reporting content should be treated differently than an ordinary news source, particularly when it is openly and intentionally biased in one direction as an active editorial decision. That is what Salon does and is the cause of my

6904:

considered reliable because their articles are published by reputable or reliable sources. The article in question has not been published by other reputable or reliable sources. The article looks and sounds like a tabloid-article and it is suspect for this reason alone. No one is attacking Salon.com

6696:

I think if LaRouche is defending himself against the insinuations or statements of another person, he may (perhap reasonably perhaps unreasonably, but understandably) refer to that person in negative terms and may provide reasons to doubt or question that persons motives. To allow that first person

6500:

I don't plan to replace the external link on the Lyndon LaRouche article, but I would like to know whether SlimVirgin is accurately describing the Arbitration Committee ruling, and whether it really applies to an external link on the Lyndon LaRouche article. There are about 19 footnotes and external

4815:

There's no wikilawyering, and I suggest stopping the attacks on my attempts for clarification. Jgf showed no "insistance," he called it stupid (and rightfully so) and added it abck, by my count, once. Certainly not evidence of continued disruption concerning the link. please stop and wait for us to

3014:

not be reverted at all; disruptive edits to your favorite articles using your style will be reverted and probably blamed on you. Assuming you have turned over a new leaf, you should always log in, not the least so that your good edits and good behavior are properly attributed to you. If you forget

2800:

EE/Velten's claims above shouldn't be read under the assumption that they're true; sadly, she's once again defending herself with falsehoods and misrepresentations. As the diffs above show, the harassment goes back to January, at least, and the main reason I've mostly ignored it until now isn't that

2023:

and i) have reverted his factually incorrect changes to both articles and have tried to reason with him from multiple angles and his responses is to say without any content that our explanation supports his fallacious position, to misrepresent our positions and repeat the misconception as if nothing

1370:

The user is editing by ArbCom permission, she's not banned; so could that permission be made conditional on her creating an account and being limited to using that only? I think I saw her claim a while back that she has munged the Eternal Equinox password--IIRC--but she could obviously easily create

1246:

Would it be acceptable to the ArbCom if the members of this entire debate just sat down and had a civil conversation, and reached a virtually unanimous agreement on a compromise? They seem to be on track to do this now, but some are raising concerns about being outside of the process of the naming

9654:

Probably, although I would take a look at it first. If it contains plainly false and defamatory material we should probably not link to it. if it just contains assertions that Priddy is a sorehead and exaggerates Baba's faults; it might be OK. I think there is an underlying problem with any of this

9515:

As seen through discussions, my opinion about the link is as of valid, valuable, and well cited resource. Especially if we are talking about final, well focused and narrowed version. I'd say that arguments were made clear and that continuous removal of link without proper response wasn't all right…

9083:

The Marsden RfA determined that "Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden, may, when they violate Knowledge:Biographies of living persons, be reduced to a stub by any user or deleted, together with their talk pages, by any administrator. Removal of poorly sourced negative information or of blocks of

8851:

May I also ask a question here? I read the arbcom decision, and I can find no explanation for the ban on the use of EIR as a source. EIR has been published continuously for over 30 years, and is included in the Google News feeds. Is there any evidence that there have been factual errors in EIR? Has

6407:

housemate" excuse about 10,000 times, and will now think I am hopelessly gullible. The only think I know for sure is that if checkuser ever identifies a disruptive account coming from your computer, you're going to get nailed, whether it's you, Adam, or the cat. (And I am only this gullible once.)

6275:

She also continued to harass me on the Promiscuous (song) and Loose (album) articles, the latter of which I hadn't been edit-warring with her on (partly in an attempt to get her to stop stalking me there, and on other pages, and partly to demonstrate that the blocks had nothing to do with me trying

6210:

There is little practical difference between a series of one-week blocks and a longer block, except that other editors will have to put up with a small number of disruptive edits to trigger each successive one week block. Without an amendment from Arbcom, it seems that longer blocks are disfavored

5961:

claiming "As well as harassing other users, you should be warned about disrupting articles by edit warring, which your ArbCom case prevents you from doing". The only logical assumption is that he posted the link to the ArbCom case in order to break my defense down in case others read the talk page.

5617:

This is a rather long response, so please bear with me. I agree with Bishonen here, with the exception that I wouldn't really say there is a content dispute (if that's what is meant by "dispute"), because a) I'd stopped edit-warring with Velten before the three-week block, or the one-week block for

3608:

Basically, the only thing that bugs me is the word "probation." I have to ask, if there was no probation, wouldn't it be the same? Considering that if other users did the same actions they would be blocked too? I'm not asking for the probation to be removed right now, I'm just seeing how I would go

3283:

disruptive, and was going to ban you from the article until I saw that you and Luc were talking nicely on the talk page. Your interpretation of reliable source policy is frankly ridiculous in this case. You can not exclude newspaper articles as sources just because Mr. Belien says in his own blog

3078:

Well, XXXXX has the 203.54.0.0/16 range (65,000 addresses) but lately she has only used 203.54.186.0/24 and 203.54.9.0/24, each of which range includes only 256 addresses. My guess is that only certain ranges are available to certain telephone exchanges or neighborhoods. If she comes back tonight

2957:

The point is that IP edits to your favorite articles in your characteristic style may be reverted in order to create an incentive for you to stick to an account. I suspect if library users edit other articles no one will notice or care. As for the talk page, it looks like bookmarks to things that

2804:

Fast forward to a few months later, and EE/Velten's still trying to pull off his usual shenanigans. Now, it didn't occur to me to take the novel (at least to me) course of ignoring overwhelming evidence (including an MSN chat I had with EE herself, in which I told her I owned the album) that proved

2173:

One always walks a thin line while trying to improve controversial articles. I have had the benefit of working with several excellent editors from all sides of the ideological spectrum. In fact, I'm amazed at how some people can have such strong feelings about either side of an issue and still work

1923:

It's my personal opinion, made as a Knowledge editor. My role as an arbitration committee clerk means that sometimes things I say may be misinterpreted, and I apologise for unintentionally misleading anybody into thinking that my opinion is worth more than anybody else's. I only meant (and I said

1660:

trolling?) is disruptive enough. Most of my edits since September 5 have been neutral and what you establish as "disruptive" has been far less than that. My last edit has nothing to do with "the others believing you now"; I stated that editing anonymously is sufficient to me because I'm not editing

9931:

More clearly (;-)): no, admins can't (yet) decide to place a user on 1RR (this is the "law" of policy, not us - if you want to make it so, try to convince the community into making it policy, though personally I think it unlikely to make it, and not a terribly good idea without quite a significant

9916:

Honestly, it is time for you to stop reapeating the claim that Instantnood was POV-pushing on Single-party state. He wasn't, as I explained to you, and as you half-admitted in the discussion on the arbitration enforcement page. Instantnood has surely done many things wrong. None of these he did on

9753:

been referenced by even one single reliable or reputable reference. Pjacobi attemtped to argue for Priddy's attacks against SSB by citing Indymedia (a public forum where people can post whatever they want whenever the so choose under any name they so choose. This doesn't sound encyclopedic to me.

7980:

I imagine that this is a situation where common sense has to come into play: I'd imagine he should be allowed to vote for Stewards and also eligible to both vote for and run in the current ArbCom elections if he so chose. At the worst case, someone with checkuser rights could verify that Giano and

7859:

My question arose because it seems inappropriate to me for someone to remove a Disputed tag during an active dispute. In the example that I gave, the removals have been continuing (i.e. the Disputed tag has been removed while simultaneously a statement that I, and others, believe to be incorrect

7261:

with your seven edits to his user page, I see you'd not only added a sockpuppet warning but blanked out the prior content of that page (until the revert); I just don't see why. I also don't see how his complaining about what you did to his user page makes him a harasser. As to his only making four

6401:

You're in a tough spot. Following continued disruptive editing you are restricted to one account. But you claim that "you" are two people. Shared accounts are not allowed, so assuming your story is true, Adam should definitely register and edit from a new account. If he does this secretly, and

6239:

That sounds like a fine idea to me. But I have one problem still: how about EE? He is in fact not a boy, but a 21-year-old (...okay, fine, you can call him a boy if you want) and I'm a 24-year-old female. As long as EM is not involved in these blocks (because they've been questionable), I'm happy.

5870:

demonstrate pretty conclusively that her behaviour has changed little (if at all) since she started editing in mid-2005, and that she refuses to acknowledge community concerns. As she's made clear on her talk page and in her editing elsewhere, her view is that she needs (not just wants) to get her

5723:

articles, the latter of which I hadn't been edit-warring with her on (partly in an attempt to get her to stop stalking me there, and on other pages, and partly to demonstrate that the blocks had nothing to do with me trying to gain the upper hand in a content dispute). Because of this behaviour, I

4535:

This may not be the place for it, but I also want to express my concern about the number of disputes between SSS108 and me on the Sathya Sai Baba article and related articles that seem to increase in the course of time. If it continues like this, then I will file two requests for comments per week

3707:

Probation does two things (as I see it). First, it allows an otherwise good editor to be banned from specific articles that he disrupts while allowing him to edit other articles and without having to block his account entirely. For example if Joe Smith is passionate about birds and Star Trek but

3637:

If a new editor (or a 'new' editor) shows up in the highway naming disputes, I would be inclined to give that editor one polite, friendly, civil, and patient explanation of the current situation and the arbitration from which it arose. There's no reason, after all, to bite a newbie who innocently

3432:

disruption until the article was protected, should Intangible be banned from the article even though both editors were stubborn? One answer would be to file article RFCs or requests for 3rd opinions, and then ban from the article if he refuses to accept the consensus of outside opinion. That's a

3288:

information about a person's life; they are not authoritative regarding that person's perceived enemies. This sort of problematic source removal is part of what got you in trouble before. The alternative to having individual admins making judgements on what is "disruptive" is to fully reopen the

2563:

account occurs, I'd appreciate that I don't have to explain myself. Like I said, it happens because the browser logs you out sometimes and I didn't realize it. So I don't want to have to explain each time; because I've told everybody here, you'll know that it's me accidentally editing anonymously.

2217:

In conclusion, with an examination of the current evidence, if I were to be put on probation it would be for nothing more than having a one deserved 3RR violation block on my record, a block that was soon lifted. I am a helpful, cordial, friendly editor, and quick to apologize to those whom I have

1226:

mean complete agreement among all parties. Our processes like AfD, RfA, and others, instead, have lowered the standard to a norm that the community sees as acceptable. Therefore, a bureaucrat can promote an administrator or an administrator can delete a page even with dissenters, provided that the

1202:

I do not view creating a style guide to help people edit, and that helps them apply the accepted principle rationally, as "disruption", rather I find it highly useful. What I find disruptive is tagging an early stage proposal as a guide rather than a proposal. I think that's fixed though. Once the

10018:

While I would not use the site for any purpose; the question of whether a site is a reliable source depends on the nature of the subject and how it is treated by the site. In the RPJ case, which focused on aggressive advancement of conspiracy theories of the JFK assassination, most of the problem

9670:

I'm certainly not comfortable that the anti-Priddy web sites are suitably encyclopedic. Are you saying Priddy's article can link to Priddy's site criticizing SSB? I certainly agree with you about the general direction these articles should go with negative allegations; unfortunately that is not

9605:

I disagree. Robert Priddy is a former SSB devotee who wrote a hagiography, then became disillusioned, left the group, and wrote an attack book. While a typical author's web site might be expected to contain information about past and future projects, a calendar of book signing appearances, etc,

9483:

I would also like to apologize to Thatcher131 for any angry emails they may have gotten in response to this issue, as they have been nothing but fair handed in my opinion and I have always stated I would follow their decisions. I would also like to point out that neither RX nor Tom has attempted,

8934:

In other words, Lyndon LaRouche, his movement and its publications are not considered reliable sources for anything except what Lyndon LaRouche, his movement and his publications think about something. In this particular case, a LaRouche quote could be sourced to a LaRouche source but a McCarthy

6397:

Well. Hmm. We have numerous editors who are housemates or even married, and obviously share a computer, but they have different interests and different personalities, and are not disruptive, so the issue of identity never comes up. On the other hand, when two disruptive accounts share the same

3387:

that the newspaper reporter responsible for the articles is biased against him. "Tendentious editing" was rejected as a finding of fact because it is content based. However, whether Intangible edit wars over his interpretations depends on the number of opposing editors and their tenacity. This

3093:

Are u guys now messing up southern Oz's access to the Internet as well as mine? Isnt that denial of service? Maybe you should have got a job on the Sydney Road Construction then you could have done some lane closures there if you like to block peopel off from access. I thought you must have

2521:

that it would happen soon, even though I can't say I can remember the diligent Eternal Equinox (etc) persona having any tendency to forget to log in. Anyway. Does the ruling have any teeth? It doesn't specify any penalties for editing anonymously. Can she be blocked for it? If not, I foresee she

2285:

Well, since Aaron is currently busy, I will try to do what I can to explain why he should not be on probation. As you know, his first block was overturned after he explained the situation. The blocking admin in the second case later apologized and said they wouldn't have blocked had they had more

1824:

This is the new account. I don't want Bishonen, Bunchofgrapes or Giano posting on the talk page unless strictly necessary. Also, any unfair blocks will be discussed; edit-warring is not "disruptive" if it's progessrive. I want them to acknowledge this and stop abusing the RFAR. That's all. I have

1115:

I have handed out a block to SPUI in this matter for what I viewed as disruption. It was reduced but not overturned. I feel SPUI returned to his disruptive ways last night but perhaps has settled down today. I would nevertheless welcome review of my actions and I seek clarification in the form of

1023:

I perceive The majority of participants seem to have arrived at a consensus to accept the majority, this once, without necessarily being happy about it, or thinking that this means we are changing general principles. IS this perception correct? If so, does ArbCom endorse it as a principle in this

8829:

I came to this page tonight to ask further clarification. The arbcom decision that I have read says "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Knowledge article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related

7825:

I guess the tie is to our action in the climate change case which arguably constitutes a "black mark" against you. However one of our principles is that if a user moves on and becomes a productive and respected editor they should not have old issues like this thrown up to them. So the inquiry is

6548:

Will, I would interpret the ArbCom rulings as meaning that LaRouche publications may not be used as sources about third parties, regardless of whether it's in articles about LaRouche or elsewhere. (There's the ruling you quoted, and there was mention of the issue during a case involving Chip and

3585:

pleased to see things finally being worked out. I remember the bad old days with the move warring, and the blocks, and the bloody stupid namecalling, and the pages and pages of sniping on WP:AN, and the borderline wheel wars that resulted, and the month it took to deal with the arbitration from

3577:

I have to ask—what would you do differently if the probation were not in effect? What specific benefit would accrue to Knowledge if the probation were lifted? As long as the parties involved continue to behave civilly and avoid the destructive behaviour that led to the arbitration in the first

3107:

Re my ip, the server adjusts. Sometimes it runs through one server, then adjusts to another, then to another. It all depends on what other traffic XXXXXXX are carrying such as defence, media and private commercial, line loads and where there is space to put the cyber stuff. I do not live in a

2883:

The ArbCom ruling states that: "All edits by Eternal Equinox under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user". However, the 64.231 IP address is connected to the Toronto Reference Libraries, which all parties involved in this case seem to have acknowledged. As a

2875: 2297:

to be reopened. Some of the original supporting voters may change their minds after hearing Aaron's side of this. I'm not sure Tony if your post above is meant as a way of saying the case is closed and won't be reopened, but if so, that is not right. You shouldn't be able to decide whether Aaron

1155:

A couple of points in response. First, I think it would be best if I got a unified response from the whole committee, although I value your input! But if I get mixed yes/nos it may not be as helpful as a more definitive answer. Second, I'm not anti SPUI. And I'm not advocating that we "come down

8983:

for a factual presentation on the benefits of psychiatry, and we do not rely on LaRouche controlled sources for factual descriptions of things outside the LaRouche organization. It's just that unlike the many other situations I could mention, pro-LaRouche editors have been so persistent that a

6914:

I agree with JBKramer that SSS108 attempts to remove information sourced to salon.com is close to being disruptive. Salon.com is never on paper and is used extensively throughout Knowledge for living people, because it is a fine, accessible reputable source. It is irrelevant by whom or where is

6613:

I have looked over the article in question (the one that was the target of the external link) and it appears to me that it is entirely "relevant to the biography of Lyndon LaRouche." It discusses many of LaRouche's various campaigns and issues. It is mainly a rebuttal of the theories of Berlet,

6406:

your accounts will be sanctioned. Harshly. I suggest that he announce his new account here and agree to submit to the same probation as Velten (which he deserves, being both Eternal Equinox and partly Hollow Wilerding), even though that might annoy the arbitrators who have heard the "it was my

1082:

This discussion has spilled over to many other places. That is not a good thing in my view. In some cases it smacks of forum shopping to me. It would be best if it remained in one place DOES ArbCom agree that it should remain in one place and that bringing it to new places (here and ANI perhaps

10066:

Hello. An excerpt of an IRC log were placed on and were subsequently removed from the project's talk page. I seek clarification from the Committee as to the extent to which we are we permitted to or prohibited from discussing the content contained in this excerpt (without direct quotations, of

9902:

My second question: is this dispute serious enough to warrant filing of an arbitration case? I believe arbitration is neccesary to review the conduct of all involved parties, impose binding sanctions, and put a stop to the conflicts between Huaiwei and Instantnood, as other attempts at dispute

9012:

The journals you mention are not the result of one man's unique vision, in the sense that LaRouche publications are. They often contain fact based information from reliable sources and can sometimes be used. Information about Eugene McCarthy from a reliable source could be used, but not from a

6739:

Stepping back, let's remember that our aim is to have an NPOV biogaphy of a notable political figure. Even the most revered political figures have their critics, and LaRouche is no exception. Excessively adulatory biographies do not achieve this project's goals. Lets' just mention the opposing

1053:

The forum participants have developed a process in which everyone votes to determine opinion, and then a set of (admin) judges interprets the vote and decides what the outcome (what principle shall hold) shall be I adjudge consensus for that process. DOES ArbCom agree? Is agitating against the

10089:

in the course of our discussions. It would probably be best not to rely on those particular logs or discuss their details, but the questions they raise, and the other questions raised regarding hostile or dismissive comments on IRC need to be discussed. I doubt anyone would fault you for your

6557:. The latter says that sources of dubious reliability — defined as "sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight" — may be used in articles about themselves so long as the material "does not involve claims about third parties ..." 6262:

I won't continue playing these silly little games with Velten; he knows exactly what he's been doing is purposefully disruptive and why he was blocked, so any further efforts to get him to admit this will be a waste of my time and that of most other editors here. I do agree with Thatcher131's

4671:

Andries has come back politely with what amount, in my view, to clear signals that he requires much closer direction on this matter. I suggested that clarification from the arbitrators might be a good way of resolving this matter, and his query here is the response. Andries has shown by his

5003:

I will also note that HotR's having been a party to three arbitration requests is irrelevant (perhaps prejudicial) to the present discussion. The Israeli apartheid case involved several administrators, and was primarily focused on the actions of SlimVirgin and JayJG. No credible charges of

4667:

I want to comment here on my dual role in this matter. My first response on this was that it seemed to be a matter for administrators to resolve, and I investigated as an administrator and warned Andries politely in my role as an administrator that in my view and that of other admins he was

8821:

I'm surprised that no one thought to notify me of this. I left a note on SlimVirgin's talk page asking her to warn me if she thought I was violating an arbcom decision, preferably before blocking me rather than afterward. I made my views on LaRouche clear to the only person who asked me, at

4996:

Many of these same editors have themselves been conducting a campaign of harrassment against "Homey" over a period of several months. Tactics have included dubious 3RR blocks, unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry, threats of de-sysoping and attempts to resolve content disputes through the

2710:

made major contributions that led to it becoming an FA. And I haven't even dug up the diffs that show you making equally trivial edits to articles watchlisted by Bishonen, Bunchofgrapes, and whoever else you've decided to harass. It's quite clear all of these were made with the intention of

3659:

explanation didn't work – and I wouldn't proceed if that condition hadn't been met – I for one would be willing to entertain, support, and enforce community-imposed article bans on parties not explicitly mentioned in the existing arbitration. (Such bans would best be requested/proposed on

8738:

I've blocked him for 24 hours for the repeated re-insertion, but I'd like to make the block indefinite. He has made 186 edits since August, almost all promoting LaRouche. He has edited logged out (acknowledging that it was him) and used the same AOL IP range 172.192.0.0 - 172.194.0.0 that

2884:

result, I hereby request that this portion of the ruling be lifted so that others can edit from the libraries if they desire to. It should be noted that the library has new material that can unblock Knowledge-enforced bans, which Bishonen acknowledged. Please remove this from the ruling.

1386:

I am fairly sick and tired of all this. I returned on September 5, 2006. It's now September 10, 2006 and I've amassed five bans/blocks. Pretty ridiculous-sounding for six days of editing. There seems to be a problem here, which is that the Arbitration ruling has gotten to those users who

10009:. I have used the site in the past, and I certainly don't think it should be banned from Knowledge, and the ArbCom finding should not be interpreted as such. It is still a site that needs to be treated with caution and not depended on too heavily, especially in controversial articles. - 5071:

The remedy does not mandate a campaign of link removal, although if someone wishes to undertake it, that is fine. It is simply that links to the site are inappropriate and may be removed, or disabled, when encountered. Should a naive user make links, they should be warned and pointed to

2032:

sure he's a crank. i have now tired of dealing with him, but if he tries to reinsert this junk, i'm afraid an edit war will ensue. i need help from admins who are real physicists to be able to examine Kehrli's claims (which he tries to make sound reasonable, but they are fundamentally

8661:, which says "Knowledge users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense." See 7929:

means that Giano is unable to vote for or against new Stewards in the current Meta elections, because he's putatively too new. (The account Giano II hasn't been editing for the required three months.) I suppose this (minor) aspect of the problem could be fixed, provided anybody cares?

9935:

Arbitration is indeed "not a laughing matter". As to the specific circumstances you highlight, I think that you should attempt mediation in good faith rather than writing it off before it has had the chance to suceed (or fail), which your phrase "mediation will probably fail" rather

6107:. At first I accepted his one-week ban because I felt I had abused my ruling, but after that, it was becoming nothing more than a game to him: his power and my weakness. He claims that I'm editing articles that he's edited and even though they are music articles, I have done this to 5822:; the edit summary was very similar to Velten's, but that wasn't the main tip-off for me. Velten's claims that a Toronto-based IP user editing a Gwen Stefani article, who not only edits it but reverts an edit made the day before, is not her, simply beggars belief. In accordance with 2249:

Lastly, if there were 11 arbitrators in the beginning, and 1 recused himself/herself, then 6 is still the majority; 6 is the majority in a group of 10, and 5 would only be half. Forgive me if I'm using the wrong numbers, but if I am not, then this whole discussion seems rather moot.

8978:

There is nothing unique here. Partisan sources are not considered reliable except with respect to their own opinions about things. We would not rely on sources controlled by the Democratic Party (US) for a factual description of George Bush's presidency, we would not rely on the

7221:

prior to the incident. Reverting my edit to his userpage was his 4th edit. Unlike a wikipedia, on commons there really is nothing to read. I seriously doubt he was just browsing images in the time being... Needless to say he was convicted of stalking me twice in the past as linked

6948:. People are confusing Salon.com with a particular tabloid article on Salon.com, a self-professed online tabloid magazine (that has not been published anywhere else except on Salon.com). This particular article does not meet Knowledge's policies of reliable sources, in my opinion. 5107: 9096:

More questions: (iii) Interpretation of Knowledge:Biographies of living persons is often a matter of debate. May speedy deletions of Marsden-related articles be overturned through the usual channel of Deletion Review? (iv) Are we supposed to delete based solely on whether the

7134:

While I understand other projects are beyond the grasp of en:Arbcom, I'd like a way to deal with this issue. At the very least an arbcom opinion on the matter (non-binding as far as commons is concerned perhaps but would be a notable opinion helping desicion making process).

8047:

account somewhere appropriate - if he would like a suggestion as to where, he can email me. It seems rogue admins can place any slur, at whim, they feel like on a block-log and only Brion Viber has the power and authority to remove it - now there is some food for thought.

5981:

initiated in good faith. You didn't have the right to use that as one of your "reasons" for blocking me. You "considered" it to have been issued properly, but I didn't. Also, could you please provide links within the last four weeks that clearly show I've been "harrassing"

5342:

and I'm not up to it since this is likely not going to stay here. If I'm going to be placed on an ArbCom decision, there are going to be circumstances under which I can become blocked, because EM has so far abused it to his likening, which is evident through the following:

1512:

appeared on the main page only a few days later, I didn't think twice that an article authored by the same user would appear soon after (this is something that should become official on Knowledge). I didn't even make a major edit to the article and she says I was trolling.

6119:

ago and I have no intention on interacting with them again. If I am continuously blocked for editing a music article around the same time he does, I'll always be blocked. This is abuse of the ArbCom ruling and he is too involved in the case to be permitted to come to such

2812:, from which she was temporarily banned for causing more disruption, quarreling and attempting to assume ownership). After she reverted, I asked her to provide a source for a claim she made on the talk page that she said justified her revert; she instead opted to set up a 3315:

Even if journalist A has argued that journalist B is biased against person C, that is not reason to exclude B's sources from the article but to include both A and B. In this case, journalist A argues journalist B is biased against journalist A (i.e. himself). That's an

4802:

If a user insists on violating the rules, he can be banned. Jgp insisted, and is now banned. As you already know, if jgp agrees not to continue his disruptive behavior, he will be unblocked. Is more (literal) wikilawyering on your part really in WP's best interest? --

5772:

expressed concerns to me about the block. I said in my message that if anybody believed the block should be shortened to one week, they could feel free to do so and I wouldn't undo it. No-one undid the block; indeed, no-one other than Thatcher replied to the message.

5568:

Fred, I don't have any opinion about the dispute between Extraordinary Machine and Eternal Equinox, but we're getting somewhat contradictory clarifications about the maximum block thing. When I requested permission to pageban EE for more than the maximum week back in

1517:

edits is not trolling, especially since I was first reverted for not providing an edit summary and because the user who reverted me does not have any affiliation to me. I had no idea Giano wrote most of the article until afterwards checking the history. Here is the

4060:, which are consistent with Ellis' venues and manner, also edited articles from which Ellis is banned. Based on the findings in this case, should this IP be treated as an Ellis sock (in which case triggering enforcement against Ellis), or should they be treated as 2274:

was presented demonstrating that AaronS was blocked for edit warring, and a Finding to that effect was made in the case. I regret that neither the arbitrators nor the clerks informed AaronS that probation was being considered in his case. This was an oversight.

3484:

and calls for a different response. I'm waiting for a third opinion from a more experienced administrator. Obviously, Intangible should not make edits just to make a point; doing so repeatedly will likely trigger the disruptive edits remedy in his arbitration.

6915:

salon.com is cited because salon.com itself is a reputable source. The only reason why SSS108 wants to make an exception for the Sathya Sai Baba article seems to be because he does not agree with the critical stance of the Salon.com article on Sathya Sai Baba.

4843:

You've done just that. I'm certainly going to advocate for people unjustly blocked for first offenses. At this point, sicne you continue to misrepresent me, I'll wait for the clarification as opposed to say something I'll regret. I suggest you do the same.

3233:

Actually, the consistent wording would then be "for any disruptive edits." That's our convention, I don't recall our ever using just "edit warring" in the probation remedy, even when edit warring is the finding. Assuming there are no objections, I've fixed it.

6343:. I would also suggest a maximum block length of 1 week per Fred's comment. Of course, if Velten continues to be disruptive there will be little practical difference between a series of one week blocks applied every 8 or 9 days versus a single longer block. 6272:

I would appreciate it if you did me a favour. Could you please provide evidence that I was harrassing you which led you to initiating a three-week ban? Your previous post had six essential points, each with several diffs and other links, with the exception of

3094:

lifted the block as I accessed it earlier not expecting it to be unblocked (but your behaviour has been so erratic that anything was possible), so if I should not have posted what I did till 6am tomorrow, dont fret too much as it would have been posted anyway.

1530:

There is a problem with this ArbCom ruling and adjustments will have to be made in order to ensure that these users do not abuse it the way they have been. Also, I will absolutely not create an account since I'm only editing Knowledge on occasion now. This is

6244:'s assertion that EM is the better pop music editor of us; that's a ridiculous statement and while he's definitely brought more music-related articles to GA status or a specific standard, this doesn't justify our — that being Adam's and mine — contributions. 2118:(preparing my thesis, taking GRE, and applying to grad schools). If it is decided that this issue should be re-examined, please keep this in mind. Better yet, feel free to keep this on the backburner and deal with more pressing problems for the time being. -- 9852:

My first question: Are admins allowed to place a user on 1RR, or is only the Arbitration Committee empowered to do so? If only the Arbitration Committee can place a user on 1RR, can they only do so as a remedy during an arbitration case involving said user?

9606:

Priddy's web site contains attacks on the SSB movement drawn from personal experience and original research and appears to violate the ruling in this case (which I think applies to content, not the editor who adds it). A clarification would be appreciated.

9903:

resolution have failed, and Instantnood has repeatedly ignored consensus. However, since arbitration is not a laughing matter, and I don't want to waste the Arbitration Committee's time, I would like to get some consensus before filing an arbitration case.

2615:

To EM: indeed I'm a fan of Nelly Furtado, but Gwen Stefani is still the best; don't be silly now. I wasn't harassing you and please don't block me if you aren't aware of the details. Discussion should always be incorporated and consensus might be achieved.

1494:

for not providing an edit summary (which I'd forgotten). I said okay and went back and provided an edit summary. Bishonen then "magically" appears two minutes later and claims that I was toying with the image and claims I was "trolling". My browser indeed

2830:

Anonymous IPs aren't accounts, so if Velten is limited to one account, she's following that rule. Mistakes happen. Do whatever is needed to protect Knowledge, but don't punish someone for forgetting to login. It's easy to do (I do it myself regularly). -

1003:

I would like to ask the arbcom for clarification. Specifically, I would like explicit endorsement or repudiation of the following principles (which form the basis for how I have been operating since I got involved in trying to shepherd the process along:

9166: 6360:

to decide how many "personalities" I have or how many friends I have that edit Knowledge. Once EE returns to Toronto, I'll tell him that he's free to create an account, unless you want him to edit from this account too, which he's somewhat protested to.

2474: 5705:

a link to an old AFD discussion that had been initiated in good faith. She has a history of tampering with other people's comments and attempting to conceal discussions on that talk page that contain comments with which she disagrees; see, for example,

5421:

with a similar edit summary to mine (which I do admit, find somewhat peculiar, and wonder if someone's out to get me), I'm positive Extraordinary Machine used this as an excuse to restart the three-week ban over again. I don't even know who this person

6736:"Sewer creature". Yes, I guess that is "firing back". Should we add a counter-counter-response saying that the critic is not regarded as a sewer creature by a broader audience? And then a counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-rebutal to that? 3100:

Dont you people think you are getting a bit carried away with yourselves? Are you children? I am starting to think that you may be as it seems you are playing something like a computer game with the target needing to be nuked and nil else will do.

9705:

who himself blurred the distinction between private life and public life with his claims of being an embodiment of truth, purity, and love and attracted followers with these claims. In addition, it would be at best inconsistent to forbid in the entry

7568: 8739:

Herschelkrustofsky/WeedHarper used. There's no firm evidence that it's the same person, but I believe he may be from the same LaRouche group in Los Angeles. As any proposed ban needs to be confirmed by the ArbCom, I'm asking here for your thoughts.

8030:

Thanks for the concern, here are my views: Frankly, one wonders why we have an arbcom, if developers are ultimately in control, but I do remember the "editor" who launched the RFArb seized rather gleefully (a little revealingly gleefully I thought

5558:

provides that Veltan may only be blocked for the maximum of a week and Extraordinary Machine is passing out 3 week blocks. It is very hard to say if the ip is Veltan, but it does seem likely. The dispute seems remarkably petty. I just don't get it.

4992:

Certain editors seem to be under the impression that the user formerly known as "Homey" is (i) forbidden from editing under a different name, and (ii) forbidden from engaging in content disputes on certain subjects. Neither assertion is accurate.

3108:

little town re my ip but on a major node. Thus, my ip range would be pretty wide as it goes all over the place. My log on varies as I dial in to other servers for other stuff so probably swap carriers here and there to do that. Hope that helps.

9795: 6181:

of activity. He has been virtually monomaniacal. We have no past evidence of EM behaving in such a manner, so it's strange to think that he is suddenly "picking on" a user who has demonstrated a deep commitment to violating editing courtesy.

1499:

have an image-display problem, and decreasing it by a single pixel would have made it the appropriate size for my monitor. She ignored this, but my main concern is that she is 100% convinced that I edited the article because it was authored by

4858:

Agreed. However, as I've said, you've had plenty of clarification already. Discussion is always welcome, so long as it is not an attack couched in stilted language (like claiming I'm misrepresenting you). Let's see what others have to say! --

1011:

ArbCom in their finding said "consensus is encouraged"... I interpret that as "== consensus is NOT REQUIRED" meaning that if consensus cannot be achieved, othre means should be used. IS this a correct interpretation of ArbCom's wishes in this

7749:. WMC's edits were surprising for me; I checked his history, and found that ArbCom has previously had him on 6-month parole for trying to impose an extreme non-factual POV on climate-related articles. In my opinion, he is continuing that. 2651:-related article occurred right after I told you I was a fan of her and owned her latest album (and the tone of your reply indicated you weren't even sure who the woman was). Coincidence? I think not; let's not forget, from the same period, 1371:

a new name account. The floating cloud of IPs she's using makes it very difficult to keep track of her edits and infractions, to block her (I got collateral damage on the brief range block I imposed last night) and to communicate with her.

8565:

The duration of Fys' probation (enacted 21 Sep 2006) is not clear. Is it for one year (as for Karl Meier and Irishpunktom) or indefinite, and if one year, does the year extend from the date of the case or the date of the amended decision?

6614:

theories which dominate most of the Knowledge articles on LaRouche. But I am mainly interested in a precise clarification of what the Arbitration ruling means, because I have seen Berlet threaten other editors with this ruling as well (see

1187:

and a few others think this is disruption. We are trying to gain real consensus by addressing specific problems with the chosen Principle without overturning it. I strongly believe that is not disruption. I hope most of thr ArbCom agrees.

1351:

This was originally posted under motions in prior cases, but only arbitrators can make such motions. I guess this amounts to be a request for clarification or further action in the Eternal Equinox case. A motion was subsequently passed.

1178:

are trying to comeup with a Manual of Style that addresses most of the concerns of Principle II supporters while keeping in line with the decision by the majorit to use the style of Principle I in the article title. This is being done at

9084:

grossly unbalanced negative material is not subject to the three revert rule. Such material may be removed without limit". It also ruled that the Marsden and Marsden-Donnelly articles, in their existing state, were in violation of BLP.

2896:

Excuse me? I acknowledged what? The library has... What are you talking about? I think it's possible that your erroneous claim of my acknowledgment of this strange thing represents a mixed-up memory on your part of me telliing you that

8830:

articles." This is now being interpreted by editors at the article Lyndon LaRouche to include the article Lyndon LaRouche as well, and material is being removed such as a quote from Eugene McCarthy that appeared in an EIR interview, or

6394:. Since Eternal Equinox and Hollow Wilerding shared the same style and interests, he was eventually identified, and (he says) hounded, so he acted out. It also sounds like Adam is currently living with you but is moving out eventually. 5355:

where we held a debate. Extraordinary Machine kept reminding me that I'm not supposed to engage in edit wars, but I was trying to express my view on the matter. He then went ahead and blocked me for a week because of this and called it

9244: 9220: 6420:

Well, since Adam won't be back for a while (actually, he doesn't plan on moving out, but everything else you said was correct), there's no problem right now. Later, I hope that we can edit together. The reason he's a housemate of mine

1116:

yes/no answers to the questions I pose above. I was counseled by some to let this go, to let someone else implement but i am one of the 6 "judges". Comment on whether I should leave enforcement to a non judge admin welcomed as well. ++

5871:

way, those who disagree with her are wrong (and haven't read into it, or are misusing their powers and must have them removed immediately, or are making up stories or excuses, or something else), and that's all that needs to be said.

4130:

and articles which relate to Canadian politics and its blogosphere. Any article which mentions Warren Kinsella is considered a related article for the purposes of this remedy. This includes all talk pages other than the talk page of

9655:

material being encyclopedia however. A brief note that Baba is suspected of molesting young male devotees ought to suffice as well as a note that it is suspected that he uses slight of hand to produce his miracles. Problem is, like

3071: 2711:

irritating other editors and scratching away at their patience, and regardless of whether you'll admit it, you're doing this again. There's nothing vague or open to interpretation about it. Not only that, but you're edit warring on

9910: 7754: 6131: 5534: 7758: 7701: 5587:. Perhaps that would be Extraordinary Machine's best policy? The problem with him leaving blocking to other admins is that there are only a few admins who care to, or dare, act in this complicated ArbCom case (see recent posts on 4675:

I hope that this is not "crossing the streams". I hope it's clear that my views as an administrator and as a clerk are quite distinct. My regard for both participants here is very high. Their honesty and civility is impressive.

5118: 8287:

undid the extension, citing some clause of the arbitration case. I believe that this was mistaken, so I have restored Tony Sidaway's block. Please correct me if I am wrong. (I won't change the duration of the block any more.) -

3033: 1902:, "Irishpunktom and Dbiv are banned from editing Peter Tatchell for one year" with respect to Dbiv. Admin and ArbCom clerk Tony Sidaway has, in fact, said outright that he would "stop trying to enforce this remedy", saying that 10067:

course). Since I have already commented on these, I would like to know whether I am in breach of the rules by doing so, so that, if applicable, I could rectify this and remove my comment accordingly. The pertinent comments are

10103:

Thanks, Fred. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my question. While I do have thoughts regarding the particulars of the aforementioned excerpt, I will keep these confined to my mind, or at least, offwiki. For now.

6014:) did not respond to his initial backlash of the three-week block, I assumed he had forgotten about it or was not interested in becoming tangled in the web. I placed an unblock message on my user talk page and was declined by 5673: 2530: 1615:

That reasoning is not sufficient. In fact, it does not even logically follow that editing anonymously is more useful for lower level of activity. However, it is a lot easier to violate article bans when you are a changing IP.

9644:

If Priddy's self-published observations and opinions about SSB make him notable and get a link, does NPOV require that we link to the self-published observations and opinions of a pro-SSB web site that is critical of Priddy?

7629: 2843:

From the ruling: "All edits by Eternal Equinox under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user." The ruling was in fact entirely about getting him or her to stop editing from a cloud of IPs.

9710:

critical websites containing partially original research and partially reputable sources, like www.exbaba.com and www.saiguru.net, while at the same time allowing websites with only defamatory original research at the entry

6302: 3419:

Well, as you can see above he has an interesting view of reliable source policy. If you leave it as, "may be banned from any article he disrupts," my question as an admin would be how it should be enforced. In the case of

2624: 8213: 9239:

What's unclear? In the context of the case, it says that, given a large corpus of material on a topic, that has not been subject to scholarly analysis, it is acceptable to quote selectively and with qualification from it.

2816:

argument against me and accuse me of "making excuses" and "not providing answers". This alone isn't exactly EE at her most disruptive, but it gets quite close once one factors in her main reason for starting the edit war.

6535:

Thus, LaRouche sources may be used for LaRouche articles. However the link that was added was not relevant to the biography of Lyndon LaRouche, and should haev been remoevd for that reason, not for violating this ruling.

5682:. (Velten has said that my evidence can be explained by the fact that we both edit pop music-related articles, which does absolutely nothing to explain her "stalking" edits to my own userspace or articles watchlisted by 2888: 6312:

have to believe you. We are not obliged to pander to your fantasies or your disturbed mind - or your pretense at such, if that's the case. Different treatment for differing alleged "identities" is not going to occur.

3470: 3392: 7417:

the interaction there, carried your grudge from Knowledge to Commons, and when you were simply and formally called on it, you reported that back to Knowledge as "harassment" against you, to get those who complained of

3192: 1241: 6097:, which was posted well after he already initiated the block. If anything, he reset the ban upon noticing that the edit summary was similar to mine. Administrators are not supposed to lie to the Wikipedian government. 9739: 8969:

a special, unprecedented, unique status at Knowledge, or whether there is a clear guideline that applies to it, and presumably, other, similar publications. Also, I don't know which question you are not answering. --

3773:

A set of users or anonymous editors who edit in the same tendentious pattern or engage in the same disruptive tactics may be presumed to be one user. The provisions of an arbitration decision may be enforced on that

3570:

2.1) Should SPUI, JohnnyBGood, Rschen7754, and PHenry disrupt the editing of any article which concerns highways he or she may be banned by any administrator from that article or related articles. All bans are to be

2559:: yes, I predicted that I might edit anonymously and I did. (Occasionally it happened when I used Hollow Wilerding, but that was long ago, so I can't remember.) If I do this again and another edit following from the 1015:

There has been a long process of evaluation of alternatives and after some discussion, a majority vote was held on principles. one principle won, with 59%. It is not our norm to accept majority votes as binding (see

5063: 4068: 2508:

is limited to a single account; and after a lot of carry-on (some of it appears at the foot of this section), she seemed resigned to following it. However, today she again edited anonymously, supporting herself at

2433:

No, it doesn't matter; I was just curious why an irrelevant part would be included. I was under the assumption that even if an enforcement clause passed, it was not mentioned if the remedy didn't pass. Oh well.

9153: 9113: 8570: 8174: 7159: 4332: 9599: 9091: 7819: 7147: 9782: 9462: 2279: 2155:

The first block was deserved, but I had violated 3RR inadvertently. I discussed the situation with the admin who blocked me, and he lifted the block, because I was at the time doing a lot of work to improve the

8470: 2634:

consist of nothing but updating chart positions and minor rearrangements of the text, which is what you have done for dozens of song articles. Are you meaning to tell me your decision to revert one of my edits

9079:

articles have been deleted by administrators in the last day (and protected to prevent re-creatin). Some editors have argued that references to Marsden's past controversies are inappropriate for the article.

2289:

It appears as if the blocking admin from the third block may feel the same way, although they didn't explicitly say they wouldn't have blocked, but I think it was implied. See for yourself and decide I guess.

1917: 1670:

Given the above I suggest that any IP editor from Canada (especially but not restricted to Sympatico in the Toronto area) that disrupts articles in a recognizable manner should get a one-week anon-only block.

2024:

was ever written by any of us to explain what was wrong with it. he is basically repeating that the widely accepted wisdom is a misconception and then replacing it with his own misconception. i think he is

1539: 10006: 3556: 3306:

credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own name or known pen-name and not anonymously." Belien is professional journalist. He is also well-known, inside and outside of Belgium.

1203:

highway people reach clear consensus that it's accepted and that it's the way that people should edit I'd welcome it moving to style guide in state and getting added to the list of style guides in effect. ++

7765: 4933: 3537:, but has left. PHenry has not edited since the conclusion of the case. JohnnyBGood has drifted away from highway articles a bit, editing other articles. (but in effect not doing any mass moves). I started 1356: 1251: 9484:

since protection was removed, to seek a form of mediation. If this issue was so big to them that they had to revert constantly without summaries etc, wouldn't they have attempting some mediation by now? --

9213: 9196: 9167: 8932:

Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Knowledge article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.

6379: 3138: 2485: 2105: 7128: 5483:

about this block and that it wasn't within the ArbCom's scope, which if I look at WP:RFAR/Eternal Equinox, is over two weeks the original punishment. This user is now deliberately trying to keep me away.

3849: 2267: 1134:

There is a split in the Arbitration Committee on this question. Only one arbitrator, me, supports coming down heavy on SPUI. It will take a few more months of disruption before the rest will come around.

9177: 7517:

Specifically? Is there a quote, a cite, a diff, anything to substantiate exactly what threats were made, when or where? "Making threats" is a crime. Alleging that is a very serious accusation. And it is

2619:

By the way, the 64.231 cannot be blocked upon sight since it's from a library. If it's musically-related, it's likely me, but there's still a chance it won't be. I'm saying this just so everybody knows.

8834:, a quote from Mexican President Lopez Portillo. Since the arbcom decision explicitly says "other than the article Lyndon LaRouche," I would like to know if you think that this behavior is justified. -- 7963:

Brion's comment is specifically in reference to expungement of block log information. I am not sure that he has commented on the password reset request, for which I think there would be less objection.

1379: 9999: 9087:

Questions: (i) Do references to Marsden's past controversies inherently violate BLP, or would a fair and neutral overview be permitted? (ii) Is page deletion an appropriate remedy to this situation?

6339:

that Extraordinary Machine ask for a review before blocking, but it would not be inappropriate to block first if the circumstances warranted it and then post a request for review at the noticeboard or

5021: 5008: 4741: 7866: 7809: 4502:

regarding intermediate sources that states "A common error is to copy citation information from an intermediate source without acknowledging the original source." (amended 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

2037: 1460:, perhaps presumably to avoid discussing and achieving consensus. This suggests that he wants his edits to remain when I found some of them questionable. But the process is going well, like I've said. 9888: 9538: 7579: 6411:

users have reformed and quietly come back under new identities; we only know about that ones that continue the behavior that got them in trouble in the first place. Bottom line: which kind are you?

5860:

I understand why this may appear "petty", but that's the problem: aside from irritating other users, her disruptive behaviour seems to be designed purely to establish how much she can get away with.

5332: 3266:

Not to be picky, but is "for any disruptive edits" a convention used when the only thing Arbcom really had a concern with is the two times I was blocked (one block for just putting a NPOV tag to the

1027:

It is rather clear that the main troublemaker, SPUI, is not of this view and wishes to continue his campaign of disruption. I would focus on those who view failure to achieve consensus as a victory.

5735:

the relevant messages from their talk page, does the same thing again as soon as they're unblocked, I'd think it would be appropriate to place a longer block. With regard to EE/Velten specifically,

2330: 2302: 9041: 7073: 6267: 4553:

added question about contradictory guidelines. 11:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC) added new point expressing concern about the number of disputes. 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC) 18:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

3738: 9233: 6425:

because we share similar interests and therefore edit the same articles. It's not impossible, but I can see why everybody is so reluctant to accepting this as more than make believe. (We met at a

6086:

would assume that it was me, which seemed like the only logical case. It was, and he reblocked and told me to stop evading my bans. I said that it was not me and that it was someone out to get me

5672:

articles (and sneakily reverted one of my changes to the former in the process) just hours after I had done so. She has a long history of stalking and harassing other users, including myself; see

5055:

for full list of links. Among the hundreds of locations there are links to ED from various arbitration pages, signposts (I think the signposts links are all related to arbitration cases anyway),

3784:

Yes to this when the ArbCom has had time and reason to come to grips with a situation. It is not a great idea for individual admins to apply the same reasoning, on the fly. Mistakes then get made.

7830: 7753:

That is not a fitting or correct description of what has happened. ArbCom has not had im on a parole for "trying to impose an extreme non-factual POV on climate-related articles", but rather for

6501:

links to LaRouche websites on the Lyndon LaRouche article. Are they all forbidden by the Arbitration ruling as well? If not, what makes this particular link different? Please post your answer at

1864: 9803: 7799:

There is one action by WMC that I have a general question about. After the edit war started, I put a Disputed tag on the article. WMC reverted the article to the version that he preferred and

8535: 7938: 5878: 4810: 2236:

I think that you will find that most of my edits are useful, and that all of the editors who get along well here also get along well with me. People need to work on controversial articles like

1763:

A reasonable period of time seems appropriate. I will complain if she intends on blocking for non-disruptive and purely discussion-related material, however. Also, "one week" does not apply to

8917: 8856: 2759:

It's quite clear all of these were made with the intention of irritating other editors and scratching away at their patience, and regardless of whether you'll admit it, you're doing this again

2309:

I'm just a clerk so I wouldn't be involved in the decision on whether to re-open. However as a clerk I rummaged around in the case and came up with what I thought might be relevant detail. --

8517: 8034:) on that statement. Perhaps though I just have a naturally suspicious mind. Come to think of it though checkuser did not reveal too much about that user either, so perhaps I'm not really 6834: 6821: 6817:

changed his opinion because he states that salon.com is a self professed tabloid and because he states that it is only published online. He says that he was unaware of this during mediation.

6661: 6282: 4866: 4853: 4838: 4825: 4792: 4768: 4754: 2984: 2821: 2723: 1554: 1149: 815: 810: 803: 798: 793: 788: 783: 778: 773: 768: 763: 758: 753: 748: 743: 738: 733: 728: 723: 718: 711: 706: 701: 696: 691: 686: 681: 676: 671: 7603: 7044: 7024: 6995: 6952: 4732:

readdition of the link, albeit in a profane way, how should blocks be doled out. His block, in particular, was indefinite, which seems entirely arbitrary and overblown. Please clarify. --

2853: 1771: 1610: 1601: 9318: 9294: 9017: 9007: 8988: 8973: 8963: 8954: 8939: 8865: 6670: 6636: 6540: 1819: 1684: 1031: 666: 661: 656: 651: 646: 641: 636: 631: 626: 619: 614: 609: 604: 599: 594: 589: 584: 579: 574: 569: 564: 559: 554: 549: 544: 539: 534: 527: 522: 517: 512: 507: 502: 497: 492: 487: 482: 477: 472: 467: 462: 457: 452: 447: 442: 435: 430: 425: 420: 415: 410: 405: 400: 395: 390: 385: 380: 375: 370: 365: 360: 355: 350: 343: 338: 333: 328: 323: 318: 313: 308: 303: 298: 293: 288: 283: 278: 273: 268: 263: 258: 251: 246: 241: 236: 231: 226: 221: 216: 211: 109: 8480: 8057:

And it seems you'll never pass up an opportunity to remind the whole world of all the wrongs done to you. If you really wanted to avoid the "taint" you'd take a different name altogether.

7618:, which suggests that the need for probation, assuming such need ever existed in the first place, has now ended. Accordingly, I request that this probation be formally lifted. Thank you. — 6211:

at this time. I suggest unblocking Velten, and Geogre and I can make ourselves available as uninvolved administrators to reblock, assuming Velten does not "grow up." I already watchlist

6145: 3702: 3682: 3624: 3603: 3083: 3000: 2313: 1675: 1090: 1075: 1061: 9945: 7074: 6257: 6248: 5555: 2050: 1941: 206: 201: 196: 191: 181: 176: 171: 166: 101: 96: 84: 79: 71: 10013: 9675: 9665: 8798: 8415: 8406: 8385: 8292: 8158: 7843: 7789: 7779: 6402:

behaves himself, no one will ever know about it. If he resumes the disruptive behavior that got Eternal Equinox put on probation, he will probably be labeled as a Velten sockpuppet and

6167: 6158: 5137:

I'm having a major ongoing issue regarding an inappropriate block and a massive misuse of sysop abilities, and I wouldn't be surprised if one thinks I'm simply placing this here because

4589:

copyright protected to the exbaba site (nor were they ever originally published on the exbaba site). Therefore, the exbaba site cannot claim copyright status to the articles in question.

4241: 4232: 4203: 3489: 1624: 1580: 1046: 9995:

as I'm concerned) the FoF in the case is not intended as a blanket condemnation. Editors should exercise good judgement as to tone and factual reliability of these pages, case by case.

9502: 9493: 9478: 9304: 8809: 7668: 6563: 4892: 4192: 4175: 3716: 3405: 3353: 3336: 3310: 3297: 1665: 1650: 1633: 1571: 1302: 1293: 1196: 984: 964: 141: 9520: 9445: 6626: 6595: 6509: 5591:

for expressions of this sentiment) and some of us (=me) have no comprehension of the intricacies of pop music articles. You could easily run out of remedy-enforcing admins altogether.

5089: 5080: 3274: 1829: 9921: 8838: 8433: 6744: 6647: 6186: 5599: 5549: 4525:

or the arbcom decision regarding posting external links. I object to mass removals of information from the talk page that are not motivated in specific terms if and where it violates

4223: 4214: 3503: 3437: 3414: 3242: 3228: 3219: 3210: 2862: 2838: 1957: 1719: 1273: 126: 9719: 9692: 9649: 9639: 9610: 8489: 8149: 6928: 6691: 3261: 3201: 1928: 1810:

I will make an exception to the "treat as banned" to reply to this. That's fine. The arbitrators already said that's fine. Please tell us what your new name is after it is created. —

10023: 9758: 9701:

authored by SSS108 are highly defamatory and contain hardly anything than original research. They should not be linked to because Priddy is not a public figure in the sense of e.g.

9141: 8078: 8064: 7785:

That's what you get for using bad sources. The original cases are available (see my links). There is no need to use second-hand comments made by people during a heated RfA debate.--

7643: 7181: 6963: 6604: 6433: 6415: 6365: 6347: 6205: 6195: 5563: 4346: 3019: 2971: 2962: 1805: 1758: 1128: 8944:

1. This goes to my other question above, but in what way was EIR "determined to have reliability problems"? Is there evidence, for example, that they have published factual errors?

8789: 8508: 8052: 7877: 7474: 7315: 7240: 4968: 2549: 10108: 10094: 9124: 8877: 8755: 8745: 6701: 5474: 4919:

There is no prior case from which a motion can proceed therefore this motion is out of process. The case that was proposed but not proceeded with dealt with admin abilities only (

4595:

If the reputable sources in question are duplicated on (never originally published on) biased, partison and controversial websites (such as the exbaba and saiguru sites), I think

3609:

about it. In reality there is a new user who is trying to open another can of worms related to the naming convention stuff, but he finally realized that he was getting nowhere. --

2298:

still should be on probation since you (nor anyone else) can unilaterally put a user under probation. Aaron's part of the case needs to be re-voted on to maintain basic fairness.

1264: 1235: 8600: 8591: 7975: 7057: 7034: 7009: 6909: 6895: 4981: 3041: 2945: 2913: 2456: 2443: 2424: 2254: 2141: 1842: 1535:, which you have been told (and obviously received the e-mail for since you wrote my name in one of the "bans"). I'll be sure to tell E.E. that you're failing to respond to him. 1258:

Would it be acceptable to the ArbCom if the members of this entire debate just sat down and had a civil conversation, and reached a virtually unanimous agreement on a compromise?

1168: 1139: 955: 935: 913: 9767: 7636: 6919: 6886: 3466:. Of course, the two can be unrelated, and (assuming good faith) he might genuinely be worried that there is a reference problem with George W. Bush being the U.S. president. -- 1322: 8020: 8006: 7997: 6326: 4680: 2931: 2791: 2190:

and their various admitted or proven socks. When they or their sock puppets are involved, things usually get heated up very quickly, and that's when edit wars start to crop up.

2122: 8206: 7958: 3921: 7300:

I am really tired of dealing with Davenbelle/Moby Dick and Stereotek/Karl Meier/Igiveup. They had been stalking me with intervals (overall non-stop) for nearly two years now.

3104:

If you are children then wik needs to note that in log on names or something. I do not usually log on to sites that children play on as too many weirdos also around them.

2403: 1215: 969:

I feel that we've just avoided nuclear war. There is relative peace at highways for now, but if SPUI's behavior does not change, a further arbcom case could be inevitable. --

9884: 7714: 6973:

can be cited on Knowledge? Since I do not hold a favorable opinion of Scalia, I will cite Salon.com and it's article about him to support the widely held opinion that he is

8777: 2389: 6724:

Anton Chaitkin, not Lyndon LaRouche, is the source for the rebuttal. He begins his response, printed in LaRouche's "Executive Intelligence Review", by calling the critic:

1895: 998: 1656:

This is not for you to determine or request; since the RFAr is effective, you are to operate it as stated. Abusing it, as you currently have been (blocking for trolling?

1108: 8186: 8139: 8476:

I doubt the necessity of this, but would not say ab initio that you have abused your discretion. Terreo does fine on Wikinfo, but our expectations are quite different.

6697:(in this case Berlet) the liberty to criticize LaRouche (through the article and links) and yet NOT allow LaRouche to fire back in some way, is a distortion of NPOV. -- 3533:

What would the proceedure be for getting off probation? There were four users placed on probation, SPUI, PHenry, JohnnyBGood, and myself. SPUI did have some run-ins at

1008:

ArbCom does not normally get involved in content disputes, but chose to in this case to try to get to closure on what had been a source of much contention and ill will.

892: 4944: 4849: 4821: 4764: 4737: 123: 25: 10075: 6253:

By the way, while it may be redundant to announce now, I've completed EM's original three-week block and think I've entered the fourth week. I'm not positive though.

4550: 4540: 3149: 2980:

from Giano. Also, the "block anonymous users only" feature enables any other people editing from that IP range to create an account if the IP range has been blocked.

5493: 3015:

to log in or are accidentally logged out, a word on your talk page or the talk page of the article you are working on will ensure there is no confusion. Good luck.

5032: 4656: 8662: 8495: 4693: 1825:

nothing more to say. By the way, you'll need to pardon me if I accidentally editing anonymously without realizing it (because I'm sure most of us have done this).

9549: 8176: 5426:

I've already waited two a half weeks based on his original ridiculous block. I'm not waiting again for something I didn't do. Can the ArbCom please do something?

3749: 9763:

Again, non-notability should be solved with an AFD, not by omitting a website by the subject that makes him notable. I have been saying this at least ten times.

9052: 7088: 6383: 5913: 5653:) are one and the same. Already, alarm bells should be ringing that maybe her comments should be taken with not so much as a grain of salt, but several boxes of 5640: 5235: 2967:

Yes, but my point was concerning the music articles themselves — reckless reverting and blocking when one doesn't know whether it's me or someone else is silly.

1545:

I second Bishonen's request to limit this person or persons to one account, and would request that an Arbitrator propose such a motion as an additional remedy. —

6872: 6215:. Will this balance the desire to protect a nice editing environment for productive long-term editors with Arbcom's intent to give Velten a chance to grow up? 5728: 3410:

Perhaps the wording should just remove "by tendentious editing". You are quite right, of course, that the issue was more than edit-warring. Any other comments?

9959: 8995:

Thank you, that is somewhat more helpful. There are still some things that are unclear to me. I listed the examples of two highly partisan political journals,

8546: 8315: 7891: 7855:

Is it inappropriate for someone to remove a Disputed tag during an active dispute and should Knowledge have a policy that pertains to removal of Disputed tags?

6391: 5899: 5626: 5188: 4572:'s Wiki page is not his homepage. It is an Anti-Sathya-Sai-Baba Site (one of three maintained by Priddy). Priddy's homepage is already listed on his wiki page. 1875: 1798: 1467:, when suddenly I've been blocked. When I see that it's Bishonen, I cussed a lot at her, especially since this "ban" was absolutely notorious. What she claims 1363: 9846: 9835: 7297:

The harasser in this case isn't Moby Dick, it's Igiveup (aka Karl Meier, aka Stereotek). Who has a history of personal attacks and harassment here on en.wiki.

876: 9329: 7771: 6768: 6050:

claiming that the user was full of nonsense and didn't review my block at all for that very reason. Gaming the system made no sense in this case of a block.

4940: 4845: 4817: 4760: 4733: 3995: 3928: 3115: 2061: 1899: 1768: 1681: 1607: 1577: 1536: 1068:

Some participants are saying that any objection by anyone to any judge knocks them out. I view there is not consensus for that viewpoint. DOES ArbCom agree?

9892: 5618:

that matter, for reasons I have outlined below, and b) disagreements over article content certainly wasn't Velten's main reason for initiating the dispute:

7470: 7311: 7236: 7177: 7143: 7040:

I will, once other ArbCom members hopefully comment on it. And I will accept their majority opinion on this matter. I am not alone in my objection either.

6128: 6061: 5800: 5731:

says that EE/Velten can be blocked for disruption "up to a week in the event of repeat offenses". If a user is blocked for doing something and then, after

5488: 5371: 4930: 4518: 3514: 3068: 2537:"All edits by Eternal Equinox under another account or an IP address shall be treated as edits by a banned user." This was intended to mean enforce as per 1662: 1630: 8444: 8032: 6525:

Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Knowledge article in which it appears other than the article

3924: 2755:, so I didn't touch it. The fact that another Giano-article was featured three days later was relatively questionable. I've already explained the details. 9880: 8098: 6254: 6245: 3379:; in one case because the version of a person's statement quoted in a French language newspaper differs from the version on Bloed, Bodem, Eer en Trouw's 1968: 1802: 8892:,) and this seems to be an unusual cirmcumstance. In the opinion of Knowledge, what is the difference between EIR, and other political journals such as 5284:

While I'm here, I'd like to request something of the arbitration committee. In the past few weeks, I've been receiving increasingly abusive blocks from

2808:

The "edit war" to which Velten is referring involved me restoring an edit identical to one I had justified and explained to death on another talk page (

2271: 9539: 9485: 9470: 9349: 8927: 8780:: "Herschelkrustofsky is restricted to one account for editing. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely." - 8658: 6769: 6518: 5761:

The next option after one week on the block page dropdown menu was one month, which I thought was unreasonable, so I placed a three week block instead.

5622: 5108: 4900: 3739: 2876: 2475: 9206:

when a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included.

8043:

my real identity was to be revealed, I don't want that taint anywhere near me. So unless Brion Viber executes the Arbcom's findings he can place the

1391:

won't leave me alone (Bishonen, Bunchofrapes, etc.). They are abusing the ruling as an excuse to block me whenever they feel it appropriate. In these

1330: 9042: 8310: 7851:

Okay, I guess my question was not worded well. My question is a general one, and the mention of WMC was to give an example. Herewith, my question:

7839:. Without much more intense analysis than I (or the other arbitrators) have time to do, it is not evident whether a dispute tag is justified or not. 7722: 7053:

concern regarding it being an undisputed sole source. I believe that Salon as a source should be disputable on the basis of original source bias. --

879:

on the matter. There is a clear lack of consensus on the poll, and yet so far three of the "admin judges" are treating it as a majority-wins poll. --

7198:

for a while? I'd think it as normal as checking one's email inbox even when not sending email for a while. Asking as a relative newbie, passing by.

5953:. If this is considered "harrassment", I'd hate to see what he considers "personal attacks". We had a disagreement over the inclusion of a chart at 4662: 9823: 9517: 9257: 7351: 7156: 7112: 4419: 4329: 3563: 1442:

was insincere and I would continue editing it since I was trying to resolve issues that have been coming along pleasantly. (See the process on the

1102: 8399: 8536: 7467: 7308: 7233: 7174: 7152: 7140: 7031: 7006: 6892: 6494:

implying that I could be blocked for doing so. I asked for clarification as to whether she was threatening me with a block, and she replied with

4701: 4430: 3170: 2347: 1865: 1519: 1468: 1457: 1447: 1432: 1399: 9210: 7218: 5052: 3449:

a little more balanced. Since a civil discussion on the talk page didn't get us anywhere, I put an {{unreferenced}} template on the article page

1907: 9967: 9418: 9413: 8132: 7836: 7815:

Its unclear to me what this has to do with the arbitrators. TS has just had this pointed out to him, but it doesn't seem to have done any good

5073: 5022: 2081: 9868:

has made comments which are, at worst, personal attacks on all Singaporeans, and, at best, incivili and assumption of bad faith. In addition,

7903: 6924:

Salon has an editorial board, an editor-in-chief, and an extensive corrections section. I see no reason not to treat it as a reliable source.

4228:

It's the judgement call of the administrator who is familiar with the problem and the edits. If you are reasonably sure it is him, go for it.

3424:, can Intangible be banned from the article for his removal of sourced material even though he and Luc are talking politely? In the case of 1508:

was on the main page; I knew he'd edited this article and didn't bother with it because I knew Bishonen would come up with an excuse. So when

9422: 9319: 8935:

quote can not be. Perhaps you can find the quote reported in an alternate source that has not been determined to have reliability problems.

8035: 6779: 5252: 4585:. This site does not link to or promote any pro/anti site. Furthermore, the articles that Andries claims were taken from the exbaba site are 3254: 3181:

I'm confused. Somehow the ArbCom did not find my edits to be "tendentious," yet the probation is about that. How is this logically possible?

3139: 2251: 2119: 2102: 2051: 872: 148: 7927: 6615: 6545:

First, for the benefit of the ArbCom, the issue is that the LaRouche publication ManEatingDonut wanted to link to was about a living person.

4831:

user's contributions 'muddying things up' is bad faith and doesn't speak well for your willingness to engage in constructive resolution. --

7078: 5205: 3687:

Well my concern is I'm wondering what difference the probation makes, if anybody can be blocked. Not that I'm asking for it now, though. --

3293:. I hope you will avoid removing reliable sources from other articles in the future, as that will only create problems for all concerned. 4977:

A "full and fresh" RFA would involve many extraneous issues. The purpose of the motion is to clarify the conditions Homey may edit under.

4390: 1366:

came back a few days ago, editing her favorite articles as an anon, from her trademark range. She has already amassed a fairly impressive

10068: 9405: 7599: 7569: 5296: 4012: 3945: 3504: 2084:

regarding my involvement in this case. The general feeling, it seems, is that this case needs to be revisited for the following reasons:

9265: 8466:. The reasons amount to malicious and targetted harassment of users as part of his unabandoned quest to advance his POV on Scientology. 5572:, Tony Sidaway (clerk) replied, with every appearance of relaying arbcom policy, that there was no maximum: "Arbitration probations are 4556: 2015:

was a good idea). but he has some personal pet theory that dimensionful physical constants are essentially equivalent to dimensionless

1435:

me because of my comments and why I thought it was unfair. This suggests to me that whatever they say is going to happen; that won't be.

10086: 9856:

Instantnood's POV-pushing sparked an edit war between him, Huaiwei, and several others. During the heated discussion on the talk page,

8434: 5505: 5388: 4583: 5774: 4445:

that states "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if there is one"? See

2927:(without providing an edit summary expectantly) and I want it removed immediately. I don't care if Giano's name remains there though. 2679: 2676: 960:

This a case which failed, specifically failed to adequately deal with the problem of SPUI's behavior. It should probably be reopened.

7742: 6390:. Adam, who seems to have been a housemate, shared Hollow Wilderding with you, then when Hollow Wilerding got in trouble, he created 5308: 4283: 4097: 3806: 2691: 1958: 4747:

Zoe made clear that if that user simply agrees not to willingly violate the rules, he can be unblocked. And indefinite != perma. --

2673: 2670: 1638:

Maybe you guys believe us now, huh? Here you have the Hollow Wilerding demeanour in a nutshell. I request permission to ban her for

9366: 9200: 8693: 8688: 6946: 6943: 6827: 5326: 5314: 4446: 2719:, from which you were banned from editing for a period after you attempted to assume ownership. You're on extremely thin ice here. 2318:

OK, just wanted to make sure. It sounded like you were turning it down without saying so explicitly. Thanks for the clarification.

1711:

I endorse Thatcher 131's proposal. I dislike banns and blocks intensely but for this number/person I realistically see no option.

9449: 9226: 6654: 6619: 4627: 10085:

in order to attempt to resolve the general questions involved regarding nasty behavior on IRC channels. The arbitrators did find

9498:

You're only responsible for what you write. I just feel that with multiple editors questioning me I would like a reality check.

8861:

I don't know what EIR is, but if it is produced by the LaRouches it is unacceptable. The reason is that it is original research.

8697: 8327: 6449: 5759: 5744: 5581: 5570: 5302: 3371:

Sam, there is a potential problem here. At the moment, Intangible is removing statements with reliable newspaper citations from

3111: 2688: 9452: 9285:

the next three weeks. Is it possible to get this delayed for 3 weeks? I'm sorry if this throws a wrench in the usual process.

7155:

edited my user page on commons and I reverted him. He then reverted back and protected my user page. And *I'm* harrasing him? --

6728:...a sewer creature who has been paid throughout most of his adult life to slander American political leader Lyndon LaRouche,... 10082: 9212:). Could the arbitrators clarify what the above sentence means? Or would they say the sentence should be clear in its context ( 8672: 8616: 8244: 6460: 5923: 5650: 5320: 5246: 4371: 4360: 8624: 7598:

I'm told this is the appropriate place to come for this appeal. In July, I was placed on probation as part of the decision in

6201:

it's just not as likely as that EE/HE/V has been picking at the article to try to get the last word, over and over and over.

4927: 3594:

having a remedy in place that encourages participants in the naming debacle to think twice before opening a new can of worms.

2858:

That ruling is about to be changed. This library IP address will not be blocked if others are editing music-related articles.

8680: 8464: 8133:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pat8722/Workshop#Motion_for_Clarification_and_Motion_for_Procedure

5909: 5680: 5677: 5636: 5199: 2976:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall it ever being proven that the 64.231 IP address belonged to a library; note this

2518: 7614:, and I should never have been placed on probation in relation to this matter. In addition, the underlying dispute has been 7508: 5874:

I won't pretend to know what the long term solution is, but I do know that the problem she poses here is extremely serious.

3461: 3458: 3456: 3453: 3450: 3349:, which is refuted by journalist A, I'm not going to give undue weight to journalist B (probably none at all in this case). 2357: 10061: