Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Admin -- Uncle Ed (talk) has executed a ridiculously high number of page moves, and has been generally disruptive, at the page currently titled Qur'an desecration by US military.

He has obvious political motivations for the pattern of disruption and title confusion he has sown on this page in recent days. (Check out the titles of his edit summaries on this page if you doubt my assessment of this.) Please. please review the history of this page and consider taking appropriate administrative action. BrandonYusufToropov 02:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here are examples of what I mean:

FROM TALK PAGE HISTORY

• (cur) (last) 14:53, 14 Jun 2005 Ed Poor (Was it desecration? - That's the anti-US point of view, all right. So let's describe as such.)

FROM ARTICLE HISTORY

• (cur) (last) 21:21, 14 Jun 2005 Ed Poor (moved Pentagon "admission" down to 4th paragraph, as intro to "critics continued belief" - could be moved up)

• (cur) (last) 20:06, 27 May 2005 Ed Poor (anti-US POV needs to be labeled. Don't put the argument in the text of the article as if you wanted Wikipedia to endorse that reasoning)

... not to mention the avalanche of page moves, resulting in confusion and perpetual redirect challenges for those trying to actually find the article ...

Just bear in mind that the Edit summaries and other references I made to the page title were to the old title of Allegations of Qur'an desecration at Guantánamo Bay (which I moved to Qur'an desecration by US guards and which Brandon helpfully tweaked by moving it to Qur'an desecration by US military). -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:24, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I've known Uncle Ed for a good several months, and, on my watch, I can report that all of his decisions, while sometimes dramatic, have been well-thought out and in accord with Wikipedia policies.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello, it has been suggested that ArbCom make a ruling concerning the behaviour of Karl Scherer -User:Karlscherer3 contribs, who uses IPs

• 202.37.72.100, and
• 210.55.230.17, and
• 210.55.230.18, and
• 210.55.230.20, and
• 213.157.5.222, and
• 219.89.37.58, and
• 222.152.25.248, and
• various unknown sockpuppets with edit histories potentially going back 2 years with probably about 200 edits each (assumption based on editing pattern of above IP addresses).

Over 100 articles (about 200 including the images) created by Karlscherer3 were deleted simultaneously in a single VfD, by a 90% majority (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zillions games). There is also a current VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MoreKarlScherer concerning an additional 8, and at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/EvenMoreKarlScherer concerning a further two, as well as the related closed VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Karl Scherer, and two open related ones at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fox and geese and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zillions of Games.

It was suggested in one of these VfDs that a formal ruling be made about such forms of original research, which was mixed in with extreme amounts of advertising spam. These articles were created over a 2 year period, and where only discovered when I was apparently more suspicious than others about the motives of an editor (Karl Scherer) whose most recent creation appeared in New Pages. The length of time that these edits were not caught appears to have lead to Zillions of Games jumping from 602 non-obvious-wikipedia-mirror hits in google to 60,000. Some sort of formal mechanism for discovering such things sooner is probably wanted. ~~~~ 4 July 2005 18:33 (UTC)

Please guys,

Brazillian activists have taken control over the Portuguese section. They revert anything that isn't written in their own 'version' of Brazillian Portuguese - that no one else in the world uses and is not officially accepted. They eliminate lots of Portuguese (from Portugal, Europe and world) content. They actively ban and persecute users, lie to the superior Wiki managers, and do all censorship possible to avoid contact from Portuguese (and other countries speaking Portuguese) with the rulers of Wiki. As of now they completely hijacked the Portuguese section of Wiki.

For some unexplainable reason instead of creating a BR section for their own special needs, they insist on hijacking, controlling, and reverting everything in the PT section to their own whims. Most non-Brazilian users have no stopped contributing, enjoying and using Wiki - because what's there, IS NOT Portuguese. It's as if Catalan speakers hijacked the Spanish zone and modified it to their own version claiming it was 'Spanish'.

It should be said, that Brazillian Portuguese is WILDLY different than Portuguese and not simple "minor" changes as they falsely claim!

I do not know if Brazilians are ashamed of being 'Brazilians' and thus insist on hiding behind the 'Portuguese' mask, i find no other explanation for this bizarre insistance.

Brazillian is totaly different from Portuguese. They use a totally different verb tense. Hundreds of words that mean nothing in Portuguese (nor have any linguistic basis) are used. Incorrect - you'd fail in any Portuguese class in any Portuguese speaking country BUT Brazil - Portuguese is used so frequently it makes most articles WIDLY unreadable.

It's not that they used different versions, i'll explain: They started slowly using wrong grammar versions because the people was very poor, and now, because their government has not control over the country, and educations is extremely lacking, they found it 'cheaper' to just maintain the wild grammar errors. Again, the errors are rampant, not minor, at all.

Sirs... this is totally affecting our ability to use the section dedicated to our own language...! THEY IMMIDEATELY REVERT, CANCEL, CENSOR any attempt to use Portuguese!

Entire changes and articles have been already wiped out by them simply because it wasn't in "their" version.

The whole editing section is in places UNREADABLE and completely ununderstandable to non-Brazillian Portuguese speakers - ie, all of them all over the world. They use words that mean nothing in Portuguese, in the Wiki UI, people reading it, from Africa, have no idea what it means!

This is NOT a 50\50 partnership. ALL main pages have now been reverted to Brazillian only, locked, and reverted no matter what minor change \ comment is done. Most Portuguese, or simply outside of Brazil, users have been coimpletely driven out of Wiki, this can't be right.

They've been feeding the impression that Brazillian and Portuguese are as equal as English in the UK and America, THIS IS UTTERLY FALSE! The differences are huge, to the point that ocasionally you can't even understand what they are trying to say \ talking about.

Most weird, is the fact that they seem driven by some internal frustration of the tragedies inside their own country, and are completely using this as some strange form of Nationalistic rabidly jingoistic movement to assert themselves. They are now publishing articles of political activism about Brazilian Nationalism as if they were Wiki definitions... 8O

I do not whish in any way that they don't use their own version. But right now they are stopping us from using ours. Heck, we are the ones which are Portuguese and i can't even understand some of the words in articles claiming to be "Portuguese" here in Wikipedia, because they are not Portuguese words at all - nevermind the constant verbal, pronoum differences that occur in _every_ single sentence...

No one seems to do anything about this.

Am i to believe what other Portuguese partners have told me, and to just give up on Wikipedia?

Then it's truly sad, because it means Wiki is not a place for cultural exchange, but for cultural terrorism. Maybe they in south America are used to this, but i, absolutely am not.

Most of the threads from Portuguese and non-Brazillian members i checked were outside Wiki, because simply put people no longer ontribute here because they now the Brazillians will be banned, censor, rejected. This is wrong!

There is currently a thread on this subject on the PT section, the admins are all brazillian, the pages are all written in brazillian, the UI is all in brazillian, and every dissenting opinion\article is removed at once. What the heck?

--> [[1]]

The title translated is, "versions of Portuguese language". What versions, if all we see is their own peculiar one? All others are shot down in flames. This truly is nationalistic fascism at play.

Should i just give up and forget the freedom to use and enjoy my language? I have to be honest as is, the brazillian content is totally useless, to me, to most Portuguese i know, and it surely isn't right for a child to get there and see words that to her mean nothing and negate the education she gets in school - not to mention the barrage of grammar errors the brazillian governement, like pretty much everything else, seems impotent to resolve, solve, and educate in its own anarchic country :(, and occur literally in every sentence. It's nearly unreadable and it sure isn't educational. Sad, sad, sad :(

At bare minumum: Seperate these totally different ways of using Portuguese, one is cannibalizing the other.

There are a couple of things that should be noted in this rant:

• Brazilian Portuguese is not a wrong version of Portuguese. It is not the fruit of neglect due to poor and uneducated people influencing the language, but actually, the influence of the greater number of immigrants that came from nations other than Portugal, along with some dialects absorbed from indigenous inhabitants since colonial times.
• While you may consider what is written to be grammatical errors, it is not that way for Brazilian Portuguese speakers. One could say your Portuguese is totally wrong because it derived from a completely wrong manner of writing latin. That would not be a fair thing to say.
• It is unfair to mention the little portuguese children not being able to read the article, because the other way around the little brazilian children would not being able to read the article. While you can't favor one over another, out of the 220 million people that speak portuguese in the world, 180 are brazillian, or 81%. I guess as it is Wikipedia is able to appeal to the greatest number of people this way, democratically, as I would put it. Either way, as it is, it facilitates your prized cultural exchange more than the other way around.
• The arguments were not presented with a neutral point of view. The tone is generally offensive, and there are unprecedent and unjustified claims, such as implying Brazilians are ashamed of themselves, that South America is used to cultural terrorism, that the brazilian government is impotent to resolve everything.
• I wouldnt deny that the portuguese wiki is brazilian centered, and that there might be articles that sprouted from nationalism. Nevertheless, it is still Wikipedia and people strive to maintain a neutral point of view. While some might complain about it being brazilian centered, the portuguese language, contemporarily, IS brazilian centered. Also, that rant sounded somewhat nationalistic from the Portugal side, considering the way that Portugal's portuguese was considered "right" and that at every opportunity there was a subjective insult or attempt to diminish Brazil and Brazilian Portuguese. You also did not sign your comments.

I would request for anyone reading this to be moderate on the subject, as the way it was originally presented was extremely radical, and perhaps unreasonable. PHF 15:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

(Note: for simplicity, I will use 'Portuguese' for Portuguese-from-Portugal and 'Brazilian' for Portuguese-from-Brazil. Portuguese and Brazilian, without quotes, will be taken to mean People-from-Portugal and People-from-Brazil)

I think that the problem User#1 perceives rests mostly on the URL: pt.wikipedia.org.

Online, just like you expect ".uk" sites to be in the Queen's English and ".aus" sites to favour Australian speech, you assume returns located at ".pt" URLs to be written in 'Portuguese', and those stationed at ".br" to be in 'Brazilian' - thus allowing you to make your choice of what to read.

'Portuguese' and 'Brazilian' are, indeed, very different languages - not like UK-English and US-English are different, but rather like Strine differs from UK-English differ, or Ebonics differs from US-English. Neither is "better" or "superior" or "more correct": they simply have different grammatical rules and vocabularies - 'Brazilian' breaks many rules in the 'Portuguese' grammar and I assume that 'Portuguese', likewise, breaks many rules in the 'Brazilian' grammar.

A 'Portuguese' speaker will look at an article written in 'Brazilian' and find spelling or verb-tense "mistakes" which, in 'Portuguese', are unacceptable at Primary School level, and attempt to "correct" them. The same will happen to a 'Brazilian' speaker reading a 'Portuguese' article.

Moreover, where vocabulary is concerned, hundreds of 'Brazilian' words are unknown/unacceptable in 'Portuguese', and vice-versa.

These facts, taken together, just lead to misunderstandings and to the feeling that you are reading a terribly badly-written article, if it's not in the version of the language you were taught.

Therefore, it would be good form to have pt.wikipedia for the 'Portuguese' language and br.wikipedia for the 'Brazilian' language, as is the norm in the great majority of websites in the language in general.

(Im/Partiality: Though I'm a native Portuguese-English speaker, I never use the current pt.wikipedia, much less edit it. One of the reasons I always prefer the English article over the Portuguese article is the fact that, yes, it is very hard to read an article which is not in "my version" of the Portuguese language.) 83.132.98.35 16:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that, although all users have the right to their opinion, the rules for the community state that "if an article is initially written in one version, unless major changes (50%) are made by someone speaking the other version, the original version must be kept". And, being Portuguese, I find Brazilian Portuguese "ugly", but one must remember the other way around. I refuse to write in Brazilian Portuguese (or should I say, I don't know how to!), but if I contribute to a Brazilian-Portuguese article, I'm counting that someone will change it for me. The same way I'll change Brazilian->European in a European Portuguese Article.

As for little children, it's a false issue. If they can read SMS-Portuguese language, they can perfectly read the alternate version of Portuguese. What we (grown-ups) are afraid to say, but really think, is that we are afraid our children will not learn the version we consider "correct... Muukalainen 12:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I decided to return to this matter[2] just to say how incredibly tacky and incompetent the Arb Com's handling of this matter has been. I found out that this matter had been dropped (who knows when) after inquiring about it on someone's talk page. I received absolutely no notice. And, to date, neither, apparently, has User:Wareware. This has been a colossal waste of my time and of the people who were kind and concerned enough to render assistance in this matter.

To my way of thinking, the Arb Com dropped the ball -- in more ways than one. At least you didn't require me to reformat the copious info presented in the RfC for this process. The singular good thing is Pharlap's wasted time and effort in compiling an utterly meaningless assemblage of completely unrelated and, again, out-of-context bullcrap -- as if my comments anywhere on this website have anything at all to do with the racist Wareware's Tourette's-like comportment.

I can't say this experience has inspired any confidence or respect on my part for the arbitration process. Frankly, you guys suck. *x* deeceevoice 06:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Wareware left Wikipedia months ago, and has not to date returned. What use would it have been to take any action against someone has already left? If he does return at some later date, it can be dealt with then. Ambi 07:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Déjà Vu. El_C 13:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Ambi, are you deliberately missing my point? After several members of the Arb Com voted to consider the matter, no one on the Arb Com ever bothered to notify us that the matter had been dropped. In fact, there still has been no formal notification to that effect posted to Wareware's talk page. I repeat: tacky and utterly incompetent. The Arb Com still sux.deeceevoice 15:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't be difficult. If you bring a case against someone who has left, what exactly do you expect? The Committee's job is to fix problems, not "right wrongs".

James F. (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't be presumptuous and patronizing -- especially when you don't know what you're talking about. I don't need to be schooled on the function of the Arb Com. The Arb Com voted, then served notice that it was considering the case and asked for submissions of evidence, knowing full well that Wareware was no longer around. When it suddenly reversed itself, it notified no one. The Arb Com in this matter was incompetent and inefficient and lacking in the most rudimentary common courtesy. As far as I'm concerned, it isn't worth squat. *x* deeceevoice 06:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I could care less. We're here to deal with users who continue to interfere with the writing of an encyclopedia. Wareware had ceased to do that by ceasing to edit Wikipedia, thus we have no reason to continue to intervene. You can be as insulting as you like, and you can act like the guy you're complaining about as much as you like, but I don't think anyone here will be too fussed unless he does return. Ambi 08:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Uh, I think you mean you couldn't care less? :p Well, my dear, that much is evident in the Arb Com's tacky mishandling of the matter -- which is precisely my point. LOL Incompent. Rude. Inefficient. Worthless. Further, calling the Arb Com on its gross mishandling of this matter is hardly on par with stalking someone around the web site, spewing vile, racist venom. Or, did you even bother to read the complaint? (A strictly rhetorical question. Given your comments thus far, I'd hardly trust you to understand the difference even if you had.) deeceevoice 12:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you need to step back and examine WP:NPA along with the ArbCom's history and mandate. Once a user has left Wikipedia, there is no sense in overly bureaucratizing a point which is moot. Should Wareware return, of course the case should be reopened. But why bother just to make a WP:POINT? --FCYTravis 23:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Then, perhaps the Arb Com should "step back and examine" its actions in this matter. Why, then, did it vote to take the matter under consideration and then ask for evidence? And then why did it not follow through? And when it changed its course of action, why then did it not even bother to notify the involved parties? I repeat: Incompetent. Inefficient. Tacky. deeceevoice 04:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Just to add my 2 cents: Raul's 9th law of wikipedia - Being on the Arbitration Committee is the most thankless job on Wikipedia. It is absolutely impossible to do it such that people are happy with you. If you are doing a bad job, people complain; if you are doing a good job, people don't notice (or sometimes even then complain). All of your actions are examined under a microscope. People expect you to be the Oracle of all truth - to work miracles no matter how complicated the case, no matter how how bad the evidence, no matter how hostile and stubborn the disputants. And of course, there are the accusations of cabalism. →Raul654 23:34, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Excuses. For the record, I expected no such thing. What I did expect was a minimal degree of thoroughness and courtesy, and the Arb Com proved pitiably incapable of delivering either. I mean, how hard is it to drop someone a note? That someone on the Arb Com would even try to defend/excuse such bumbling ineptitude demonstrates just how worthless the Arb Com is. deeceevoice 02:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The point is that people will complain regardless of how well we do our {voluntary, unpleasant, thankless} job - a point you have proven quite thoroughly. →Raul654 02:35, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

No. The point is that people will complain in light of how poorly you do your job -- or, should I say when you fail to do your job? :p deeceevoice 04:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not our job to notify anybody but people directly affected by ArbCom rulings of anything other than the opening of cases (and even that is limited to people involved in the case). If you want to track the progress of a particular case, then put the respective case pages on your watchlist and/or add {{ArbComOpenTasks}} to your user page. Now stop bitching. --mav 23:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The page was on my watch list, and I was directly involved in the matter. There was nothing -- absolutely nothing -- that indicated the case had been dropped. People like me won't bitch if the Arb Com does its job. Incompetents! *x* deeceevoice 14:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Some of the arbitrators (Delirium, Grunt, Ambi) have indicated that they wish to resign (according to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee), but they are unsure how they would be replaced, or what the mechanism was.

Having thought about this, wouldn't it be the case that the next person (in this case Fennec, Mirv, Cecropia) on the list at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004 becomes their replacement? ~~~~ 14:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The Arbcom seems to have become very slow because of lack of active members, so they do need to be replaced. However I would be totally against just pulling the highest losers into position (presumably after having checked their continued willingness to serve). We should have a by-election. David | Talk 14:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Is that a Wikipedia procedure, or just UK government? ~~~~ 14:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't know exactly why you ask the question—but as far as I know there is no set procedure, and I'm making a suggestion. I think the principle should be that users only get to be arbitrators by being elected to the post. David | Talk 15:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• I do believe we should put it up to a vote (i.e. ask who wish to be candidates and vote amongst them). Soon, too - this is important. Radiant_>|< 19:43, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Suffice it to say, we (the committee) and Jimbo have been discussing this for several weeks and we should have an announcement soon. →Raul654 20:41, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

How soon is soon ? ~~~~ 23:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Not sure -- I had hoped to have an announcement out by July 1, but that's a non issue now. →Raul654 02:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

They really need to sort it out ASAP, as the WP:RFAR page is getting swamped, and it looks like there are only 3 arbitrators actually giving initial opinions on whether to hear cases, and it needs 4 to confirm anything. ~~~~ 12:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's happening. Ambi 13:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

When? ~~~~ 18:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The commitee's position on the matter has been settled more-or-less unanimously for several weeks now, since before July I think. At this point, (whether or not he decides to take our advice) we're waiting for Jimbo to announce it. So to answer your question, "when" is whenever Jimbo is ready to. →Raul654 19:48, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

So is Jimbo going to announce ex cathedra that the committee is being replenished with a group of people suggested to him by the current arbitration committee? A lot of people are going to be not best pleased with that, you know! Pcb21| Pete 20:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

We did anticipate that some people would complain about appointments rather than an election. However, given that (A) the last election was a horribly nasty experience that no one wants to repeat more often than necessary (B) we just completed the board election a few days ago, and (C) the arbcom election is a little more than 5 months away, it was decided that appointments would be much better all-around. →Raul654 02:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well I'll leave it to someone else to run coach and horses through that argument, but suffice there to say there were other options on the spectrum between full-blown elections and hidden behind closed doors, cliquey appointments. Pcb21| Pete 09:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

There are appointments and there are appointments. Is this going to be an open process or a 'word of mouth', 'who you know is more important that what you know' process? (I declare an interest in that if asked, I would myself serve, though I doubt I would be asked). David | Talk 14:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I too would serve if asked, but like Dbiv I doubt I would be. I wasn't around for the elections last time, so could someone summarise (or point me in the direction of a summary) of what happened to make them "a horribly nasty experience"? Thryduulf 17:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The biggest problem was that an "endorsements" page was allowed, and some people tried to make use of this to post "disendorsements" of candidates as well. The disendorsements naturally produced some very hostile debates, but by this point the process had gone too far down the path to be undone. --Michael Snow 17:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Jimbo asked the current arbcom for suggestions of appointees (Jimbo not being so familiar with the day-to-day pedia these days). This was a while ago, so I assume if you are going to be asked, you have been - particularly as Raul indicated that an announcement should already have been now. Now of course the current members are great. However asking them who they'd like to co-opt will inevitably create a narrower "gene pool" of opinions than ideal. Pcb21| Pete 20:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

That is why these will be interim appointments that will expire at the end of this year. The next regular ArbCom election will have at least 7 seats open instead of the normal 4. --mav 23:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

There's actually only five that I know of at this point - Delirium is one of the four people whose terms would be expiring anyway. Ambi 23:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

See below:

Actually, now that Nohat will also be resigning, there will in fact be 7 seats open next election:

Tranche β (term expires 31 Dec 2005; new Tranche β's term will expire 31 Dec 2008)

1. Delirium (resigned)
2. Daniel Mayer
3. Fred Bauder
4. David Gerard

Tranche γ (term expires 31 Dec 2006)

1. David Friedland (resigned)
2. Steven Melenchuk (resigned)

Tranche α (term expires 31 Dec 2007)

1. Ambi (resigned)

I imagine that the top vote getters will get to choose which tranche they occupy. So far, I plan to run and hope Fred and David will as well. --mav 01:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo has always and will indefinitely be the person to appoint people to the ArbCom. The difference between a regular election and an interim appointment is that people he appoints based on a regular election serve for 3 years while those he appoints for interim posts serve until the next regular election. For these interim posts he asked the current ArbCom who we thought were good choices and he said that he will base his selection on the short list we gave him. He does not, nor ever has, had to go exactly by what either the community at large or the ArbCom says. --mav 23:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo said he would model the wielding of his ultimate power on the Queen of England. That path is not being followed. Pcb21| Pete 07:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems fairly clear that, either because most Wikipedians are people who suddenly become very busy without notice, or they lead very chaotic lives, that the lifespan of many arbitrators is very short. Perhaps this should be considered as the system for recruiting new arbitrators is defined. David | Talk 15:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The Queen of the United Kingdom has the power to dissolve Parliament, yet in practice only does so when asked by the Prime Minister, IIRC. Jimbo has yet to not follow the suggestions of others in that mold. My point is that the whole ArbCom process is an extension of his authority and exists at his consent. All we are talking about are several interim appointments; none of which will last beyond the next regular election. --mav 16:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Without wanting to stretch analogies too much, when MPs resign the Queen doesn't ask the remaining MPs who should fill the gaps... an election is held. Yes Jimbo is boss, but the ArbCom will lose credibility because of this. I think he went the wrong way.

Instead it would've been highly appropriate to hold an election, learning from the experiences of last time, and re-jigging the future election calendar as needed. However it was not possible for me to even make this suggestion in a timely fashion because the "elections cause too many problems" argument (the same argument as that used in 1930s Germany btw :-), oops Mr Godwin do I lose? :-) ) was made behind closed doors. Pcb21| Pete 17:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The unexplained resignations have an impact on RfAr's currently in progress. Please see here, for an example. Paul Beardsell 12:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to second Pete's concerns above, and make sure that he and everyone knows that I think that me randomly appointing people midterm is not the proper sustainable way to do this in the long run. On the other hand, I chose people who I think will be mostly uncontroversial, in the hopes that we can have a productive and positive dialog about the appointment process before the next community vote. --Jimbo Wales 18:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

User K. contacted me for help with a problem user, IP 71.65.65.165, signing the name User:PastorRussell, but not editing under that name. PastorRussell is claiming that he has exclusive rights to Charles Taze Russell because the arbcom gave him exclusivity to the article. As far as I know there is no such precedent or policy. His claim is bogus isn't it?. -JCarriker 22:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

The arbitration committee has never given anyone exclusive control of an article (and, in all likelihood, never will). →Raul654 02:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Above it is said that being on the ArbCom is a thankless task. That there will always be complaints. But then this fact is used to seemingly say that all complaints are without merit. Just because some (or many) are without merit does not mean that all are. Yet the ArbCom seemingly never admits it is wrong or that it has made a mistake. It seems to be under the misaprehension that admitting a mistake is a sign of weakness. To the contrary. I think the ArbCom as often as not makes Wikipedia look silly. I also think that the existence of the ArbCom allows for some vexatious complaints. I am not sure what the solution is but a tentative suggestion is the appointment of an ombudsman who will be tasked with ensuring that the ArbCom is seen to act reasonably. Appearances count and it all looks a sorry mess right now. Paul Beardsell 00:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

We have an ombudsman. Ambi 02:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

We do not nor do I believe you really think that. As the article should make plain. Paul Beardsell 14:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo recently appointed three new arbitrators, of whom two are rather controversial. Jay's many battles and controversies, as well as his aggressive attitude (he's gotten into attacking me on about a weekly basis now) are presumably well-known by all of us reading here (forcing me to regrettably conclude that Jimbo knowingly did not make a fair judgment in promoting him, although I won't presume to guess exactly what his motive was). Right now I want to point out something about the new arbitrator Fennec. I think most of us would agree that an arbitrator should be an active editor and member of the community. A good way of evaluating this is by looking at one's user contributions. I went to Fennec's contributions just now to check out what he had been up to lately, and was surprised to find there was nothing for me evaluate: in the whole month of July so far, he has made only one edit. In previous months he has edited a little more, maybe 10-15 a month, although I would say this puts him only on the level of a sporadic, occasional contributor, not an active member of the community. (See his contributions here.) Now, of course Fennec is active on IRC, which he rules as something like a fiefdom, banning people (or at least me—am I a special case?) perpetually for criticizing certain privileged (in his eyes) users. But does this count? In fact, for me this counts against him; it tells me that he probably owes his position to behind the scenes IRC communication rather than actual wiki-editing. Everyking 07:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Um, please do a little research before you attack people. The main reason why Fennec's name was raised is because he came so close to being elected in December. He lost to Grunt by one vote - and that was because, IIRC, he voted for Grunt. This was the reason his name was raised - not because of IRC, where he rarely even talks. Ambi 13:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I remember the election perfectly well. In fact, I myself was a candidate. If this is just about votes, why don't we have another vote? Or we should go straight down the line and appoint the next two, who were Mirv and Cecropia. I thought the idea was that uncontroversial people were supposed to be appointed as placeholders until the next election. Everyking 19:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Everyking doesn't like the choice of new arbitrators? Oh no! →Raul654 16:24, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Let's hope the burnout doesn't stop with those three. Everyking 19:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Best of luck to all new arbitrators. I am sure you will all easily prove why this trust has been placed in you. Pcb21| Pete 20:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales has publicly announced [3] that he doesn't support democratic elections, and would rather have arbitrators that he is friends with, than those with popular support in elections. He has also, in the announcement, stated that his appointment of (temporary) arbitrators has more to do with his favouring of their judgements in preference to those that might be made by editors such as User:Mirv (the next in line in the prior election).

Hopefully this should provide a satisfactory explanation of why the three new arbitrators were chosen. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 22:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The above is total conjecture from someone who has no facts to base it on, mixed with a total mischaracterization of Jimbo's statement. The arbitration committee made a short list of people we thought would make good arbitrators (based on our previous experiences with them), and Jimbo took our recommendation and appointed arbitrators from our short list. So no, he did not appoint them because he is friends with them; as Jimbo put it so succintly, he appointed them because we told him we think they would make good arbitrators (and he trust our judgement). →Raul654 22:44, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

So what you're basically getting at here is that the members of the ArbCom picked new members of the ArbCom. Everyking 04:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I am yet another user unhappy with the democratic process not being used here. Since Fennec was one vote away from being elected, and James F. was one of the top vote-getters as well, I don't have a problem with them being appointed - in fact, I think they're both fine contributors and that's why so many people voted for them. On the other hand Jayjg received no votes. As opposed to Fennec and James F., in Jayjg's case the elections were ignored. The reasons for his appointment are shrouded in mystification, as is the process by which it was decided, and people questioning it here are attacked.

For my own sanity I generally avoid pages having to do with Palestine/Israel, but on my occassional forays into that morass, I have become aware of Jayjg's POV-pushing on Palestine-related pages. It's obvious to me (and looking at the above comments, obviously others) that he is going to be a lousy arbitrator. A better wiki would have stuck to the democratic process. Ruy Lopez 22:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

While User:Neutrality is certainly a hard working admin, he has made questionable edits, and is headed towards going against consensus reached in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terri_Schiavo&diff=20663757&oldid=20663592#Distinguishing_one_dispute_from_another <-~ that diff ("Revision as of 02:05, 10 August 2005"), as evidenced by this diff on 21:46, 9 August 2005 in the Terri Schiavo page. I fixed the problem (e.g., here), and don't feel he has violated consensus again, (scratch that -he has -see below) yet therefore his past actions, as discussed on the talk page, make me feel it is appropriate to make a formal record of my complaint if he causes trouble again by his POV editing abuse as an admin.--GordonWattsDotCom 02:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Update:

I am new to making complaints against admins -I usually get along well with the "powers that be," and as such, I have never actually made a complaint against an admin. I did (1) Try to talk it over with the opposition; and, (2) I did talk it over on the talk page, and, by my count, with six (6) active editors participating, the vote went down 4-2 in favor of the version that I support, and yet Neutrality bucks all consensus and has an attitude (not a good done?).

When you include the agreement by my Chinese and Hispanic colleagues at the other wikis (see the appropriate links in Talk:Terri_Schiavo), and considering one other editor who is not currently active, I think the vote would more accurately be 7-2 in my favor, not even counting the "google.com" meta-analysis I performed.

Neutrality appears to have called my bluff, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terri_Schiavo&diff=20665553&oldid=20664323

I wonder if he violated consensus, and by proxy and extension, whether he violated Wikipedia policy regarding abuse of admin powers. ?? --GordonWattsDotCom 02:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hm? Did he use any admin powers? Dmcdevit·t 06:59, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

"Hm? Did he use any admin powers?" Not this time, not yet anyhow, but just give him time: In the past he has blocked at least one person for no reason, referring to NCdave, whose edits were passionate but usually not POV and not inaccurate. Further, when an admin edits and makes questionable edits, the "intimidation" factor is present. That is why those in authority are generally held to a higher standard. Lastly, even if his abuses were merely "editor" abuses, and not of admin powers, that is inexcusable. For example, another editor has complained about his hit-and-run edits, in which he just comes in and -without concensus or discussion -edits. I don't have the diff handy, but I might be able to find it if I searched hours and hours. The point, however, is this: If he abuses editor powers, he would abuse admin powers too. I feel bad that I don't have Duckecho's diff handy, where he too complained about Neutrality, but Neutrality has been here long enough that we can see that he sometimes edits as a "Lone Ranger" and without concensus or discussion, so my point stands or falls on its own merits -not the merits of another diff, which I can't find at the moment.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Why are they called "arbitrators" and not just "arbiters"? 205.217.105.2 16:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Because they arbitrate, they don't arbite! -Silence 06:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

So this parrot kept biting me, and I asked the pirate that owned him, "What's he called?", and said "Arrrrr. . . Biter!" Then I asked him what he looked for in a good modem, and he answered "Arrrr. . . Bitrate!" (Thanks, I'll be here all week.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 22:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have had some thoughts on Arbitration Committee appointment, see here (ArbCom Elections Dec05) for discussion. FT2 18:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I feel that suffrage in these elections are rather arbitrary, as a person could be both a long-term member and have substantial quantities of edits without being a good Wikipedian, while a rather new but obviously dedicated user is an upstanding Wikipedian who is being prevented from voting by qualifications that don't reflect their dedication to Wikipedia. As to edit-count, I would think a more proportional standard applied to their time registered would be appropriate. Additionally, a measurement of how often a person's edits are reverted could be a qualifier. Smeggysmeg 05:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I come here in good faith to say that I am un-able to load my own Evidence page from the link in Arbcom AND to request someone of good faith to load into that evidence the following, for me, at the top of my evidence. This could be a browser issue, but I have enough experience here to wonder always whether there is sinister abuse of Wikipedia preventing normal function.

• 10.49

User:Musical Linguist presents at Evidence: This post and others also show that he was not "forced to abandon" Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence&diff=34739827&oldid=34738996#11_November_2005,[[4]]. This is an abuse of this User's Administrator capacity, is made in poor faith, is an attempt to lead/insert evidence whilst not becoming a party, and is a dishonestly described edit. This reveals the User's cabal membership and propensity for bad faith attack upon EffK. I request that this edit be adjudged as making of Musical Linguist a Party to this Arbitratation of me / or the denialist clerical revisionists in Wikipedia. Ends /finish EffK 12:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I repeat my request that someone please insert, cuts and pastes, the dated sub-section as the Evidence still cannot be loaded by me. ThankyouEffK 12:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

After repeated effort the evidence is uploaded. EffK 17:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This page is on my watchlist, and when I read the beginning of his post, I was actually going to offer to upload evidence for him, if he had browser problems. Then I saw that his post was about me!!!

The diff that EffK supplies show that I made two additions to the evidence page of his RfAr. My edit summary says: Is there a software bug? Last post "ate up" two previous ones! (That happened to me too recently.)

Occasionally a wikipedian, while making a post to a talk page, deletes something added by a previous contributor. The deleted post could be a personal attack, a rant, a strong piece of POV pushing, or a completely off-topic post. Such deletions are, in my opinion, sometimes warranted, sometimes not. Such removals often cause offense.

It can also happen that someone edits a talk page, and as well as the addition he has made, there is a deletion of a previous post from another contributor, or even from more than one. This happens completely against the intention of the editor, and there is no "edit conflict" warning. Sometimes the posts that get deleted were made several hours before. I have no idea why this happens, but have sometimes seen people getting very indignant because they think that another editor deleted their post on purpose.

In adding a comment to a talk page, I recently wiped out the post of the previous editor.[5] I don't know how it happened. Luckily, the editor who came after me assumed good faith and just restored it without comment. More recently, Str1977 accidentally wiped out two posts while making his own. When it was drawn to his attention,[6] he apologized and restored them.[7]

The edit history relevant to EffK's accusation against me will show the following diffs:

10:49, 11 January 2006 Musical Linguist (Is there a software bug? Last post "ate up" two previous ones! (That happened to me too recently.))

10:35, 11 January 2006 Str1977 m

10:18, 11 January 2006 EffK (→Evidence presented by EffK - Removal of Reichskonkordat)

20:37, 10 January 2006 Robert McClenon (→03 January 2006)

17:50, 10 January 2006 Str1977 (→Evidence presented by Str1977 from his confrontation with FK)

A very brief look will show immediately that Robert McClenon added the words: This post and others also show that he was not "forced to abandon" Wikipedia at 20:37 on 10 January; that EffK added evidence for 30 August 2005 at 10:18 on 11 January; that Str1977 added to his own 10 January 2006 evidence seventeen minutes later at 10:35; that the two previous edits got swallowed up at the same time; and that I restored those deleted edits at 10:49, with no additions of my own and with an edit summary commenting on the fact that they had probably been deleted through a software bug.

To reply to each of EffK's accusations:

1. I did not use any administrator's powers in making that edit.
2. My edit was made in good faith, as I was trying to undo the result of a software glitch, and was also trying to spare Str1977 a possible accusation of having wiped out the posts on purpose.
3. I made no attempt to insert my own evidence, although to do so is not prohibited, and although I do have diffs that show EffK being less than civil to me, including one where, editing while not logged in, he seems to compare my promotion to adminship to Hitler's rise to power.[8] I merely readded Robert McClenon's evidence and EffK's own evidence (which I think he should have noticed before making his latest accusation).
4. There is nothing dishonest in my edit summary. Perhaps I could have been a little clearer and stated that I was restoring these two edits. But I assumed that it was sufficient, while reinserting them, simply to state that they had been deleted.
5. I can't comment on the "cabal membership" statement, as I have no idea what he is talking about.
6. I do not have a "propensity for bad faith attack upon EffK". I have never made any kind of attack on him; nor have I felt any wish to do so. I have reverted some of his editing, though not frequently; and, at a time when I was extremely busy with college work, I have taken a lot of time to respond to his concerns, possibly adding to his frustration, which I regret. I am not involved in this case, other than that I was a witness some months ago to the way he filled up the Benedict XVI talk page with several extremely long posts which had nothing to do with editing the article.

EffK, you have made utterly false accusations of abuse of administratorship and dishonest edit summary, among other things. You have also taken up over half an hour of my time in responding (and you may note from my user page and talk page that I am very busy at the moment and am trying to contribute less to Wikipedia until the end of the month). I will, nevertheless, accept your apology if you choose to make one, and continue to wish you well, regardless. AnnH ^(talk) 17:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I am very offended. EffK 19:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, you should have been more careful to show that you had not written that of McClenon's, but it appeared that you had. Your name was up as the editor of the diff. I can hardly be blamed for seeing your statement as your statement. And, Yes, you have shown bad faith by joining in attack on me at his earlier Rfc, another Straw man attack to deflect from the sourced truth. You were in bad faith in estimating that I have a personal grudge against this Church. And You remain in bad faith for never answering your reduction of 30 odd priests to one or was it zero in the Ferns Scandal, and you remain in bad faith in not accounting for your removal(as my POV/error) of the scandalous Irish government deal struck with the Church for 100 million(now 900 in costs to them), and you remain in bad faith for removing the priestly rebellion, after one priest went public.By demanding source after the entire was in the media, you are denying my good faith and provoking further identification of my whereabouts. You answered jesuitically concerning the papal secrecy clause, and distorted or removed NPOV I used to balance a disgusting Article. I also remind you that you came as close to blackmailing-setting a condition for your answering re that Sex Abuse as it was possible to approach. You made me apologise to a massive over-reaction in the example of Str1977 German forebear. I did not say that his forebear tried to kill mine, and succeeded, actually, I said he might have had some centre party Connection, as some motive for Str1977 protecting the Centre Article, and his over-reaction(typically Strawman) to contemporary widespread german political memory and shame. I do still believe that Str1977 must have a political connection to the early party, or to the present little new Centre party factions rearing their heads in Germany now. I had to accede to that pressure, but you didn't keep to your bargain, and complete your answer at Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal.

I believe if I had to I could show several assumption of bad faith edits, aimed at Strawman demolition of verifiable source. You have consistently assumed my bad faith, and Str1977's veracity, and gone and chosen not to accept asny conditioning of this your this response through my sourced justifications at many nercessary discussions, therefore I do not accept your denial of knowledge of the denialist clerical revisionism cabal. You have voluntarily assisted the cabal many times despite my good faith verifiability, and this effort of yours in Evidence shows you are still partisan and willing to be so, or you should have said in the diff-tag that you had been requested to assist. If you are completely naive, then I truly am sorry, for you, for my assumption of intelligence, and for Wikipedia being so populated. I will show diffs here if you desire.

I will clearly accept that I jumped to a natural conclusion that you wrote that which you were visible as writing. I believe all the rest shows me your bias and poor faith,preceding your Adminshipwhich I regret you and your friends displaying. I therefore make no personal attack in recognising bias through assumption of bad faith. As you know I asked repeatedly for you to account for your removals. You should not have joined with the others in the cabal, and you are wrong in so helping Str1977 at this trial and everywhere, and you should not say you know nothing of Hitler and then show otherwise by minutiae corrections and voting off clearly verifiable material from Wikipedia. You should not whitewash the sex Abuse page, and you should still explain what gives you the right to display bad faith to me in qualifying my contribution as no more than POV/unsourced ill-written error . Apart from all that- I do not and did not look for you to join in the bad faith attack made on my integrity, and I suggest to you that, if I remain here, which is dependant on a guilt being cast at your fellow catholic-biased editors, that you will be able to renew your un-biased capacities by distancing yourself from such faith-based editing policy. Go back and undo the damage you mischievously made at Sex Abuse, badly tagged, and never accounted for. Do not abuse my intentions by stating even to me that I am an anti-catholic. I assert that the papacy , as sourced, did what it did, and the logic is that it was hypocrisy. Logic is universal, not mine alone, actually. I source my contentions, and you and your friends rubbish this source against WP principles. As to your waste of half an hour- You have contributed to my waste of more than half a year, and against clear Wikipedia principle of Verifiability. In being so against this principle and the assumption of good faith, you have joined in cabal wrong. Apart from that I am sorry, and now I equally list this under your response at my Trial.

I note that you thus far do not wish to enter the Evidence pages- even though you know that I have now used up my permitted defensive diff-count, and therefor you have a virtual open-goal. Considering your previous eagerness to combine against me on all VfD's and RfC, and generally, this is inconsistant. I itemised my witness to your bias at your vote for Administrator, and it still holds several truths. I would say to all rational persons at Wikipedia that you Musical Linguist are a part of their faith revisionism problem, if Wikipedia is to become a respectable source.

EffK 20:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC))

EffK 20:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think I missed some of that. Could you repeat? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I am very , extremely offended. EffK 19:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I am requesting help with a particular admin here that has stated I could be banned for what my personal position is on discussing matters with other Wikipedians. For some background information and I also want to clearly state my problem. I joined Wikipedia in December of 2005 in response to the actions taken concerning the wiki article "wehatetech" or "we hate tech." The article has been pulled several times and I do understand that once it's voted on somehow, not exactly clear on that, it's removed from the encyclopedia. I am NOT here to fight for that particular article. i understand that there is a guideline for articles, BUT my observation and opinion is that the rules were not followed properly in the process of deletion. Why am I still here? Well, in a nutshell, I have seen people removed from the site or blocked for various reasons I also do not agree with, but it up to those individual people to address their removal. I decided to stay in order to provide constructive criticism of the deletion process and to add another viewpoint to the issue. I feel improperly judged, reading from responses to my post, a "one issue candidate" and have been threatened with removal from the site, being a sock-puppet for "we hate tech" and accused of "cluttering" talk pages.

My purpose is not to clutter the site or be on any type of mission to tear down Wikipedia. I wish to understand why certain things happen here and hope to add thoughtful insight and more information to topics in order to resolve an issue. I do feel like I am being pushed around and generally really upset with the whole process with a select group of individuals either working behind the scenes or posting on my talk page. Two Wikipedians have stood out in this whole situation, User:Haikupoet and admin User:Zoe. I have had several exchanges with both, with Haikupoet moving one comment and then deleting my response to because I was under the impression that it was deleted. My response comment was then deleted, which resulted in the blocking User:Xerves. The block happened due to a supposed "legal threat" by "Zoe" which has now threatened me with the same. It's not MY forum I am promoting. I am a member of such forum and website http://www.wehatetech.com and I am NOT trying to promote in the first place.

I AM promoting that fellow Wikipedians discuss issues and not stomp over other postings by others. I am being totally honest and upfront. I do not have a hidden agenda. Have I been totally innocent? No, there are two comments / edits on my behalf that broke regulation. i was dealt with in a proper manner by those admins and I am thankful for that. If further investigation yields that I be removed from Wikipedia then so be it, as long as I am adequately told as to such infractions. i only wish to resolve this issue. i have deleted none of my post and will not edit any of my post to make myself appear in a different light. Everything is available through my user history.

Thank you. Kmac1036 23:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, Kmac. Your complaint would be more appropriate at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you move it there, you're more likely to get a response. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 23:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

A proposal by Raul654 has been made for a Clerks' Office for the Arbitration Committee. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerk's office for the proposal and Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerk's_office for discussion. David | Talk 19:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Since the list changed based on Jimbo's announcement, should the date change too? I'd fix it myself but I got edit conflicts twice, perhaps someone who is fixing things already could do it too? ++Lar: t/c 21:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Where is Jimbo's announcement? Paul August ☎ 22:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Mailing list. [9] Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Should the page now say that each tranche has five members? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed :) Raul654 01:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

What the...how come the new people are already active? I thought it wasn't supposed to be until Feb. 1. Everyking 06:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Raul654 07:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but that's what I remembered. Everyking 07:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the intent was to have the new ArbCom instated and active by feb 1st at the latest, thus giving people (by which I mean Jimbo) some time for consideration after the election ended. There's no harm in doing it faster than that, WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Radiant_>|< 13:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Arbcom. What would you think, on the main arbcom page, of having, instead of or in addition to those (somewhat confusing) e-mail addresses (member at whatever.com), something like this: e-mail this arbitrator. It looks better, it's actually marginally more spam-proof, and in my view it would be easier to use. If you're interested, I'm happy to add or switch them myself. Thanks. Chick Bowen 00:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea. Raul654 00:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. All but yours, Raul, since you're listed as "away." Chick Bowen 01:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin resigned. A logged in user, and then an anon-IP, changed the text to say that Kelly Martin either was unelected or resigned "during an unsuccessful reelection bid". This is both inaccurate and mean-spirited. I'm not a big KM supporter -- I voted against her, in fact. But this is just childish. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I don't consider this a particularly big deal, and I am emphatically not that IP. Radiant_>|< 15:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

(Glad to hear that. I don't mean to say that your single change was necessarily mean-spirited, but the repeated reverting is.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Filiocht (talk · contribs) has not edited Wikipedia since December 22, 2005. Would this mean that s/he should be listed as either "away" or "inactive"? --TML1988 05:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Inactive, but not yet. Let's give him a little more time. Raul654 05:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

How in the world did he do so well without even being present? He shouldn't even be given a seat unless he shows up really soon to claim it (say Feb.?). Move one down the list for whoever was passed over in favor of Jayjg. Everyking 05:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That's for Jimbo to decide. Raul654 06:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone e-mailed him? Chick Bowen 22:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Several people, last I heard; no response, though. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed Kelly Martin PA per WP:NPA. It insulted 90% of arb parties. Even if true, this message is not helpful and may further damage the process. --FloNight 14:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I've restored my comments. WP:RPA is controversial, and your use of it in this circumstance even more so. Please do not do that again. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you for the feedback. --FloNight 16:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I am involved in a dispute on Wiktionary. Does the arbitration committee handle requests for issues on Wiktionary and, if so, where should I place a request for arbitration and / or mediation there?

Thanks,

Primetime 02:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Technically, there's nothing in the Wikipedia:Arbitration policy to prohibit us from taking the case, but that's almost certainly an oversite. I don't think we have standing to hear a case on another wiki. Raul654 02:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to request CheckUser permission, but I can't seem to find any particular place to ask. MSJapan 21:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no such page. Raul654 21:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, I would like to ask the ArbCom for CheckUser access, because I would like to get involved in the community at large rather than the relatively small area I contribute in now. I have had extensive experience as a board moderator, so I know the IP tracing and identification process, as well as what is valid as similar IP and what is not. Therefore, however slim the chance may be, I would like to be considered for CheckUser. Thank you. MSJapan 00:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there any discussion about this somewhere that I'm missing? - brenneman^{T}{L} 05:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. Bpogi92 00:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)