Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy comments

Comments on jurisdiction

I have a few questions:

1. Will the committee only site en banc?
2. Is there any provision for having the parties each picking on arbitrator and then have those to arbitrators pick a third out of the committee. This is a standard procedure and is the preferred method at the AAA. JamesDay has pointed out that having the arbitrators just thrust upon one is not very fair.
3. If you don't like that idea will you do what they do in most courts, i.e. the arbitrator will be chosen by some random process so that there is some difference in decision making and people don't feel like they have been railroaded to appear before a commitee chosen by Jimbo.
4. As arbitration is a consensual matter too if both parties want arbitration then can you guys (and I do mean guys) really refuse?
5. Aren't members really guaranteed arbitration by the Bylaws? So how can the committee refuse to arbitrate? Where do those people go? BTW if a court has jurisdiction it is usually required at least to rule if there is a case that can be brought against it, and if not it renders a decision dismissing the case by the plaintiff (or petitioner, or whatever you want to call that person or entity).

Just some random thoughts from someone who does arbitration in the real world. — Alex756 [http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 06:55, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

1) I don't understand the question!

en banc means that you will all rule together. It comes from the time when judges all sat on a bench (Court of Queen's Bench) in the monarch's court.

2-3) That will be discussed when we move onto the "Who takes part?" point on the agenda (see wikipedia:arbitrators, progress report). I'm aware of your comments on this elsewhere, and will bring them to the committee's notice at the appropriate time.

Thanks.

4-5) If you feel that we cannot or should not refuse, for legal or other reasons, we'd be interested to hear your opinion. While discussing the issue, we generally felt that we'd be referring cases to mediation where we felt mediation might help, that we'd be refusing to rule on very trivial matters that should have been addressed by stages 1-3 of wikipedia:conflict resolution, and we'd be referring serious matters to the Wikimedia Board, to the police, or to the courts. Essentially in this cases we would be ruling that we have no jurisdiction over the dispute at the present time.

If the arbitrators are "seized" of a case they may request that the parties try mediation, but if mediation fails, then the arbitrators cannot refuse to rule after they follow their procedures. As far as the "courts" are concerned it would be best that you don't refer anything to the courts. The idea is to keep Wikipedia independent of the courts. Of course if someone has some really serious claim against WP then maybe a reference to the AAA under one of their arbitration rules or to some online arbitration service (there are several) would be appropriate. I mentioned to Jimbo that there might be more than one type of arbitration, i.e. if some user brings some kind of money claim against Wikipedia the arbitrators might better be those trained to decide such disputes, but if there is a general arbitration clause in the Wikipedia:Terms of use then everyone who sees this site we hope will be bound by it and we won't have to worry about people suing people in the courts (who is going to pay for Wikipedia's legal fees!).

Martin 18:47, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Replies by — Alex756 [http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex756 talk] 05:56, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We discussed this, and we generally decided that we'd like to continue to have the option to either dismiss a case quickly, or else refuse to hear it. Being largely untrained there was a feeling that we should be honest when faced with a case that is beyond our abilities to arbitrate. Martin 19:00, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I would like to congratulate the idea of this "court" and the professional way on which it promisses to deal with conflicts. Muriel 15:50, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! --mav

---

Hey, you should not put titles in comments, for it breaks the edit sections. It is unfortunate :-) fr0069

mediation first?

Has the matter of Wik gone to the Mediation Committee yet? That is necessary to happen before going to the Arbitration Committee, no? Kingturtle 00:12, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not according to our Jurisdiction at wikipedia:arbitration policy, which permits us to accept cases that have not gone through mediation. In this case, the mediator discussion can be read at the mediation board, and it seems to suggest that further mediation would not be helpful. Martin 00:24, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The why does step four read: The other steps failing you must have requested mediation on the page Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and tried and failed to resolve the dispute through the good offices of the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee in order to proceed to the last step, requesting arbitration. ? Kingturtle 00:41, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Because it's inaccurate and it needs fixing, on account of we're halfway through sorting the process out.

I moved your comment here because (a) you're not an arbitrator and (b) this page is tough enough to manage without threadmode making it worse. Yes, this is probably elitist, but it doesn't make it easier to figure out the requisite four votes needed when a few hundred people can interject their two cents. Martin 00:57, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the metapage is overly posted. I was just following what looked like the protocol. Maybe you should remove the "Matters of" and "Evidence" from the metapage too. They are not formal requests. Kingturtle 01:35, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

evidence

I presume it is against protocol for Anthony to remove eveidence against himself from his page? Secretlondon 09:52, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

Even if the so called "evidence" is false? Anthony DiPierro 14:30, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Then reply why it is false - do not remove evidence from the page. Secretlondon 19:16, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't remove evidence. I removed nonsense. Anthony DiPierro 19:32, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Anthony It's looks suspicious to remove evidence. Just explain somewhere that the evidence is nonsense. it's up to the arbitrators to decide if it really is nonsense or not. theresa knott 19:59, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes: For example, post a rebuttal of that evidence which you feel is nonsense on a user sub-page. If Wikipedians have been posting nonsense masquerading as evidence, then I am very interested in discovering that fact and dealing with it appropriately. I do not appreciate people wasting my time. Martin 01:59, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I didn't think the evidence page was the place for arguments. In any case, secretlondon restored it, and I fixed it (replacing the misleading heading "Original Articles (As listed on his user page)" with "A selected list of articles which have been listed on User:Anthony DiPierro under the title "Pages I have (or haven't yet) created"" I also edited "His actual original articles are" to "His actual original articles include" and " Of the 16 pages Anthony says he has created" to "of these", and clarified that "Better Business Buereau" wasn't even created by me (it was listed on my page under that heading, and someone else created it before I even got to it).

In any case, should I be listing explanations and rebuttals on the evidence page, or just evidence? Anthony DiPierro 04:56, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No not on the evidence page. Irismeister has done this and it makes the page very difficult to read. Why not create a new page at Wikipedia:Matter of Anthony DiPierro defense and put you arguments there ? theresa knott 22:41, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You could do it all on the evidence page if you divide the page into ==evidence against anthony== for everyone to contribute to, and then create ==evidence in favor of anthony== and present your case there. Just don't do what Irismeister did and mix your comments in with the evidence against you, it's hopelessly confusing.  :) fabiform | talk 23:07, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's very easy to break evidence into that which is favorable and that which isn't. Evidence is evidence, it should all be factual and NPOV. Or maybe I'm just missing the point of the evidence page.

Anyway, I was assuming there was going to be some sort of arguments phase after the evidence phase, but I guess I was wrong about that. Anthony DiPierro 23:39, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Matter of Wik evidence for an example of splitting the page. fabiform | talk 23:56, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to bring that up as an example of why it's a bad idea. Anthony DiPierro 00:00, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Question for people better informed than I

What happens if an arbitrator accepts to consider a matter against a user with whom he was involved in edit wars? I am concerned about possible bias, despite my confidence that the nominated arbitrators will known how to separate things. Muriel 08:04, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is the Arbitrator's job to recuse him- or her-self in the event of a conflict of interest; if other members of the Committee feel that an Arbitrator has such a conflict, they can have him removed (a vote of 4, IIRC), but failing to note, if not recuse oneself over, a conflict of interest would be considered a serious failing, and might lead to Jimbo removing such a person from the Arbitration Committee. If, however, a majority of the Committee feel that they would have a conflict of interest, the Committee will sit en banc, disregarding such concerns, as otherwise a determined troll could deliberatly seek to reduce the Committee to below-quorum levels. Obviously, Jimbo can disregard one of our decisions handed down, or dismiss or censure or whatever us, if he feels appropriate.

Please note: The above is merely the current state of the Arbitration Policy, and could change (though the rules are and will continue to be published - see Wikipedia:Arbitration Policy.

James F. (talk) 09:47, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Question of organisation

I perhaps have not read well, or not the right pages, but I have not understood whether the committee was actually talking to the disputants during arbitration. Or not at all
When you arbitrate a case, do you talk to those involved, or do you just review evidence.
In the first case, people coming to you should come with an advocate preferably to help them, and should be prepared to vocally defend their steak spinach salad. Perhaps even come with witnesses
In the second case, that means arbitration can occur even though a disputant is missing. All disputants should arrive at arbitration with a prepared case. Cases are usually prepared by lawyers. Perhaps users need recommandations of how they can organise their case, gather links, facts. Because all they will have the right to do is to give a little package that will support the case for them.

Explain to me how you organise yourself, and aside from all that paperwork about quorum and other technical considerations, what does happen exactly ? Do you plan a male only group meeting in a coffee shop tea house to talk this over between all of you, with blood and sweat dedication and duty respect, or is it more like a review of written evidence properly gathered by others ? In this case, who are the others ? Who are the gatherers ? Yous ? One of yous ? Disputants ? Before arbitration ? During arbitration ? If before, how can mediation help ? (so that we do not do twice the same work ?)

FirmLittleFluffyThing 00:53, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In the cases we've dealt with so far, we've set up an /evidence page (see for example Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik/Evidence) where people can post evidence they think the arbitrators should consider. Such evidence can be posted by involved parties, arbitrators themselves, and any other users. If mediators want to post evidence, that could be very useful, as they're likely to have pretty good knowledge of users' history. In the case of Wik, we also had Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik, where Wik made a statement. We've then sifted through all this stuff, and tried to reach conclusions.

We haven't talked directly to the involved parties ourselves in cases so far (not that I can think of, anyway). I wouldn't rule out doing that in the future, however, if we wanted to ask a particular question or clarify a particular point.

That's how things have been so far. It's hard to say how they might work out in the future. Our methods are constantly in flux and likely to change--especially in these early days--as we learn what works best. There's a little bit about the process at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Hearing, but it's quite vague - this is deliberate, really, as we hope to fill out the details as we gain more experience and learn what works well.

Everything I say here is just how I see things, by the way - I'm not claiming to speak for the committee as a whole. And sorry if I'm not very coherent - I'm dropping asleep :) --Camembert

First off, please note that I am speaking for myself here, and not the AC, as I'm a little hazy on the exact details.

Here's an overview of how things have gone for the last few cases:

We get a new case. This is announced on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration (in future, obviously, it will start here) and also on the AC mailing lists.

Those Arbitrators who feel that they are involved will recuse themselves; further, those involved in the case can complain about an Arbitrator that they feel should have recused themself (as is set out in the Policy)

Those involved present information (evidence) and arguments (seperated, so as to avoid confusion as to who is saying what). If people want others to represent them here, I suppose that that's fine, though it does seem a bit overly formal to me. This goes on the specific sub-page for the case.

Others may give accessory information (e.g. someone saying that, in their opinion, user A is a maligned individual who, whilst difficult to work with, is nonetheless zn important part of the Wikipedia)

The Committee discusses the evidence provided on the mailing list, and we suggest possible findings, which we then agree or disagree on, and find specific evidence to support. The evidence, if possible to place in the public gaze, will go on the case's evidence sub-sub-page.

Then, again on the mailing list, we suggest possible decrees (ban, edit throttling, censure, &c.). These will be put up on the case's decision sub-sub-page, along with the agreed-upon findings and a small amount of corroborating evidence.

We vote on the findings and decrees, and, when we have come to a conclusion, we publish this on the main Requests for arbitration page.

So, in review, Arbitration is a combination of a review of evidence given by others, and a finding of evidence ourselves.

I would say that the easiest way that Mediation can help is by letting people settle their differences, so that we don't have to look at it at all. ;-) Of course, that's not always possible; in the case of informatin from Mediation comeing through to the AC, we consider it privileged information, so you would need the consent of all involved. If you have that, a special section on the evidence page is nominally reserved for the products your hard work.

James F. (talk) 02:35, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to jump in and add my experiences in bring Irismeister's case before the AC. I made my request on the page and waited to see if my request to Jimbo would bear fruit. Several other people requested the case be heard, so Jimbo passed it to the committee. Then we suddenly had an evidence page and a vote was opened to see if the members of the committee would accept the case.

I assumed that the AC members would have a glance at the evidence to see if the case seemed worthy of attention (rather than base their vote just on my official request), so I felt I had to hurry to get as much evidence as possible on the page so that AC members wouldn't vote it down without seeing the full picture. Then of course, nothing has happened for weeks as more urgent cases have been dealt with.

At the moment I find it a bit confusing that we don't know when the committee are focusing on each case, or when all evidence should ideally be presented by. People have been adding evidence to pages very late, and we don't know if this is even considered (if it falls in the time when the arbitrators are voting on findings of fact for instance). Perhaps when you've settled into a pattern on how you deal with cases, you could draw up a standard timetable/guide to help users who wish to gather evidence (you could also give an idea of how to best present evidence, should you expound on the evidence page or should you rely just on links with little commentary, etc, etc, because as we can't see the debates, we don't know how useful or persuasive you find different kinds of evidence and how to present it in a useful format). fabiform | talk 04:24, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

All very good ideas, IMO. Thanks for the feedback! --mav 06:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers.
I suppose it is best that each disputant comes with a full description of what he is asking then.
Does the arbitration committee plan to ever accept settlements over article dispute ? Or does it consider it is out of its juridiction ? It is best we know, so that to be clear with disputants mediation is the only way.
Also, I noticed all the currents cases were accusations against one person only, perhaps sometimes with someone playing the role of the community. Do you plan to accept conjoint cases, or should these be presented separately when both disputants have requests ?
How are perceived accusations made between 2 people, not involving the community at all for example ?
Is there any arbitration decision which are not banning or slowing down, or unsysoping people, but more things like apologizing to another person ?
When there are no rules about the case, what do you plan to do ?
What is your feeling with regards to advocates ? If disputants are not really exchanging (words) with AC, what can be their role ? Just providing facts ? FirmLittleFluffyThing 18:16, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We haven't ruled out arbitrating article disputes, but our policy clearly favours taking on user conduct disputes.

A vs B cases are fine. Yes, even if the community at larges is basically uninvolved.

We've had a number of decrees involving warnings or reminders given to one party or the other. I'm not sure about apologies. How would one enforce that? What if the apology is perceived as insincere? <for more info see meatball:DemandApology -- Cyan>

If there are no rules... if there aren't any common practices or consensus-backed policy, then I guess we'd have to reject the claim and suggest that the community come to a consensus over the matter. A case-by-case thing.

Advocates can help by making statements on the arbitration page, by structuring evidence in a helpful and persuasive manner, and by objecting to evidence they consider to be flawed. Same as non-advocates, really. Martin 14:19, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

case of trolls

moved excessive discussion

'Cause trouble'? You mean people who don't agree with you? Can you specify what, in particular, I did to deserve banning? The Trolls of Navarone 20:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oppose. The arbitration committee is not in the role of creating new policies -- see Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Usernames. Also, I believe that "trolling" is too vague and subjective and is liable to be abused for political purposes. What exactly is to constitute "trolling"? If a user is obviously vandalizing, and only has been vandalizing, then the vandalizing component of this policy is already covered by the existing blocking policy See also my comments on Wikipedia:Three strikes you're out policy JRR Trollkien 19:21, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think anyone objects to blocking users who are trolling. I am, however, opposed to blocking users who've done nothing wrong, based solely on their username—we have an established process for dealing with usernames deemed inappropriate and it doesn't call for blocking on sight. Mkweise 19:24, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

blocking users who are trolling: "trolling" can be subjectively assessed. What exactly is to constitute "trolling"? If a user is obviously vandalizing, and only has been vandalizing, then the vandalizing component of this policy is already covered by the existing blocking policy (which exists somewhere...) JRR Trollkien 19:55, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, this is precisely the problem, people are opposing the blocking of users who are trolling. Angela. 19:36, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

It is my understanding that any username with the word Troll in it can be immediately blocked indefinitely. Kingturtle 19:26, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If that is the policy, we should make a note of it on the page new users see when choosing a username. I am very concerned about innocents who might otherwise become valuable contributors falling victim to such a policy. Trolls have a rich history outside of the internet meaning of the word, you know. Mkweise 19:33, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That obviously isn't the case when the chair of the abitration committee is unblocking them immediately after they are blocked. Angela. 19:36, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

There is no current policy that says this. Some admins have interpreted the policy to mean they can ban anyone they like, and then accuse them of 'trolling' if they object. I tried to ask Angela to explain this on her talk page, but instead of responding, even to say that she did not want to discuss it, she deleted the question. I presume any attempt to reason about this will be interpreted as 'trolling', since anyone who attempts to dispute her right to block anyone she wants to is 'disruptive' or 'trolling'. The Trolls of Navarone 20:42, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If the arbitration committee can not deal with an issue it sees as a policy issue, perhaps it should deal just with the case of User:JRR Trollkien instead. However, I doubt the usefulness of this if he will just change name and continue trolling. Will the arbitration ruling apply to whatever his new user name is? If so, how are users supposed to prove it is the same person, and what procedure must they go through in order to reban him following an arbitration decision that he should be banned? Angela. 19:36, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's banning policy:

Wikipedians should generally refrain from witch hunts of users who may be reincarnations of banned users. However, it's reasonable to politely ask so that, in cases of mistaken identity, the new user can quickly set the record straight [...]

If it becomes clear that a new user account is a reincarnation of a hard banned user, then it should in theory be treated as hard banned. A notice of some sort may be added to the top of the user page, or the user page may be redirected to the page of the original account.

(emphasis added) JRR Trollkien 19:50, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Are we really suggesting that people should be banned for "voting in policy polls and quickpolls"? God forbid! What havock they could cause! What if everyone voted in policy polls! As for "listing people on Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions", that was in response to a ban that was clearly in violation of current policy. The ban was lifted. 'Trolling' just means saying things that you disagree with. Nothing that I did justified a ban, and there would have been no wasting of everyones time had you simply noted (or not) the vote on the poll, and moved on. Your witchhunt is the timewaster. The Trolls of Navarone 20:16, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

All the stuff about usernames is off-topic to Angela's request, as she wrote it. The rest has been summarised. Martin 00:54, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Access to Evidence

Why is access to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mav v. 168/Evidence limited and to whom is it limited? I can only see it or post to it while logged in. 168...

I expect it's a caching issue. Anonymous users retrieve pages from a cache, and this new page has presumably not been cached yet. Try a hard refresh, or edit as a logged in user (who shouldn't hit the cache, but often have similar problems with images). I know of no way to hide the contents of pages from any user, and why would we want to anyway? :) fabiform | talk 06:37, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Proposal: temporary restraining orders

I'd like to propose an additional element to add to the arbitration process. It occurred to me that while the arbitration is ongoing there is nothing in place to stop, or at least deter, the conduct that has prompted the arbitration in the first place. I suggest that Wikipedia should borrow a tool from the legal system and use temporary restraining orders to "freeze" a dispute until the AC has resolved it.

Here's how I see it working.

• If a dispute is essentially about content, relating to a single article or group of articles, both the complainant and complainee should be required to cease editing those articles until the dispute is resolved.

• If the dispute is more about conduct (e.g. posting abuse to user talk pages or repeatedly reverting) the complainee should be required to temporarily cease the complained-of conduct: editing any user talk pages, performing any reversions, etc.

• If the restraint is ignored then the offending user(s) should be given an immediate temporary ban until the arbitration is resolved.

I see this measure as offering a number of advantages:

• If users abided by the TRO, it would avoid the need to protect the article to the general detriment of other users. It would also hopefully reduce the temperature of a conflict between users.

• If they didn't obey the TRO it would provide a fairly instant measure of their good intent and willingness to accept the AC's decisions.

• The limited and temporary nature of the TRO would provide a means of enforcing a "time-out" without prejudging the rights and wrongs of a case. Nobody would be harmed by a temporary restriction on which pages they can edit; they can go and make contributions to something harmless (anyone for Gastropoda?) while the AC deliberates.

I leave open the question of how a TRO could be authorised. Perhaps we could give the complainant the option of requesting a TRO, with the decision being made through time-limited vote among sysops of whom a supermajority and a reasonable number of actual votes cast would required to agree the TRO (e.g. requiring a minimum of 60% in favour with at least six votes in favour).

I recognize that this probably would not be much use in the most complex cases, but for the simpler cases it might be a useful tool to adopt. -- ChrisO 18:41, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think this is an idea worth considering (I hope we could come up with a name other than "temporary restraining order" though, which makes users sound a bit like stalkers or something), but I'd like to hear what other people (arbitrators and not) think. Any thoughts? --Camembert

It is an interesting idea, but executing it may be as difficult as arbitration itself in many situations. When you have two parties in an edit war on a page, whose version of the page would you leave when you ordered the end of hostilities? Wouldn't it encourage sock puppeting? Would you order allies of the parties to also cease? Finally, the arbiters don't hasten to make decisions, but a "TRO" only really helps if it happens early in the process. --Ben Brockert 23:38, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

Since we are unlikely to get 5 arbitrators to quickly issue a TRO, if authorized, as part of arbitration policy, it probably should be issued by one arbitrator and take another arbitrator to overrule it. Fred Bauder 01:03, May 29, 2004 (UTC)

Aw, just go and let the fur fly. Human psychology is such that with potential parental involvement the involved participants will become more extreme since such behavior reinforces the ego's system of rationalization to self support their internal view of the reasonableness of their own position. Having further polarized the behavior the arbitrators will have a clearer view of what is happening and will find it easier to come ot a conclusion. (I'd love to work on Gastropods!) Stephen Holland, M.D. (Gastroenterology) Kd4ttc 19:23, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Meatball:TrialByExile? Martin 00:47, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fred's suggestion looks good. Seems a popular idea, too. Martin 00:47, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I also like Fred's idea. --mav 01:15, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I too; this makes for 5 Arbitrators' votes for, and none against. If an internal measure, is it hence enacted? James F. (talk) 01:34, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Baiting block proposed

-> wikipedia talk:banning policy

Arbitrators don't set policy, just enforce it. Proposals to policy pages, please. :) Martin 23:26, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Original response to MNH 2

The above comments of David Gerard are absurd! For one thing, David has never asked me about mediation.

This is factually incorrect. Substantiating links, as listed in first para above: Request, reply, deletion of reply, abusive edit summary - David Gerard 15:20, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Point number one, unless you first define precisely what these disputes are you have done nothing but engage in a trolling activity to waste more of my time. I am not going to waste my time on a troll who is unable to articulate what in the world they are talking about.

Point number two, my response was as follows.

Perhaps, you could elect to stop your trolling? -- John Gohde 15:38, 28 May 2004 (UTC)~

Other than periodically removing personal attacks, I previously stated that I will not be wasting more of my time dealing editing Alternative medicine and Iridology. That goes triple for talk pages. So, there is no problem other than in your own mind. Please, STOP wasting my time. -- John Gohde 15:41, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Therefore, I stated point-blank that there was no problem. And, you clearly never responded with a clearly articulated definition of the problem. That is precisely why you are a troll, David. There is nothing about the definition of a troll that requires volition. People like you are the worst kinds of trolls, IMHO. --John Gohde 16:01, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that you could know of the edit histories of Alternative Medicine or Iridology or their talk pages and have to ask what conflict I could possibly be talking about. You also appear to be using a private, rather than conventional, definition of troll in the Internet sense - presumably this was the definition you were using all the time you called people trolls? - David Gerard 21:52, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

the term is perhaps more safely applied to insubstantial irritation without contributory content that merely derails discourse and erodes civility. - Yep, that definition sounds like it was talking about David Gerard to me. -- John Gohde 23:11, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, he has not even been able to state why I should waste more of my time on his trolling activities.

David is a troll just trying to waste my time. And, he has made more than enough comments in Talk:alternative medicine that clearly shows his intent to waste my time. He is the one who consistently has violated NPOV in regards to articles on alternative medicine. I on the other hand created the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine as a constructive way to deal with the issues David has been talking about.

It is my position that alternative medicine is in a constant state of edit wars precisely because of people like David. How many times are they going to change the definition of alternative medicine? How many times are they going to add controversy to the introduction? How many times are they going to change the criticism section?

I am totally happy over all with the present layout of alternative medicine. And, I wish that people like David would stop trying to create edit wars over absolutely nothing.

His latest activity in alternative medicine of calling a direct quote of a physician with 2 years of advanced training in Integrative Medicine as tabloid is well documented, while he praises a grossly out of date quote of some professor making an obviously false statement as high quality clearly identifies David as biased. David seems to be just interested in trolling. David wants to draw me into a stupid edit war over his agenda to push his own private point of view. I have better things to do with my time. It is as simple as that. There are no unresolved issues in alternative medicine or in Iridology. I would prefer just to ignore David trying to constantly goad me into washing more my time. Now David wants to waste more of your time. I want nothing to do with any mediation / arbitration process. -- John Gohde 14:53, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Here is evidence of David's trolling activities. First he creates archive #7 in Talk:alternative medicine. Then he starts out Talk:alternative medicine with the following question.

That anecdotal evidence (the newspaper quote) looks desperate. Is there anything better as a 'for' argument? - David Gerard 11:58, 30 May 2004 (UTC) (See [1])

This is nothing but of a repeat of a thread he started in archive #7 (See [2])

The definition of a troll is a person who engages in activities in order to waste peoples time and / or goad them into flaming them. In fact, I would say that archive #7 Talk:alternative medicine was created in only 10 days precisely because of David's trolling activities. My only mistake was allowing myself to be sucked into David's trolling activities. -- John Gohde 15:41, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

This is a content issue. (Your statements here serve as an example of taking a content issue as a personal attack.) I do not demand its removal - I state an editorial opinion (that as "support" it's extremely weak) and ask if there's anything better. That's the sort of thing people do on talk pages. Is this to be declared unacceptable? - David Gerard 21:52, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

As I have already stated in talk, it is far from being weak. I could not have come up with a better quote than if I wrote it myself. And, as I have already stated it delivers a knock-out blow that the critics will not be able to recover from. Of course, that is precisely why you are now trolling. -- John Gohde 23:06, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I will save responding further to Mr-Natural-Health until the case is accepted or not. Apologies for fogging things up so far with the above - David Gerard 07:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

172/VV

Maybe I'm missing something, but why was the request for arbitration between 172 and VV removed? Snowspinner 16:30, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

I've notified Martin, who apparently was the one who removed it, and I expect he will provide an explanation and/or restore it to the list. --Michael Snow 17:02, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Probably just a technical gremlin (section editing, blanking the edit box, hitting "save page twice", something like that, I guess). Anyway, it's restored now. --Camembert

Well, 172, at least, seems to have left Wikipedia... john k 04:20, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, he hasn't. We've been through this before, but I've lost count of how many times he's announced his departure and then come back. --Michael Snow 22:59, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, yeah, he came back immediately after I wrote that. So never mind to that. john k 06:00, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You'd probably have a better idea than I'd have. After all, you seem to be spending more time following me around and going through my user history than writing articles; you seem to be devoting more time to all this fuss and hot air than I am. If you want things to die down, withdraw that noxious "arbitration committee" request, forget about all the nonsense allegations hurled back and forward by angry editors letting off steam, and simply stop blowing things out of proportion. 172 05:58, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration and de-adminship. Proof of blatant double standards

Request here ? was removed. There is ABSOLUTELY NO place in public Wiki space where this can be put without it being immedately removed or redirected by wikipolice to some 'quarantaine quarters. On the contrary, if admin complainants care to carry active editors in ludicrous "arbitrations" without trying to resolve dispute first, such complainants are heard and pampered viz. titillated. So they feel encouraged to "admin" even more in such masturbatory styles. Alas, they are also, by this very action, de facto, and automatically requesting review of their own administrative actions, AND desysoping. As I ALREADY stated, redirecting or CUTTING my request is NOT, repeat NOT a REVIEW of admin actions - but Wikipolice "maintanance" as usual. I therefore LEAVE WIKI having made my final point. - Good bye, and good riddance :O) irismeister 14:27, 2004 Jun 11 (UTC)

Proposed practical measures

1. systematic inclusion of "Wikicreative indices" (WICI) on each editor's personal page;
2. automatic addition of the "Wikipolice tag", when attributed by computed stats to personal signatures;
3. real-time measures of the "Wikicreative index";
4. NEVER delete thispage, even after I'm gone for good. This is essential for newcomers. They absolutely need this warning, so that their would-be, bona fide volunteer contributions would not be exploited.
5. FINAL WARNING In my own half-year assignment I had to deal with aggressive, brutal, ignorant Wikipedia:Wikipolice. There is no doubt in my mind that Wikipedia has become a piratocracy. Basically, you would give time, energy, knowledge away for free, only to be insulted and libelled. That's how piratocracies work: They grab what they can and then they boast and tap each other on their respective shoulders about how democratic they are. They aren't. They are only pathetically brutal pirates, giving themselves a collective treat by pampering their "position" in wolf packing-order. If you want to give it a try at your turn, be ready to lose enormous amounts of time of your life, only because Wikipedia:Wikipolice takes advantage of your life, and try to smear you or your ideals, dragging you into unnecessary babysitting sessions with the incredibly ignorant "peers". Consider yourself warned! - irismeister 12:09, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)

Irismeister violation of injunction

Editing Talk:Alternative medicine after injunction "Temporary injunction: Irismeister cannot edit any page other than his/her user and user talk pages and his/her AC pages": [3] [4] - David Gerard 22:29, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the injunction is only a suggestion, not a ban. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 22:32, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Looks like the suggestion's been taken [5] - David Gerard 22:58, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Looks like you are comparing apples to oranges. You cannot compare a prohibited action of restoring a deleted page to a normal edit of a talk page. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 09:10, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's not a suggestion it's a temporary ruling. Irismeister is banned from editing pages (except his own page and the arbitration pages) until the AC says otherwise. theresa knott 09:48, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Yes, Theresa is correct - it's a temporary ruling, not a suggestion. Martin 23:41, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re:[6]

I am interested in having an arbitration of wikipedia:civility and/or wikiquette violations made by a number of prominent admins. What is most important IMO is that a precedent be formed, and a consequence given, rather than any particular shaming, loss of status, etc... These rules are simply not being enforced, and when on off chance they are given any attention, it is only in opposition to those unpopular w the community. IMO prominent community members aught also to maintain minimum standards of conduct. Things like [this] are not good for anybody. Some of us have academic pretenses, and all of us make claim to being scholars of sorts. Ad hominem attacks, abuse or incivility of any kind really, are simply not acceptable. Sam [Spade] 18:46, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Here’s just a hint of what’s going on among non-admins [7]. I think something needs done about enforcing the violations of the existing wikipedia:No personal attacks / Wikipedia:Civility / wikiquette policies. NPOV in my opinion should be of a lesser focus for your committee, and is likely best solved by polite, well-reasoned intellectual discourse. Foul language and brutish behaviours hurt everyone when our (stated) goal is the compilation and promotion of reliable reference materials. As a volunteer, I simply ask for better; better enforcement of our current (and may I say excellent) policies. Thank you in advance, Sam [Spade] 22:37, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I hardly think it takes a committee to find a problem with Spleeman. Whereas figuring out what NPOV is... that may well take several committees. Snowspinner 22:50, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Sam on this point. Spleeman's behavior is unacceptable. Danny 22:43, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But whats to be done between us danny? What can I do to assure you that I edit in good faith? I think I've offered one soloution, if you choose to accept it... Sam [Spade] 22:59, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Another 142/Entmoots/JRR reincarnation

Could someone more expert in these things please look over User:The Trolls of Navarone's edits and talk page. If he's not a reincarnation, he's doing his best to look like one (a favourite slab of text of 142/Entmoots/JRR) and writes in an almost identical style. Some consider him a reincarnation already [8] but this appears disputed. I'm inclined to say "of course he bloody is", but would like the opinion of someone with more experience of the ex-user in question - David Gerard 13:58, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am an expert on half of this conundrum, and can confirm that I am not the same user as 142/Entmoots/JRR etc. My IP address is on my user page for verification. Your humble servant, The Trolls of Navarone 22:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)