Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 7 8

Procedure advice

Just trying to clarify the procedure for requestion arbitration.

As the requestor, do I complete the template, or a copy of the template?
Do I complete the template and THEN tell the acused, or ask the acused if they want to take part in arbitration, and then complete the template if they want to cooperate?
I presume that IF arbitration is accepted, then there will be a further opportunity to present evidence on both sides?
Is there a standard template to add to the accused talk page, notifying them of arbitration? A kind of digital summons or subpoena?

--Iantresman 13:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three proposals

1. Sanctions may only be imposed on the actual parties of the case (the plaintiffs and respondant(s) ). This is to avoid the bizzare kafka-esque case of Yuber where a witness was convicted and punished instead of the guilty defendant. This sort of drive by conviction totally discredits any idea that the ArbCom is impartial.

Were there two Yuber cases before the ArbCom? In the one whose record I read, the two parties who were both placed on probation were the party bringing the complaint and the party against whom the complaint was brought. Robert McClenon 17:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2. The respondant, or any party facing sanction may have one preemptory recusal. That is to say that they may request and have granted the recusal of one of the arbitrators for any reason at all. In order so as not a bias the voting, the identity of the recused arbitrator will be kept secret from the ArbCom. When the voting is completed and finalised, but before the final closure of the case, the identity of the recused arbitrator will be revealed, and their votes discounted. This procedure will encourage Arbitrators to be impartial and will protect the respondant from biased and unfair arbitrators.

3. Popular Nullification. And arbcom judgment may be nullified if by an RfC with a clear concensus is established with at least 70 approve votes is passed. This policy will serve as a check upon an imperial and capricious ArbCom.

I would agree that if we had an imperial and capricious ArbCom, we would need a check. There is already a check defined, which is the right of appeal to Jimbo Wales. Robert McClenon 17:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that check is infallible. FuelWagon 17:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is—inasmuch as Jimbo is accepted to have the final word and absolute rule over Wikipedia, his decree is infallible and by its very nature in line with policy. In principle, there is also the option of further appeal to the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that Jimbo would be rather uncomfortable with being called infallible. It's more accurate to say that, since Jimbo administers the servers on which this copy of Wikipedia is hosted, Jimbo gets to decide what he is willing to let his servers be used for, and we adhere to that. Plenty of people argue that Jimbo is not infallible - hence forks. Phil Sandifer 18:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Klonimus 09:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One proposal: Don't do any of these things. Phil Sandifer 23:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Phil/Snowspinner, none of these proposals are good ideas. Let me run through why:

This isn't a criminal trial. There are no plaintiffs and respondants. There are only people giving evidence for the Committee to come to an appropriate response. The ArbCom is not overly legal for the reason that this allows a proper examination of evidence without undue bureaucracy.
To be honest, I cannot see what this is aimed at. All it is doing is driving down the number of people able to vote and putting more stress on the ArbCom.
If the ArbCom makes a shocking decision, either the community will force them to come to their senses or Jimbo will step in. I have not encountered this imperial and capricious ArbCom.

[[Sam Korn]] 23:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is all the response these proposals require. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and the wikipedia dispute resolution system isn't neccessarily fair, either. But we like to gloss that over whenever possible. FuelWagon 17:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, as a recent returnee to the wiki after an ArbComm sanctioned, self-imposed six month ban, still fresh in my mind are the various ArbComm processes I experienced. My thoughts on this are:

By and large, excepting a few points I think could be improved, the process was reasonable and fair.
No ArbComm member gave even the slightest hint of taking joy in dishing out sanctions.
The nature of ArbComm complaints does give the advantage to complaining parties who complain in unison against a particular Wikipedian, as they can coordinate their complaints to wrest article editing access away from disfavored editors.
Doing less reverting and more talk page dialog (not insults, dialog), keeps editors somewhat immune to complaints.
ArbComm complaints are a double-edged sword. What you charge against another, will become a standard you yourself are measured against.
Regarding ArbComm sanctions, while you are learning the ropes at the Wiki; as in motorcycle riding: "You never really know where the limit is, until you go down".
ArbComm actions help set useful limits

Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 02:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Connolley's parole violation

William M. Connelley has violated his parole. [1] The one case I have personal knowlegde of is his reverts in de lomborg case.[2] It was a argument between me and Ozetto, which was also discussed on the talk pages. WMC didn't participate in this discusion, yet he reverted the text whitout explaination in the comment or on the talkpage. In his own words WMC can't be bothered with his parole. If you let WMC get away with this wikipedia will degenerate into a reverting encyclopedia. Where the one who can shout the longest wins.

This just one case but their is a strong suspicion that he has violated his parole numerous times.[3] WMC refuse to defend himself. He leaves it to some supporters of him to challenge the meaning of his parole. I hope you can clairify the issue and the appropiate action is taken. --MichaelSirks 19:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a similar experience with this guy. Just take a look that the Autodynamics article history. He certainly likes to keep up the reverting game (can't say that I was much better in this example, but I'm not the one paroled). The article is full of POV phrases like "this is correct" or "this is incorrect". He didn't even bother keeping my cleaned-up references, which is apparently not under any dispute.--Tbainbri 23:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tbainbri I think your posting here, in an unrelated matter, seems to me vindictive. As is being currently discussed, there is nothing inherently POV in WMC's position in Autodynamics. It is still under discussion.--CSTAR 03:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sirks is trolling. He appears to be proving himself wrong: he is shouting loudly but not winning. I've responded on the talk page, as you can clearly see. Indeed, I assume you already have seen, since it will be on your watchlists. William M. Connolley 22:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

WMC says I am trolling. But the only thing I do is ask where he responded on the talk pages for this specific revert. But he refuse to anwser this question instead he accuse me of trolling.--MichaelSirks 19:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above revert I was refering to is on the 23 october in the lomborg article.[4] When you look at the talk page you will see no entry of WMC. So it simply isn't true what WMC is saying. So here he is clearly in violation.--MichaelSirks 15:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make it obviously clear. The history page of the lomborg article.[5] The revert I am referring to is the one of 23 October with the comment "rv to Orzetto". The history of the talk page.[6] No talk entry of WMC on the 23 of october. So when he says that he responded on the talk page it's obviously not true. Let him show me where he added a talk page entry concerning this revert.--MichaelSirks 18:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there something more productive you could do than complain about a two week old revert? Phil Sandifer 18:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A quick glance at his contribs [7] would appear to suggest that he has nothing else to contribute, sadly. William M. Connolley 20:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I take it this an admission that WMC has broken his parole. Else he would have substantiated where he discussed his revert on the talk pages.--MichaelSirks 21:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a "one-off" where WMC had admitted that he had violated his parole I would have left at that, but it is not.[8] It is also not true that only now (two weeks after the event) I am reporting this.[9] (Please follow the links)What we see is a pattern of behavour. The question is; Does WMC have a parole and is Wikipedia ready to enforce this parole. Or are there some other rules for WMC?--MichaelSirks 19:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a not-so-recent incident

I seem to recall someone got banned for sabotaging his own RfA page with condescending comments about the arbitrators. Which case was this? - it was one of those stubborn ones, I remember, with the, uh, "defendant" declaring to all and sundry that this was a kangaroo court and he wasn't going to be bound by the Committee's decisions... Does anyone else remember this? 206.114.20.121 21:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Njyoder to me, except I don't think he has been banned (yet). Bishonen | talk 21:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of Paul Vogel? —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo-User:EffK-user:Str1977

I request that User:Str1977 be as permanently as possible banned from further papal whitwashing on WP, and that Jimbo be estimated as having relevance to the affair , as I have several communications with him pertaining to such whitewash . I respectfully ask that this matter go straight into serious consideration as my entire history upon Wikipedia has been entirely taken up with an edit war with this one single User:Str1977 , who has falsely claimed himself as mediator upon my Famekeeper Rfc . i have for approximately one year desired and clamoured for help , mediation and arbitration to the point where Jimbo suggested WP was unable to include me and my thoughts . I claim good faith and good source and reason and moral necessity , and ask that sufficient notice be allowed to this case of utter complaint . I believe Jimbo himself to have exhibited a regrettable dismissal of the relevance of this to WP and to civilized society, and therefore come here for serious help in a serious matter which retraces endless step from today- at the Reichskonkordat . I iterate that my FK name tags change purely because I lose cookies when my hard drive dies or I re-ghost . My usernames are entirely above board nevertheless and my user contributions throughout serve any advocates if taken from the beginning of my WP time as User:Flamekeeper . This need for WP protection concerns the history of the papacy and Hitler, so be warned that murder was involved and illegality persists today , both canonically and civilly(see Enabling Act etc.) EffK 03:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR headers

Why not use larger headers to separate cases on the RFAR page? -St|eve 02:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the template. Looks ok. If you want to change all the other go ahead or let things take their course Fred Bauder 02:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ive also reformatted the template and its instructions to be entirely hidden - people may have to clean up visible instructions text (indented to format as codeboxes), but should be ok. -St|eve 06:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Probation Committee

Clarification needed: Did the ArbCom officially sanction or approve this, and if not, is this officially recognized by you (referring to the ArbCom)? The wording is ambigious and makes reference to the ArbCom several times. Many thanks. Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 01:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Can one of you take a look at TDC's statement in the middle of the template. Methinks that it shouldn't be there, but I'd rather not touch it. Thanks! Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 01:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very new thing, and they are a bit confused about what their purpose is. From discussions with them (they wanted to talk to an arbitrator about their project and asked me), they want to tackle two issues: (1) enforcing probation, and (2) being a source of mentors for future arbcom-designed mentorships.
The former job, enforcing probation, is something left up to any admins who want to do it. If they want to organize a project to do it on a more organized (but still unofficial) basis, so be it - it's totally within their prerogative.
As far as mentorships are concerned - mentorships have generally been a great deal of work for arbitrators to arrange. The arbitrator advocating the mentorship has to get the mentee to agree to the mentorship in principle, then has to select and track down potential mentors that are (a) willing to do it, (b) acceptable to the other members of the arbitration committee, and (c) acceptable to the mentee. Having a pool of people willing to be mentors makes this marginally easier, and is an idea I have been advocating for a while now.
So that's basically it in a nutshell. No, they are not official in any way, but they have potential to be useful to the committee (once they sort out their identity crisis). →Raul654 01:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- OK, thanks! Some discussion over at the talk page has also clarified things, but I was confused because the page had said it was an auxiliary of the ArbCom and made other references to the ArbCom, making it ambigious whether it was an official branch of the ArbCom. I think that part's been removed now. Thanks again, Raul! Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 01:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We've changed our name to the WP:MENTCOM. Our goal is now to make ourselves an available pool of mentors. The mentors will not block anyone they're mentoring, but rather the enforcers will if there's any violation. We'll also utilize an IRC bot working as a live user watchlist, showing every contribution. This will only be used on Jarlaxle and MARMOT for now. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Wikipedia need users who must be monitored so closely? Wyss 00:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That question is no more or less reasonable or helpful than asking why Wikipedia needs you. Phil Sandifer 00:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bauder

Why is Fred Bauder allowed to vote on whether an RfA against himself is to be accepted or rejected?

What you need is four votes for, votes against don't matter anyway. Fred Bauder 22:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, it seems wrong to me. Wyss 22:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is his statement in the RfA a resignation from arbcom?

Of course not. Fred Bauder 22:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~If you have no more time for Wikipedia, how can you continue to serve on arbcom? If it's not a resignation, what is it?~~ Wyss 22:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't the numerous specific policy violations listed in the RfA being addressed? Is it tacitly OK for a member of arbcom to violate WP policy?

Ted Wilkes made no valid policy violations which needed to be answered. Fred Bauder 22:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken. Readers are invited to re-read it if necessary, thanks. Wyss 22:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Wilkes' request for an RfA is not an appeal of a prior arbcom decision and therefore any votes to reject it which are based on that reason should be disqualified.

It looks like an appeal to me Fred Bauder 22:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken, it's an RfA about your behaviour. Wyss 22:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, why has Fred Bauder's behavior on my talk page remained unsanctioned?

I don't think I did anything wrong. I asked to to respect the result of the arbitration Fred Bauder 22:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You did not ask me to respect the result of the arbitration. You threatened me with an RfA with no prior warning or contact at all. Why are you misrepresenting your behaviour on my talk page? Wyss 22:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wyss 22:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Ted knows it or not, but Jimmy Wales has been involved in pornography. Just ask Sollog. Maybe he should file an RFAr against Jimbo, as well. My goodness, the whole thing is corrupt from the head down!

Oh, and rumor has it that President Clinton had an extramarital relationship. Maybe we can bring him up on RFAr since the impeachment didn't go well. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 22:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is noted, Jdavidb, that you chose wrongheaded middle school sarcasm as an alternative to answering my questions. ~~I am curious however, how Fred Bauder can continue to effectively serve on arbcom when he himself says he no longer has time for Wikipedia.~~ Wyss 22:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't answering your question at all. I was just looking for a place to comment on this RFAr while my mind was boggling, and somehow I didn't think this warranted a non-arbiter actually commenting on the RFAr. I was sorely tempted to add my comments there. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 00:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is it possible (speaking only for myself here) for the mind to be boggled and bored all at once? :) Wyss 00:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say I was bored? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 00:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that the office of arbitrator is one of the most privileged posts one can hold on Wikipedia. Users holding that office should inspire confidence and trust amongst other users. According to the "evidence" Ted has provided Fred Bauder (talk · contribs) has not exactly treated other people in real life that well. This raises serious questions over whether the basic principles of fairness mean much to this person. It is a totally reasonable inference that if he doesn't treat people appropriately in real life, where real sanctions can be imposed, he may treat people even worse in a virtual environment. I not saying that he certainly will or won't, I'm just speculating that his soundness can be questioned. He has recently been granted access to CheckUser, considering the "evidence"; do you trust him with that power? 62.216.16.184 22:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, what are you smoking? You do realize that Wikipedia is just a website, right? Yes, I trust Fred with access to CheckUser, and a lot more. He could probably crash at my house, and I might even loan him my car. Let alone letting him find out my stupid IP address. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 00:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So don't vote for him in the upcoming elections. Could someone please summarize briefly exactly what actions on Wikipedia the complaint is about? There's so much verbiage, it's hard to figure out what the actually problem is. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 23:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In short, he actively took sides with a vandal on probation for repeatedly (many dozens of times) copy-pasting fabricated and unsupported tabloid stuff into a few celebrity articles and their talk pages. He called the vandal a user in "good standing" after arbcom had placed the user on probation and created a new "mentoring" committee with people he'd picked himself in order to assist the user in continuing to vandalize the article. I feel justified in using the term vandal, by the way, because the one-topic user, who originally posted anonymously before being forced to get a username as a part of a previous mediation which he then delayed in order to avoid being caught by checkuser (he seems to be a WP admin under another username) was indeed placed on probation for his behaviour (and has already violated it). Wyss 23:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, in other words, nothing that's mentioned at all in the summary of the RfAr? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 23:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The pith of it's in there, try reading it again? Wyss 23:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm obiously retarded, could someone with better skills at explaining things to the mentally deficient than Wyss has please tell me where the pith is that Wyss is referring to? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wyss, is there a certain diff you're referring to where Fred says he no longer has time for Wikipedia? I'm asking because he seems to spend quite a few hours working on ArbCom cases and says here (three edits ago) [10] "That said, my personal situation does give me time to do work for Wikipedia, a very worthwhile project." Carbonite | Talk 23:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I misread his statement, thanks for pointing it out. The non-sequitor of someone being disbarred for soliciting a client for work as a prostitute and then saying All in all, I think it worked out well enough I guess, caused my mind to add a word that wasn't there. Wyss 23:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From a purely proceedural point of view, I think a request for arbitration against an arbiter would automatically mean that the arbiter in question should be recused from the request. It doesn't look like the remaining arbiters are going to accept the case anyway, but that's separate from whether Fred Bauder should vote on whether to accept or reject the request for arbitration against himself. Whatever happened to Fred in the real world isn't a violation of any wikipedia policy that I know of. Voting to reject a request for arbitration against himself, however, does seem completely inappropriate as an arbiter. FuelWagon 23:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the RfA carefully, you'll see that it addresses specific WP behaviour problems, although I agree that the character background material comes through so loud and clear that one might come away from the text with only that in mind. Nonetheless, I think the arbcom members who have rejected this RfA so far are violating WP policy in doing so. If they can't take the time to carefully read stuff, how can they be trusted to make decisions? Then again, that's why Wikipedia is so badly broken. Low-traffic science, math and IT articles tend to be quite reliable, but the high traffic content has deep troubles and arbcom seems to either not understand scholarly sourcing methodologies, or doesn't care when it comes to certain types of articles, never mind they don't seem to read talk page archives on the RfAs they're deciding but that's a wonted bad habit across WP. Wyss 23:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And petitioners who can't take the time to read that their statements should be 500 words in length and at least arrive in the ballpark of that shold be rejected out of hand. If there's a complaint, phrase it coherently - don't expect the arbcom to be psychic. Phil Sandifer 00:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure psychic powers are part of the required skill set for reading, but maybe Ted Wilkes can edit it down when he has a chance. Wyss 00:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, but extraordinary patience and a stable-mucker's shovel apparently is. There's a 500-word limit, and it's not ArbCom's job to indulge anyone's logorrhea problem. --Calton | Talk 01:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is very interesting that users Ted Wilkes and Wyss, who frequently worked together in deleting my contributions to Wikipedia articles, are now working together in denigrating a member of the arbitration committee, simply because his opinion was not in line with their personal view. Could it be that User:Ted Wilkes is identical with multiple hardbanned User:DW? See also [11]. Onefortyone 23:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Readers will note that here, the vandal reverts to his old tactic of hollow sockpuppet accusations. He succeeds at this because he knows arbcom members don't bother to read talk archive pages. Also note his easy use of WP jargon, indicating wide experience with WP under another username. Wyss 00:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly called me a "vandal" as Ted Wilkes did. I would interpret this as a personal attack. Onefortyone 00:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained my use of the term above. Readers are again advised that 141 is on probation for his editing behaviour and frequently distracts attention away from his vandalism by claiming to be an innocent victim of personal attacks, reverts and so on. Wyss 00:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is unwise to use a term with an official meaning like "vandal" informally. Phil Sandifer 00:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using it formally. 141 is a vandal who is currently on probation for his editing behavior. Please read the talk page archives for Nick Adams, Elvis Presley and James Dean if you have further questions about this. Moreover, Fred Bauder's description of 141 as a WP user in "good standing" after arbcom put him on probation is one of the reasons Wilkes filed this RfA. Wyss 00:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mention that User:Ted Wilkes, who started several edit wars with me, took me to arbitration, simply because he didn't agree with my edits which were supported by many independent sources? The arbitration committee only says that Onefortyone "may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research." As this is not the case, I have not been banned. It seems as if you and Ted Wilkes are not willing to accept my contributions, which, according to administrator FCYTravis are well sourced. Onefortyone 00:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two to have an edit war, 141, and every editor who has tried to work with you has pronounced your sources to be unacceptable. Arbcom members are likely unaware of this because they don't read talk page archives, in this case partly because you have filled them with novel-length copy pastings of repetitive, unsupported celebrity gossip which, given human nature, is so boring I can understand the reluctance of someone to wade through it. You understand that too, of course, which is why you use it as a tactic. You are a talented and knowledgeable vandal and hence immensely more destructive to WP's credibility. Meanwhile, if arbcom members are unwilling to do thorough research on the stuff they decide, they shouldn't be serving on arbcom, or it should be revamped altogether. Wyss 00:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

None of the findings in the Onefortyone case point towards vandalism - they look to me like POV pushing, but that's not vandalism. Phil Sandifer 00:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly copy-pasting both fabricated and unsound sources into articles and talk pages until they are novel-length with redundant content is vandalism. If arbcom didn't notice this because they didn't bother to read the talk page archives carefully, that points to a much wider set of problems. Wyss 00:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's not vandalism. It's still bad, but it's not vandalism. Phil Sandifer 01:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is bad, it is willfull, it is patient, it is vandalism. Wyss 01:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that constant repetition of a false statement doesn't magically transform it into truth. --Calton | Talk 01:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Ted Wilkes has clarified and re-summarized his RfA regarding evidence of Fred Bauer's misconduct as a member of Wikipedia's arbcom on the project page. Wyss 01:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No, he's added more verbiage to it. If he wants to clarify, he should cut it to 500 words, and clearly note which Wikipedia policies Fred Bauder has allegedly violated. Phil Sandifer 01:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd be quite happy to cut it to 500 words. It probably won't be the the 500 that he'd prefer, but it will be exactly 500, and every word of it will have been written by Ted Wilkes. --Carnildo 01:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's like a Wikipedia remix track! :) Phil Sandifer 01:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - There will be a dance version, right? --Calton | Talk 01:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Readers will note that in true bureaucratic form, these Wikipedians are focusing on (and joking about) form, not content. Wyss 01:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be suffering from a misconception that the two are somehow separable. The form of the request is rambling and overlong. Hence its content is obscured, reading primarily as claims relating to Fred's personal life or dealing with Jimbo, which would be Jimbo's issue, not the arbcom's. Phil Sandifer 01:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, anything to avoid the issue I guess. Wyss 01:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No one's avoiding the issue, merely giving it the respect it deserves. --Calton | Talk 01:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calton | Talk, have you familiarized yourself with the background on this or are you only guessing? Wyss 01:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I have -- I even plowed through Ted Wilkes' eye-glazing symptom-of-logorrhea-problem he posted on the main page, despite its extraordinarily bad signal-to-noise ratio. Do you have reason to doubt I have, or are you merely desperately throwing whatever made-up mud you think will stick? You're reminding me of the old lawyer's joke (NOT the "old-lawyer's joke", Fred), "When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the facts are against you, pound the law. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table."

Careful you don't bruise your hand, there. --Calton | Talk 02:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question, Wyss. Why are you so deeply engaged in this mud-throwing campaign started by Ted Wilkes? Onefortyone 01:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Readers will note that 141 not only uses the tactics of a vandal (see the extensive notes above along with the referenced talk page archives), but those of a troll too. Wyss 02:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]