User talk:UninvitedCompany/Archives/2007 January

ArbCom[edit]

Congratulations. I'm very glad you were chosen for the ArbCom, in what has been perhaps the best election yet. You'll make a great arbitrator. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 11:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and best wishes for taking on this demanding role. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Congratulations, UninvitedCompany! Best of luck with ArbCom! =) Nishkid 64 23:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your successful candidacy to return to the ArbCom. Best wishes. Ombudsman 03:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS[edit]

Congrats! Also, as posted on Kat's talk page, I would like to join the OTRS team. I am fluent in Russian, and have a decent amount of French, if that helps. Thx. - crz crztalk 17:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations[edit]

Or should I say, my sympathies. :) I just saw the announcement on your appointment to the ArbCom. Wear the hat well. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co.ngrats! Guettarda 18:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Derek Smart Arbitration Workshop[edit]

Hello, on the [1] Derek Smart Workshop there is the claim:

"The Derek Smart article has been edited in a disruptive fashion by several single-purpose accounts, including among others Mael-Num (talk · contribs), WarHawk (talk · contribs), WarHawkSP (talk · contribs), Uncle uncle uncle (talk · contribs), and Supreme_Cmdr (talk · contribs)."

I (Uncle uncle uncle (talk · contribs)) I do believe that I have made any edits in a disruptive fashion. My edits have been simple grammatical/spelling, semantic (earnings vs revenue), or date (released September vs released October vs released November), or tag removal after cleanup. These edits were nondisruptive and noncontroversial. I would like to be removed from the list of disruptive editors above. Here are the diffs of all the edits I have made to the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derek_Smart&diff=prev&oldid=81291636 (The fact is direct from the linked article)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derek_Smart&diff=prev&oldid=81701510 (removed underbars from Computer_Gaming_World)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derek_Smart&diff=prev&oldid=92464172 (earnings -> revenue)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derek_Smart&diff=prev&oldid=92949023 (earnings -> revenue)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derek_Smart&diff=prev&oldid=93013452 (Reference states game released in September, makes no mention of "possibilty of fiscal year end")

I have also made 4 edits (one of those being to add the "Uncle uncle uncle 01:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)" signature) to the [2] Derek Smart Talk page, also nondisruptively.[reply]

I believe that because you made the original statement naming me as a disruptive single-purpose editor, you would be the proper one to amend or comment further at the location where the original statement was made. [3]

I do not want a finding made by the Arbitration Board that I am a disruptive editor.

Thank you

Uncle uncle uncle 01:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Congrats[edit]

I know it's somewhat belated, but I would like to extend my congratulations on your successful run for ArbCom. I look forward to your tenure on the Committee. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:-)[edit]

¿Why 1 9 9 1 ^{ESP. has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.}

Happy editing!!!--¿Why 1 9 9 1 ^{ESP. | Sign Here} 02:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Smart[edit]

If you're ready to open the case to voting by the other arbitrators, you need to either update Template:ArbComOpenTasks or let the clerks know. This is one area where we can't just assume and act on our own. Cheers. Thatcher131 12:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

ArbCom Cases[edit]

Uninvited Company, regarding you deletion of my evidence on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2/Evidence page, the burden of proof is on me to show that Ekantik, Andries, M. Alan Kazlev, Robert Priddy and Reinier Van Der Sandt have a POV and COI, whereas they have only to make their case against me only. Also, this ArbCom case is composed of two cases: 1) The POV and COI investigation and 2) The debate about the Robert Priddy article. This was already discussed on the main RFA. I cannot adequately defend my position againt 5 other editors and a second arbcom case in 1,000 words. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you summarize the strongest points of your case in 1,000 words and, if absolutely neccessary, link to backup material elsewhere. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a party to this case? I have not seen your name listed anywhere. The evidence page specifically says:

"Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move."

Also, during the first ArbCom Case, the sections clearly exceeded 1,000 words and no one went around deleting others evidence. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Uninvited Co., Inc. is an Arbitrator. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just saw it. SSS108 ^talk-email 17:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that most of the page numbers used to be there but were removed by an editor (not me) for reasons that I cannot understand and do not agree with. Andries 23:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

User:UninvitedCompany page update?[edit]

Psst. Your user page doesn't say you are an arbitrator! :-) Carcharoth 04:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Banned for one year? For what? I thought I had complete amnesty[edit]

I thought that I had received a complete amnesty for my possibly bad edits in Sathya Sai Baba and related articles in the first arbitration case. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya#Amnesty. Now you support to have me banned for one year. For what? I would be surprized if anybody can find just one single edit that seriously violated Wikipedia policies after the first arbitration case. And I would very surprized if somebody was able to find that I repeatedly seriously violated Wikipedia policies after the first abritration case. Andries 01:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Evidence Statement Length[edit]

Hi. This is just a heads up in case you missed the discussion here. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Microfracture surgery[edit]

Hello, I noticed you replaced this page with a copyvio template. The original version (and most subsequent versions) of the page had text which was definitely lifted verbatim from MedlinePlus, which was pointed out on the talk page. I made significant changes to the article including rewrites of several of the offending sections. I know that merely changing a few words around does not mean it's not a copyright violation, but I believe the phrases "damaged knee cartilage" and "very small holes (“microfractures”) [into] the bone near the defective cartilage" were the only remaining remnants of the copyrighted text - my mistake for not removing them previously. I would be happy to do some more rewriting if necessary; my concern is that I had expanded the article with quite a bit of cited research completely unrelated to the MedlinePlus article and I don't want to lose all of that. I guess my question is whether it's OK to reuse the 97% of the article that isn't a copyvio. Let me know. Thanks! -Big Smooth 17:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a complaint from the A.D.A.M. people that seemed plausible and cited a couple of copied phrases that were still there. They're cross because they've seen a number of their pages end up in Wikipedia in various forms and so I thought I would err on the side of caution. I would encourage you to remove any remnants of copyrighted text - the usual standard is any series of five words in a row - and then the article can be kept with no objections from me. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to you[edit]

How would you like to be referred to in the Signpost arbitration report? Is "UninvitedCompany" OK? David Mestel^(Talk) 21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UninvitedCompany is fine. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost interview[edit]

Hello, and congratulations on being named to the Arbitration Committee. The Wikipedia Signpost is doing a post-election interview with the arbitrators elected this year. Please answer these questions to the best of your ability. We request that responses be submitted any time between now and Monday, 17:00 UTC, to guarantee that your responses will be published. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about getting the opportunity to serve on the ArbCom?
What do you think of the election? Do you think they were conducted properly? What could have been improved, in your opinion?
What would you say to those who supported you? Opposed you?
What do you think of the other Wikipedians who were appointed along with you?
Test
After about two weeks on the job, what are your initial thoughts?
Test
How active a role do you plan to take on ArbCom workshop pages, and in writing ArbCom decisions, a role that has historically been handled mostly by just a few individuals?
What do you think are the strengths of the ArbCom? Weaknesses?
If you could change anything, what would you change? Why?
Do you plan on finishing your term? If you had to make a choice right now, when your term expires, would you run for re-election? Why or why not?
If there's one thing you could say to the Wikipedia community, what would you say, and why? Is there anything else you would like to mention?

the derek smart case[edit]

I know it's not closed yet, but I think there are some sections you should review:

First, Supreme Cmdr has gone onwards to making legal threats, again. The section is titled "Article raises concerns about quality". he states

The examples you give are completely different to your libelous website. Your site would open Wiki to a lawsuit and if your link were allowed, they know that all it would take is one single email from Smart to the Wiki owners and the link would be gone. Only a complete fool or someone who shares your hatred and obsession for this person, would regard your site as anything other than a primarily libelous, fraudulent and POV website. It is far easier to sue Wiki, a corporate entity, than it is to sue an inconsequential individual like you. So it is highly unlikely that the ArbCom would be stupid enough to allow the link to your site in that Wiki. Supreme_Cmdr(talk) 21:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention NUMEROUS personal attacks which should NOT be allowed to be made in the workshop of an arbcom case. Such as: "You would hope that because it would further fuel your sick obsession with Derek Smart.", "why would someone need to move after realizing that not only had he run into an online detractor in real life, but also by a kid known to be racist, a potent liar who talked about owning guns etc? "

There's more, it only took me twenty seconds to cut and paste those. Just look through a past contribs page of Supreme Cmdr.

Fact is, this case is REALLY stressing me out, and Supreme Cmdr's refusal to accept any opinion that differs from his own is really raising my stress level. The personal attacks and pure vitriol in the article are not helping.

I'm REALLY requesting that someone look at this and do something about it, either an additional proposal to the case, or a straight administrative blocking for the personal attacks and legal threats. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-edit- I should add something here, a quote from beaker " Supreme Cmdr has already been blocked 8 times for a total of 41 days, and continued to edit war and attack other editors, so there is little reason to suspect that a 14 day ban would convince him to cool down. I agree that banning a single account would do little to remedy the problem, since there are so many sockpuppets floating around. The remedy must deal with the SPAs, not just Supreme Cmdr. --Beaker342 23:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)"

-edit 2- And now he's making personal attacks directly against me. "Of course it was unopposed. It was sanctioned by the same people who are tainting the Wiki and engaging in 3RR traps. And yes, Addhoc is not the only person who noted that the sanction was dubious. It is the same dubiousness that you and your ilk are trying to use to get me banned because that is the only way you are going to stand unopposed. Thats the nature of Wiki."

-edit 2.5- another legal threat, another personal attack. [4]

I'm getting really sick of this. I've been an upstanding editor for over a year, I've never been blocked nor warned, hell I've just given two media interviews on wikipedia, and this is the way that I'm treated and nothing is done about it? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I take your concerns seriously, and suggest you add diffs of the 3 most compelling recent examples of personal attacks to the evidence page for the case. Don't just add a list of dozens, and don't expect us to look through the contribs and find the worst examples ourselves since that is not our job. Second, my view is that our policy on legal threats is limited to a threat of legal action by one contributor against another, not a vague claim that particular content may pose problems with copyright, libel, etc. Third, keep your cool, I myself have been the target of many personal attacks and have concluded that it is wisest to ignore any personal attack directed against me. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm debating whether I should do so on the evidence page, or whether I should just back off and cease involvement in the case. I'm not sure which is right or which is better. As for keeping my cool, I'm trying. Might I ask your review as to how I have done so far with it? I'd like to think that I've remained civil and such so far, even when being really stressed out. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-edit 3- I noticed my last comment came off a little harsh, I want you to understand I don't mean it to say that you're not doing anything about it, I'm just frustrated is all. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I'm not sensitive about that sort of thing. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i gather that[edit]

Since the content that was posted is publicly noted in the archives it's not hard for me to guess the reason. That doesn't mean indefinitely blocking dynamic IPs with useless messages helps anyone at all, much less us. It's not like that IP is going to be the same person three years from now, and giving other random t-dialin users sarcastic welcoming messages doesn't seem very helpful. --Delirium 03:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's changing it to 1 year. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that's useful. In any case, my apologies; I tend to get annoyed at legalism interfering with the encyclopedia, in however minute ways. --Delirium 03:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's irritating. We've chosen U.S. jurisdiction, which has its benefits, but there are still limits. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with audio[edit]

Hello Uninvited. I was browsing in search of someone who may be willing to assist me in uploading audio files for composer/pianist Bradley Joseph (GA). During the GA process it was suggested that I add this to the article but I do not have the technical capability (don't have my own PC in which to download an appropriate conversion program), and I noticed that you have much experience in this area. He has MP3 sound files on his site, and also there are other sources I can provide but not sure what is legal to use. There is no hurry and if you are too busy I would completely understand but thought it wouldn't hurt to ask anyway. :) Congrats on your adminship btw! You can answer here and I'll watch for a response. Thanks! Cricket02 01:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm embarrassed to say that I had never heard of Joseph despite the fact that he's my age and lives right in my back yard. I should get out more. I played through the first page of the "Letters from Home" transcription on the sheet music section of his site. Nice. I am a sheet music addict and just sent for his book. Anyway, the main problem with sound files is licensing, not format. None of the files on his web site appear to be licensed for reuse of any kind. The technical problems are easy, and if you resolve the licensing matters you can try the product at [5]; though I have not used it (I use mp32ogg which is Linux-only) the free version of it appears to do what you want. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a nice song. :) I thought you might find an interest in the article being a skilled pianist yourself, hope you like the book. I'm a big fan, flying in from 3 states away just to go to the Chaska concert next month, will be my first and very excited. I had written him for permission to use Image:Pic-bradleyjoseph.jpg with an OTRS ticket #. Would getting permission to use sound files be the same process? Cricket02 19:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Like the pic, the sound files have to be GFDL, public domain, or CC-BY-SA, or one of the other approved licenses. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I'll work on that first then. Thanks so much for your help. Cricket02 19:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence question[edit]

Hello, I had a question about the current Naming Conventions case. I was in the process of supplying evidence a couple weeks ago, when my wiki-time was interrupted by the holidays (and the fact that I got stuck in the New Mexico snowstorm for a few days). Upon my return to Wikipedia, I see that the voting phase on the case has already started, before I was able to finish supplying evidence, and before some of the other involved editors had returned from their own holiday break. :/ May I continue with supplying the rest of my evidence? Or would it be too late at this point? I'd posted alerts about my upcoming absence and return on the ArbCom talk pages, such as at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Evidence#Christmas and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Proposed decision#Additional evidence, but I'm not sure if anyone saw them. Thanks for your time, El on ka 19:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review them, especially if you leave a note here after you've completed them. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks. :) --El on ka 20:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please accept my apologies for the multiple delays. It's a been a really tough winter so far! Since the power's back on though, I have finally been able to finish presenting my own evidence, as well as a few extra proposed principles and findings of fact on the Workshop page. If you have time, I would appreciate if you could review them. If not though, I understand. To be honest, I feel better just knowing that I was able to complete my section, since its half-finished status was on my mind during the last couple weeks.

For what it's worth, I have no intention of challenging the final ArbCom decision, whichever way it goes. I see ArbCom as a useful part of the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution process. And just as with an AfD or DRV discussion, I may not always agree with the decision of the closing admin, but I will respect it. :)

Despite some of the other comments that have been made about my behavior throughout this process, it is my hope that ultimately it will be clear that I am a longtime hardworking Wikipedian (I think I'm currently on the list as one of the 200 most active editors), that I believe strongly in the project, and that in general I'm not groundzero for various disputes. In this one particular case though, I felt strongly that I had an obligation to speak up. But I will be glad when the matter is finally resolved, as I am very much looking forward to getting back to writing articles! :) El on ka 03:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that a significant part of Elonka's evidence is either misleading or downright false, as noted here. >Radiant< 14:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find this a terribly convincing reason for removing a prod[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MSN-03_Jagd_Doga&diff=next&oldid=100255485 . A mass AFD for everything in that template would cause an impossible stink and I'd probably get blocked for disruption. Do you really think that article should stay? Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and apparently these "specifications" are in fact WP:BOLLOCKS, as they get altered by fans to make my weapon more powerful than yours. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it should stay, I just don't think that it should be PROD'ed. I was trying to clear the PROD backlog and wasn't comfortable deleting it piecemeal without some sort of closure on what to do with all the other crap in the template. I realize that an AFD on the whole mess would not necessarily pass without comment, although I don't think that either AFD or our blocking policy has deteriorated to the point where you'd get blocked for disruption for bringing it up. If you list it on AFD, drop me a note, and I'll weigh in with my support. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up from the other day[edit]

Hello Univited, if possible I'd like to pick up our discussion from the other day at WP:AN before the temperature got rather ratchetted up (at which point I withdrew). Firstly, I'm genuinely interested in a peaceful wiki and I'm not calling for anyones head on a spike but as I see it we have a problem. IRC admin has been misused. The nature and interpretation of that misuse is a matter of debate, but from comments made by Paul August "it doesn't just concern incivility". I have no new evidence to offer you, I know the logs I have seen have been forwarded to Arbcom and so you will have seen them. I do not intend to be complicit in outing a whistleblower by forwarding unredacted timestamped logs, but suffice it to say, one involve individuals, one of whom is an arbcom member apparently advocating purging idiots - there are others - noted on Bishonens page. I've read the explanation - put down to a 'quirky' 'obtuse' sense of humour. From the tone, I think this is a pretty weak defense.

As I said, I'm not here to settle scores and my motivation is to work to find a more acceptable solution. For me, the problem with the proposed solution is that, given that Arbcom may be implicated by association with some wrongdoings on the channel, there are then two issues to deal with.

. Issues of how or whether the channel can or should be policed.
. The public perception of wikipedias governance.

A debate is raging regarding whether or not the channel is needed at all, for my part, never having been there, I can't really comment on that. I can obviously comment on the apparent results and they don't look good. We are asked to trust arbcom that everything will be ok, but you obviously can't be there all the time, and when the issue is out of the limelight in a year and individuals are discussing Giano's latest block can I be assured of your unending vigilance? I welcome Mackensons commitment to a 'no giano talk' rule and Arbcom's proposal for more supervision, but Giano isn't really the point, frankly I'm worried about me. If it can happen to Giano I really believe it can happen to anyone. The message seems to be "ruffle a few of the wrong admin feathers and a whole load of doodoo will be unleashed upon you for your temerity to question us". It rather felt like that at AN the other day. What's needed are transparent checks and safeguards that the average editor can have confidence in. So I return to my initial proposal. Publish the logs in a time delayed manner. The advantages are clear and I'd welcome a genuine, good natured debate about the idea. On the plus side - the smokey room, closed door decision making process is removed. Admins will know they are accountable for their actions on the channel. It will require some maturity from the populus at large too, to not beat admins in the process of forming opinions with the result of their freethinking - frank debate is to be encouraged - but there's no intrinsic reason this shouldn't be public - we can all read the votes at RFAR and glean an Arbcommers thoughts - why shouldn't similar transparency operate on #en-admin-wikipedia? It's advocates like it's immediacy - that will remain undiminished.

To date the arguments I've heard against have been:-

. Freenode don't allow public logging - It seems this might not be the case.
. There are legal implications - what exactly? The place is leaky as hell, surely no one in there right mind would commit legally sensitive material to it. In any event, if it's anything like any IRC chat room I've been in, people can request private one to one chats - I'm not advocating logging them, as long as they are just one to ones. Checkuser and Arbcom have their own channels for their deliberations, what is the concern?
. No you can't/I'm not convinced we need it etc. etc. I think the debate was losing some of its robustness at this point :-)

I'd welcome your thoughts on the matter. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. I think I understand and agree with most of what you say. Bear in mind that the committee is not of one mind on this matter; I'm not speaking for them as a group.

Freenode does not disallow public logging. They discourage it based on experience but leave it to the discretion of each channel. I don't believe that there is a legal argument. I think the main problem with a truly public log, even if delayed, is that it would detract considerably from the utility of the channel.

I see the channel as having some fairly serious problems that are as yet only partially addressed. Nonetheless, one of the things that gets lost as the temperature of the discussion increases is that useful work does get done in the channel that is difficult to accomplish any other way. One of the most important uses of the channel is to provide a place to recruit people to work on really bad articles reported to OTRS that are about major enough figures that we don't want to just delete them. Recruiting people, pronto, to do some cleanup prevents many a stubbing and and a fair number of WP:OFFICE tags. I am generally of the opinion that more communication is good, and that the more venues and techniques available for communications, the better. I don't buy the argument that IRC is inherently toxic.

I believe that the fundamental problem with the channel is that a culture has developed where trash talk is encouraged. I am dismayed that some of the leadership of the channel has engaged in this themselves. While the participants in the channel (and the channel leadership) have largely cleaned up their act in the wake of the recent discussion, I'm still concerned. Without--minimally--some sort of acknowledgment of the damage done by those responsible for it, and a promise to follow a basic code of conduct in the future, it's hard for me to believe that we can satisfy the broader non-IRC Wikipedia community that anything has really changed.

We need more bridges between IRC and the Wiki. In part this could take the form of explanations of channel norms and policies on the Wiki. It would help to have some clearer acknowledgment that the channel ultimately belongs to the Wikipedia community rather than the senior chanops. I believe that Freenode could be convinced to honor the results of an on-Wiki election for a group contact, for example. The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't want to own the channel, which makes sense. Neither the FSF nor SourceForge own the channels for discussion of the various free software projects that they facilitate. Instead, they belong to the communities that have grown up around the projects, so the precedent is there.

One of the few things that I think everyone agrees on is that it will help matters to have more people who are concerned about fairness and appropriate conduct spending time in the channel. I'm trying to duck in more often, although I'm not in a position to spend hours on end there. I am unconvinced that this will provide a sustainable, lasting solution, but it's better than nothing and so far a consensus on anything beyond that has been elusive.

An alternative I've suggested is to have a some sort of a nonpublic log. Even something kept for a limited time and available to a limited group of people (e.g. admins), it would provide a degree of accountability that might help prevent the problems we've seen in the past. This suggestion hasn't been well received because of concerns that entire logs that include genuinely sensitive material (about problem articles, not mere embarrassing examples of insensitivity) may end up being leaked. I see the potential problem but disagree that it is unmanageable. Nonetheless there doesn't seem to be enough interest in this to build a consensus.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Motion to Close (Naming Conventions ArbCom Case)[edit]

I noticed the motion to close for this ArbCom case. I hope i'm not too late in asking the ArbCom members actively voting in this case to take a look at this request and consider it before closing the case? Thank you. --`/aksha 10:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to bother you with this, but I do not believe that the ArbCom was only "asked to address the matter of the page moves". Rather, the original request contains a lot of conduct issues, and indeed the first arbiter to accept (Morven) said "Accept to consider user conduct during this dispute". If the issue was really only page moves, this matter wouldn't have spread like a forestfire to several wikiprojects, ANI, two different mediation requests and various RMs. >Radiant< 15:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No bother at all. Perhaps I was unclear. I don't believe that the case made in the initial RFAR, regarding Elonka's behavior, is actionable. I think that we have to be very clear on the difference between a personal attack and a legitimate (though not necessarily wise) expression of opinion. Elonka's statement, "your behavior is in clear violation of the policy against Wikipedia:Harassment. You have been following me around Wikipedia, nitpicking my edits, and acting in an uncivil manner. Stop it" [6], for example, is not a personal attack. It is wrong (Wikipedia:Harassment is a guideline, not a policy), it is hyperbole (the guideline regarding harassment being squishy enough that a "clear violation" would be nearly impossible), and it is critical of another user. And while we don't encourage people to post critical hyperbole regarding other users, neither do we have a policy against it. If we had such a policy and applied it liberally, we'd end up banning everyone in the project before they made their 1000th edit. In like fashion, there is no policy against good-faith requests, in the proper forum, to deal with sock puppetry [7], even if these requests are weakly supported or even speculative. Now, since you feel strongly about this, if there's a stronger case to be made, particularly based on problems that have occurred since this request was filed, I would encourage you to go ahead and make your case in a new RFAR. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but we're not calling for a block or ban or probation or anything. It would simply help if there was a finding such as "one or two people disagreeing with a guideline does not make it disputed", or "mediation or arbitration does not automatically suspend a guideline", or "the page moves related to this case were not disruptive", or "filibustering is bad", or "accusing people of sockpuppetry without evidence is bad", or "there is no evidence of people stalking anyone in this case".
The point is that people want the false accusations to stop, and there is nothing in the present proposed decision that even remotely addresses that problem. Incidentally, Fred made a very apt finding "It is disruptive to make a big fuss about a small thing." on the workshop page, that for reasons unknown to me didn't make it to the proposed decision. >Radiant< 16:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, Radiant!, but whether or not the evidence is true or not, or proves what Elonka claims it does, is for the Arbitration Committee to decide. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is exactly my point. I have asked them to resolve the dispute by clearing up whether it's true or not. >Radiant< 10:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the finding went as thus, though it may have seen wording changes since I last looked at it:

“

Straining at gnats

It is disruptive to make a big fuss over a small thing.

”

Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyslee-Ilena[edit]

See my bold edit to WP:RFAR. Thatcher131 01:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've retracted the comments about Durova. You have a point in that this case is complex enough, and while Durova's actions, in my opinion, were not exemplary, they are not worth the additional complexity it gives to the case. I hope that in light of this you may reconsider your rejection of the case. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah...?[edit]

It's been limited to Fyslee and Ilena only as per your wishes - see the revised statements. Wiz and Durova have amicably decided not to take each other to arbitration over their min-fracas, making the objection you made sustained. Would you be willing to remove your Decline, and also the new "split" case, as in essence the main vote is for the Split Vote 1. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 08:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A nomenclature issue of no general public importance[edit]

Hi. I've thought for awhile that in deciding not to hear a case, it would be more civil for the arbitrators to use the word "decline" rather than "reject." After all, while some case filings are inane, others have substantial merit but are not heard because the arbitrators think another means of dispute resolution should be tried first, or the problem could be resolved through another means, etc. As you know, "declined" is the general usage at RfCU although Mackensen introduced "rejected" for patently frivolous or bad-faith requests. In any event, I never thought the difference between "reject" and "decline" would be noticed by anyone else or worth pursuing, but I noted today that you used the latter word in voting not to hear a case. I don't know whether you inadvertently lapsed into checkuser-speak rather than arb-speak or whether you were pioneering a change in terminology, but if the issue were to be raised anywhere, I would support the change. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was inadvertent, but in retrospect and in light of your comments, I conclude that it was serendipitous. The term "reject" was chosen before our first case and wasn't thought through from a civility standpoint. Old habits die hard. FWIW, I believe that I was the one who introduced the use of "declined" on RFCU [8]. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]