Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 2: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Dreamy Jazz (talk | contribs) add header |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 81:
:'''''[[Special:Permalink/30128719#Zen-master|Original discussion]]'''''
{{atop}}
The ruling against Zen-master seems to be very specific regarding [[Race and intelligence]], but he's currently editing in the same disruptive manner at {{article|Conspiracy theory}}: editing against consensus and when he can't get his own way, slapping the NPOV tag on it, replacing it when he's reverted, and making complex, partial reverts so that it's hard to see whether he's violated 3RR. Given that the same behavior seems to be involved, can the ruling be extended to this article too? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<
* I'm happy for it to be so extended, given a brief look. [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 01:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Line 115:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conspiracy_theory&diff=29361020&oldid=29292694]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conspiracy_theory&diff=29361953&oldid=29361797]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conspiracy_theory&diff=29732310&oldid=29732116] making personal attacks in edit summaries, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conspiracy_theory&diff=29222349&oldid=29221987] and at least one recent 3RR violation. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conspiracy_theory&diff=29221987&oldid=29221797] There's more, but I hope that's enough. You're a handful, Zen, to say the least. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<
:Slim, I admit to 3RR (and served my time), though most recently the cases were me trying to add the {npov} tempalte to the [[Conspiracy theory]] article to merely signify the existence of a neutrality dispute, which I am still surprised my fellow wikipedia editors aren't/weren't willing to allow (even if they disagreed with my content changes). It may seem like I am repetitive on the talk page but I am indeed vigorous, as you say, trying to understand your and everyone's POV and either logically convince you and others of my interpretation or understand yours to the point where I could become convinced of it. I apologize if I have riled you up, you may not believe me but I can only assure you I am interested in improving and working toward a bipartite version of the article. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 04:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
::It's not a question only of POV, but of accuracy. Your versions (the ones I've read) are inaccurate. It's not true, for example, that "Conspiracy theory has a literal definition and a popular culture usage ... Literally, the phrase means exactly what its individual words mean, a theory alleging a conspiracy." That is your fabrication, and it would mean that the accepted story of 9/11 (that al-Qaeda hijackers flew planes into buildings for the reasons stated by Osama bin Laden) was a conspiracy theory. But that term is in fact always used in a way that's a great deal more complex and more loaded than that (always used that way; not just in what you're calling popular culture) and it's recognized by, I think, everyone else editing that article that "conspiracy theory" is a very particular narrative genre. In any event, even if you were 100 per cent correct, you're editing disruptively against consensus, and it's your behavior that's objectionable, not your beliefs. You should also bear in mind that the editors opposing you have very different POVs from each other, and yet they've found common cause in opposing you. That alone ought to tell you something. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<
:::To be honest (and I don't mean to minimize your points in any way), the subtlety of the issue as you present it doesn't communicate 'Zen is disruptive' to me, as a completely outside viewer. It communicates to me that the issues are deep and exactly the kind of thing that well-intentioned editors struggle with. The fact that other editors oppose his perspective doesn't make it disruption. I've seen a lot worse behavior tolerated a whole lot more around here. -- [[User:RyanFreisling]] [[User_talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 04:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
::::Ryan, take a look at the histories of [[Conspiracy theory]], [[AIDS conspiracy theories]], and [[Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory]], and also look at the talk pages. It may take you a few hours unfortunately to get the full flavor of it. I disagree about your view of what counts as disruption. If I'm opposed by ten or more good editors (and that's the point here: they are all good editors) over a period of months on multiple pages regarding almost every edit I make, and if I find myself unsupported and left to post 12 posts to talk every day that say the same thing, then at some point I have to ask myself whether I might be wrong. Zen-master never does that, and that's the problem in a nutshell. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<
:::::If that's what's happening, I agree it's indeed disruptive. I've dealt with that kind of thing from other editors as well - but my personal experience with Zen was that he was a lot more even-handed than that. If not, an RfA should/will lead to a formal expansion of the probation he is under. I'd just hate it if Zen, whom I have seen edit in a constructive and cooperative way, is blacklisted. It would make me question whether there was a grand conspiracy afoot against him.
Line 131:
Slim, I have seen how the phrase "conspiracy theory" has been used on wikipedia talk pages. For example, editor A has said "let's include allegation X" but editor B comes along and says "No, allegation X is a conspiracy theory!" with no regard to whether allegation X is cited or otherwise appropriate for article inclusion. Wikipedia policies should be exclusively used to determine if something is appropriate for inclusion, not alleged association with some genre, right? Wikipedia policies should be exclusively used to neutrally present a subject, and be unaffected by alleged association with a genre, right? The first paragraph's definition we have in [[Conspiracy theory]] now is actually synonymous with the literal definition (says the same thing with more words, a theory that alleges a conspiracy). At this point, the only change I would recommend to the intro is we should specifically note the two definitions/meanings are often confused, do you agree there is confusion? Separately, I've been wondering what do you mean by "narrative genre" exactly? In my interpretation this issue we are trying to find a bipartite way of describing is best thought of as an "allegation" and not as a "story" nor "narratives" nor anything related (at best it is indeterminate what they are and relevant places should make that point clear). If someone believes, even subconsciously, that a particular theory is a story or from the narrative genre or should be categorized within the conspiracy theory genre the article is still required to cite exactly who is counter claiming that about the theory, which is why I believe we need to have a sufficiently clear definition in [[Conspiracy theory]] to make that point/requirement as clear as possible. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 04:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
:Here we go again. "Narrative genre" means "type of story". There is no "literal definition" of "conspiracy theory." That's like saying the literal definition of ''kindergarten'' is a garden for children. But that's not what it means, either in German or in English. Meaning has to do with the ''way words are in fact used in the world'', and "conspiracy theory" is always used in a certain way, which I have explained to you a thousand times, as have others, so I'm not doing it again. But you are missing my point, I assume deliberately. The problem is your ''behavior'', not your beliefs. You are editing disruptively, have been for months, always do, show no sign of stopping, show no indication that you even understand what is meant, show no remorse, feel no concern about the amount of time you waste, give no indication that you do any research into the topics. Your presence at a page invariably signals deterioration, both in terms of quality of content and in terms of relationships with other editors. I'm sorry to be so blunt. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<
::The literal definition is important to note and understand because people may be confused into unconsciously assuming that any theory that alleges a conspiracy is a member of the "conspiracy theory" genre, they have the same name. Recall that editors argued in favor of "conspiracy theory" in wikipedia article titles because, they claimed, some subjects are "literally conspiracy theories" so it seems to me the implied literal definition is the exponentially key source of the confusion here, and we should fix it or at least clearly point it out. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 05:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Line 157:
Another admin has already poitned out to Ryan that (from [[Wikipedia:Probation]]) "A ban may be imposed only for good cause which shall be documented in a section set aside for that purpose in the arbitration case. Banning without good cause or in bad faith shall be grounds for censure, restriction, or removal of administrative access". The only explanation Ryan offered was in a check in summary which labeled my action as a "disruption", I challenge Ryan or anyone to show exactly how adding an {npov} template to an article that is (fundamentally) disputed in good faith is a "disruption"? For recent discussion of this see [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zen-master#Impositions_of_a_ban_under_the_probation_remedy]]. There seems to be a highly coordinated effort to censor, mischaracterize or lessen fundamental criticisms of "race" and "intelligence" "research". [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 18:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
:You have a history of disruptively adding permanent {npov} templates to articles until you get your way. This is part of a pattern. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Jayjg|<
::A quick look at the talk page will show other editors agree with me that the [[race and intelligence]] article is fundamentally disputed. Please assume good faith and investigate this issue. The criteria here is not about me getting my "way", the issue is Ryan Delaney and other admins repeatedly trying to deny the existence of criticisms of what appears to be a racism inducing article, aren't you at all concerned about that possibility? How can adding {npov} be "disruptive" if an in good faith dispute exists? [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 19:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Line 215:
:(1) Don't hold your breathe about Jimbo. He's said in the past he won't overrule us except under exceptional circumstances - and I don't think your case comes close to qualifying. (2) "and the ArbCom will need to take his place in resolving the matter. " - As far as I am concerned, the matter is resolved. I can't speak to the others, but I for one intend to reject all appeals until I see evidence that you won't go right back to your old behavior. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 15:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
::What would constitute such evidence? [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 20:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
:::Recognition that your past actions were problematic would be a good start; if you insist you have done nothing wrong, then it's not likely you'll stop doing it. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Jayjg|<
::::Uh, I did that back when the case was still active, and it got me nowhere. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 21:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::Your behavior since we closed the case has not been encouraging in the least. Rather than actually abiding by the spirit of the ruling and making a good-faith attempt at reform, every one of your actions seems calculated to 'scout out' the limits of the ruling and its application. This tells me quite a bit about your intentions. [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] 05:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Line 256:
:'''''[[Special:Permalink/31869991#Zen-master|Original discussion]]'''''
{{atop}}
The ruling against Zen-master seems to be very specific regarding [[Race and intelligence]], but he's currently editing in the same disruptive manner at {{article|Conspiracy theory}}: editing against consensus and when he can't get his own way, slapping the NPOV tag on it, replacing it when he's reverted, and making complex, partial reverts so that it's hard to see whether he's violated 3RR. Given that the same behavior seems to be involved, can the ruling be extended to this article too? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<
* I'm happy for it to be so extended, given a brief look. [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 01:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Line 290:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conspiracy_theory&diff=29361020&oldid=29292694]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conspiracy_theory&diff=29361953&oldid=29361797]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conspiracy_theory&diff=29732310&oldid=29732116] making personal attacks in edit summaries, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conspiracy_theory&diff=29222349&oldid=29221987] and at least one recent 3RR violation. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conspiracy_theory&diff=29221987&oldid=29221797] There's more, but I hope that's enough. You're a handful, Zen, to say the least. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<
:Slim, I admit to 3RR (and served my time), though most recently the cases were me trying to add the {npov} tempalte to the [[Conspiracy theory]] article to merely signify the existence of a neutrality dispute, which I am still surprised my fellow wikipedia editors aren't/weren't willing to allow (even if they disagreed with my content changes). It may seem like I am repetitive on the talk page but I am indeed vigorous, as you say, trying to understand your and everyone's POV and either logically convince you and others of my interpretation or understand yours to the point where I could become convinced of it. I apologize if I have riled you up, you may not believe me but I can only assure you I am interested in improving and working toward a bipartite version of the article. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 04:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
::It's not a question only of POV, but of accuracy. Your versions (the ones I've read) are inaccurate. It's not true, for example, that "Conspiracy theory has a literal definition and a popular culture usage ... Literally, the phrase means exactly what its individual words mean, a theory alleging a conspiracy." That is your fabrication, and it would mean that the accepted story of 9/11 (that al-Qaeda hijackers flew planes into buildings for the reasons stated by Osama bin Laden) was a conspiracy theory. But that term is in fact always used in a way that's a great deal more complex and more loaded than that (always used that way; not just in what you're calling popular culture) and it's recognized by, I think, everyone else editing that article that "conspiracy theory" is a very particular narrative genre. In any event, even if you were 100 per cent correct, you're editing disruptively against consensus, and it's your behavior that's objectionable, not your beliefs. You should also bear in mind that the editors opposing you have very different POVs from each other, and yet they've found common cause in opposing you. That alone ought to tell you something. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<
:::To be honest (and I don't mean to minimize your points in any way), the subtlety of the issue as you present it doesn't communicate 'Zen is disruptive' to me, as a completely outside viewer. It communicates to me that the issues are deep and exactly the kind of thing that well-intentioned editors struggle with. The fact that other editors oppose his perspective doesn't make it disruption. I've seen a lot worse behavior tolerated a whole lot more around here. -- [[User:RyanFreisling]] [[User_talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 04:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
::::Ryan, take a look at the histories of [[Conspiracy theory]], [[AIDS conspiracy theories]], and [[Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory]], and also look at the talk pages. It may take you a few hours unfortunately to get the full flavor of it. I disagree about your view of what counts as disruption. If I'm opposed by ten or more good editors (and that's the point here: they are all good editors) over a period of months on multiple pages regarding almost every edit I make, and if I find myself unsupported and left to post 12 posts to talk every day that say the same thing, then at some point I have to ask myself whether I might be wrong. Zen-master never does that, and that's the problem in a nutshell. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<
:::::If that's what's happening, I agree it's indeed disruptive. I've dealt with that kind of thing from other editors as well - but my personal experience with Zen was that he was a lot more even-handed than that. If not, an RfA should/will lead to a formal expansion of the probation he is under. I'd just hate it if Zen, whom I have seen edit in a constructive and cooperative way, is blacklisted. It would make me question whether there was a grand conspiracy afoot against him.
Line 306:
Slim, I have seen how the phrase "conspiracy theory" has been used on wikipedia talk pages. For example, editor A has said "let's include allegation X" but editor B comes along and says "No, allegation X is a conspiracy theory!" with no regard to whether allegation X is cited or otherwise appropriate for article inclusion. Wikipedia policies should be exclusively used to determine if something is appropriate for inclusion, not alleged association with some genre, right? Wikipedia policies should be exclusively used to neutrally present a subject, and be unaffected by alleged association with a genre, right? The first paragraph's definition we have in [[Conspiracy theory]] now is actually synonymous with the literal definition (says the same thing with more words, a theory that alleges a conspiracy). At this point, the only change I would recommend to the intro is we should specifically note the two definitions/meanings are often confused, do you agree there is confusion? Separately, I've been wondering what do you mean by "narrative genre" exactly? In my interpretation this issue we are trying to find a bipartite way of describing is best thought of as an "allegation" and not as a "story" nor "narratives" nor anything related (at best it is indeterminate what they are and relevant places should make that point clear). If someone believes, even subconsciously, that a particular theory is a story or from the narrative genre or should be categorized within the conspiracy theory genre the article is still required to cite exactly who is counter claiming that about the theory, which is why I believe we need to have a sufficiently clear definition in [[Conspiracy theory]] to make that point/requirement as clear as possible. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 04:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
:Here we go again. "Narrative genre" means "type of story". There is no "literal definition" of "conspiracy theory." That's like saying the literal definition of ''kindergarten'' is a garden for children. But that's not what it means, either in German or in English. Meaning has to do with the ''way words are in fact used in the world'', and "conspiracy theory" is always used in a certain way, which I have explained to you a thousand times, as have others, so I'm not doing it again. But you are missing my point, I assume deliberately. The problem is your ''behavior'', not your beliefs. You are editing disruptively, have been for months, always do, show no sign of stopping, show no indication that you even understand what is meant, show no remorse, feel no concern about the amount of time you waste, give no indication that you do any research into the topics. Your presence at a page invariably signals deterioration, both in terms of quality of content and in terms of relationships with other editors. I'm sorry to be so blunt. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<
::The literal definition is important to note and understand because people may be confused into unconsciously assuming that any theory that alleges a conspiracy is a member of the "conspiracy theory" genre, they have the same name. Recall that editors argued in favor of "conspiracy theory" in wikipedia article titles because, they claimed, some subjects are "literally conspiracy theories" so it seems to me the implied literal definition is the exponentially key source of the confusion here, and we should fix it or at least clearly point it out. [[User:Zen-master|zen master]] [[User_talk:Zen-master|T]] 05:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Line 339:
* Extend to all articles [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt]] 21:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
* Extend to all articles. [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 00:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
* Recuse. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Jayjg|<
=====Discussion=====
Line 453:
:# [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 18:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
:# [[User:The Epopt|➥the Epopt]] 14:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
:# [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Jayjg|<
:# Concur. [[User:Kelly Martin|Kelly Martin]] ([[User talk:Kelly Martin|talk]]) 17:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
:# [[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 21:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Line 651:
The individual has now returned under the username [[User:Brandonfarb|Brandonfarb]], and admitted to being the same individual. This has been known for quite some time, but as the original decision (i.e., whether the individual is banned under any username, or under only the blocked usernames) is unclear, he has not been blocked. He has now returned to his same established behavior by harassing me in a variety of ways. I would like quick clarification of the ban status; if it is a full ban, the reincarnations may be blocked on sight, if it is not, then a new RfAr needs to be filed. I apologize for having to bother the ArbCom with this, but it seems to be the only way to get a clear ruling on whether or not reincarnations may be blocked. -- [[User:Essjay|Essjay]] · [[User_talk:Essjay| Talk]] 15:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:The Shelburne Kismayo account was used to certify the RfC that was brought by {{user|Wiki brah}} sepreately from RW1977, and if I recall correctly, he confirmed that he was not Wiki brah shortly thereafter. Just clarifying.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<
::Also, he apologized to Red under this account, apparently wanting to redeem himself. Looks like that has not come to fruition, unfortunately.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<
Any new account or sock may be banned indefinitely, see [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rainbowwarrior1977#Indefinite_ban]] [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 00:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Line 695:
:I've told James that. I've told him lots of facts, but I don't see any of it getting through. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 18:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
::It just seems relevent as it's possible that this is an extension of his past behavior. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 18:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
:::I've warned Everyking twice that I intend to help enforce the ruling that he shouldn't comment on any of Snowspinner's actions, even indirectly, and I've already blocked him once for violating it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEveryking&diff=33101882&oldid=33097037] I see this as another violation, because the block that he's trying to persuade Bishonen to overturn is Snowspinner's. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AHollow_Wilerding] I therefore warned him again today, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Everyking&diff=prev&oldid=34267420] which he acknowledged reading, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlimVirgin&diff=34268333&oldid=34221780] but he made another comment about the block anyway, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=prev&oldid=34269050] so I've blocked him for 48 hours. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Everyking&diff=prev&oldid=34270137] [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<
{{abot}}
Line 733:
::: I and the others using [[WP:FN]] come up with those formats (used in 3 of most recent 10 [[WP:FAC]]). And [[WP:CITE]] repeatedly emphasizes that complete citations should exist, yet when I add full citations they sometimes (rarely) get deleted without that deletion being acknowledged as being an improper action. I can easily add citations which are not linked from the appropriate text, but then updating references and citations manually becomes quite difficult (try finding the citation for the 8th note in [[Global cooling]], then imagine the same format for the 44th note in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killian_documents&oldid=32130629 (old:Killian documents)]). Manual edits are likely to orphan old citations and reduce Verifiability. ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 15:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC))
The ruling is quite clear, that you should not change citation styles. While this was obviously referring to your insistence on removing inline citations, if you are in any doubt at all, then you should avoid making any changes. This is not the page to try to argue that your preferred style is the better one. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Jayjg|<
: The phrasing of the ruling is simple, but the ruling not clear. The meanings of "convert", "citation", and "style" are ambiguous. "Citation" can mean the phrasing or WikSyntax description of source material in text, the "complete citation" ([[WP:CITE]] phrasing about what often goes in a "References" section) which provides details about a source, or the conceptual connection between text and "complete citation". "Convert" can mean rearranging, adding, moving, or deleting all or part of entries. So far only 3 Arbs have agreed that in an article using [[WP:FN]] for all other citations that the move of a single URL to a full citation with a [[WP:FN]] link is to "convert" the information (I saw it as addition or maintenance, not conversion). Is adding a full citation without linking to it a "conversion" or addition? "Style" can mean the WikiSyntax used, the exact or similar visual appearance on the page, the general patterns (numbered or bulleted lists, sorted order, journal vs news phrasing, consistent or chaotic lists), specific patterns used (author name format, standard publication names, phrasing (chapter/ch.,pages/p./pp.)). The ambiguities are also apparent in the ongoing consolidation of [[WP:CITET]]: is changing template parameters from uppercase ("Author=") to lowercase ("author=") a violation? Such a change can be a violation on several levels: Discussion of a conversion can cause change, changing a template can cause changes in citations in several ways, and replacing "Author=" with "author=" in article citations is a citation change. Is a (rhetorical) merge of {{tl|news reference}} and {{tl|journal reference}} which requires translation to <nowiki>[[Template:published reference]]</nowiki> a violation? (Actually, all [[WP:CITET]] is being consolidated toward a single template) ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 16:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC))
Line 821:
::::I think that there can be differences of opinion as to how much detail there should be. With as many cases that are as messy as the current backlog is, the statements of principles, findings of fact, and remedies are as much as I would expect. It does appear that in this particular case, the ArbCom accidentally omitted a finding of fact. [[User:Herschelkrustofsky]] had been on POV parole from the Lyndon LaRouche 2 case. The ArbCom probably intended to find as fact that he had violated the terms of the POV parole. I have not reviewed the evidence, but it appears that the action taken by the ArbCom is exactly what they would have done if they had found that he had violated the parole. I would suggest that the ArbCom re-open the case only to add that finding as the basis for the remedy. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] 16:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
:::::Indeed, the Nobs01 and others case is more-or-less an extension of the previous LaRouche cases- as such, I think you can use the findings there as further evidence for this remedy.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<
We tightened up the Herschelkrustofsky remedy a bit, but the other remedies are based on the behavior of the different individuals involved. Nobs01, for example, was banned on the basis of personal attacks, not for the sort of idiosyncratic original research involved in the La Rouche cases. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 21:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
| |||